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

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed the Members to the meeting. She informed the Subcommittee that Mr P Hahndiek, Committee Secretariat, had lost his father yesterday morning, which is why he was not in attendance. She said that the Members would know that his father, Mr K Hahndiek, former Secretary to the National Assembly, had worked in Parliament for quite some time. The Members would receive an update on the memorial and funeral service.

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF) recalled that Mr K Hahndiek was the lead writer during the process of the major review of the National Assembly Rules. He said that it would be prudent for the Chairperson to communicate condolences on behalf of the Members, considering that his last work was specifically in this Subcommittee and some of the Members had worked with him. He requested the Chairperson to ensure that the details of the memorial and funeral service be shared with the Members.

The Chairperson said that she would ensure that a message of condolences is sent to Mr P Hahndiek and his family. The information of the memorial and funeral service will be shared. She agreed with Dr Ndlozi that Mr K Hahndiek had played an instrumental role in the authoring of the review of the National Assembly Rules.

She requested the Members to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of Mr K Hahndiek.

Agenda

The Chairperson referred the Members to the agenda. She said that the relevant documents were circulated last Friday. She noted that the EFF, DA, and ANC had made submissions. She asked if there were any apologies.

Mr S Ngubane (MK) submitted an apology from Ms D Zuma-Sambudla (MK), who was not present; she had experienced a delay.

The Chairperson reminded the Members that the Subcommittee did not require a quorum and did not make decisions. Whenever a new matter is referred to the subcommittee, the Members will be given an opportunity to consult with their political parties.

She believed that the Subcommittee would finalise the matters before it in today’s meeting. She said that whether Members agree or disagree on a matter would be immaterial because the Subcommittee does not make decisions. All views will be reflected in the Subcommittee’s report.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) informed the Chairperson that the documents were not sent to him. He was unsure whether the staff had used his correct email address.

The Chairperson apologised to Mr Sithole. She said that it was probably because another IFP Member had been represented at the start of the Subcommittee meetings. She told Mr Sithole that the NA Table will correct this and ensure that he is included in the mailing list.

Mr W Aucamp (DA) noticed that Mr W Horn’s (DA) name was still listed on the attendance register. He said that since Mr Horn had been elected to serve as one of the House Chairpersons, he would no longer be a Member of the Subcommittee. Mr Aucamp said that it was only himself and Ms T Bodlani (DA) that would represent the DA in the Subcommittee.

He referred to the agenda, specifically on the matter concerning terms and definitions. He asked if this included consideration of the definition of “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party”.

The Chairperson told Mr Aucamp that the matter concerning terms and definitions covers everything. She would give each Member five minutes to present their party’s submission for each item on the agenda.

Consideration of speaking and seating arrangements

Dr Ndlozi presented the EFF’s submission. He said that the matter of the seating arrangements is just a convention; it is not explicitly stated in the rules. The EFF proposed a new rule that must read as follows:

(a) Upon election of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the President, at its second sitting the Assembly must designate the sitting in the house to reflect a clear demarcation between the ruling and opposition benches.

(b) A party or parties with representatives in the National Executive must occupy the right-hand side of the house from the direction of the Speaker. A party or parties belonging to the opposition must occupy the left-hand side of the house from the direction of the Speaker.

(c) In an event that the sitting of the Assembly takes place outside the designated parliament precinct, to the extent possible, sitting arrangements must be in consideration of sub-rule (a) and (b) above.

Dr Ndlozi said that Members would have observed that he avoided the explicit use of the term “government”. In the Constitution, the broad idea of the National Executive includes Cabinet, Ministers and Deputy Ministers. He believed that this was a strict adherence to the constitutional phrasing of what is understood as government.

He noted that the first few pages of the EFF’s document discusses the definition of “opposition”. He said that opposition is part of the constitutional prerogative, as the Constitution elevates the idea of the opposition. The Constitution does not envisage a situation where there would not be multiple parties, and it does not envisage a situation where there would not be opposition.

He said that it would not matter where the proposed rule would be placed in the National Assembly Rules as long as it is read in the proposed way. The proposed rule is broad enough and would avoid confusion. Considering that one would not know which party is in opposition or not in the first sitting of Parliament, the parties could either sit according to proportionality or in no particular order during the first sitting of Parliament. The rule can only be applied after the first sitting of Parliament – once there is clarity on who is in the National Executive.

Dr Ndlozi said that the original document that the EFF had submitted did not address its stance on the speaking arrangement. However, it was noted in the previous meeting that the EFF supported option (b), where the President would be followed by the Leader of the Opposition and then the other parties on a proportional basis. He suggested that option (b) should be formulated as a convention instead of an explicit rule. He recalled that there was a debate on the conditions under which option (b) would apply, as it would not be necessary for motions and notices of motions. The EFF proposed that option (b) should be applied universally to any debate in the House, not only for special debates.

Mr Aucamp presented the DA’s submission. He said that it seemed as though there was a general consensus on the seating arrangements. All of the governing parties must sit on the right-hand side of the Speaker. The DA proposed that this be done in descending order, from the largest party in government to the smallest. All parties belonging to the opposition must sit on the left-hand side of the Speaker. This must also be done in descending order, from the largest opposition party to the smallest.

Mr Aucamp said that the DA’s submission on speaking arrangements acknowledged the two options presented by the Committee Secretariat in the previous meeting. Option (a) was for the prevailing practice of proportionality to continue to be applied. Option (b) was that the President (or Minister) be followed by the Leader of the Opposition (or member from the largest opposition party) and then the other parties on a proportional basis. The DA will accept option (b). He said that this comes with a caveat, as the DA cannot just accept everything on the table without also having its proposals considered, especially on the aspect of “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party”.

Mr Masibulele Xaso, Speaker to the National Assembly, sought clarity on whether Mr Aucamp had supported both options on the speaking arrangement.

Mr Aucamp said that the DA would be fine with either option on the speaking arrangement.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) presented the ANC’s submission. He said that the ANC’s position is that the speaking order should be based on proportionality (which is the prevailing practice). The ANC agreed with the DA on the seating arrangements. However, it is inevitable that there will not be enough seats on the right-hand side of the Speaker for all parties in government. Once all seats are occupied on the right-hand side of the Speaker, then the remaining parties in government could be seated on the other side, behind the opposition parties.

The Chairperson asked whether there was any political party with a different view to what had been presented.

Mr Ngubane said that the MK party concurred with the EFF.

Mr M Gana (Rise Mzansi) said that it seemed that all parties agreed on the seating arrangements. He did not have a problem with either option for the speaking arrangements, but he believed that it was important to consider that there is usually not an immediate response/debate after the President has spoken. The debate is usually scheduled as a separate sitting. He sought clarity on whether the proposal for option (a) would imply that a Member of the Executive would be the first person to open the debate, followed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Sithole said that the IFP agreed with the proposed seating arrangement and that the speaking arrangements should be based on the prevailing practice of proportionality. He asked how the arrangements would be for the Opening of Parliament Address, which is scheduled for Thursday, 18 July.

He noted that the DA was the second-largest party. He questioned what would happen if the DA decided to withdraw from the Government of National Unity (GNU) and whether this would mean that the arrangements would have to be reviewed again.

Mr Mahlaule believed that it was important for him to amplify what he had submitted. He explained that there are three arms of government (i.e., the Executive, the legislature, and the judiciary). There is a reason why the President ceases to be a Member of the legislature. The President speaks as an Executive, not as a Member of Parliament. The various parties represented in Parliament are expected to react to what the Executive has said. In terms of proportionality, the ANC is still the largest party and should be given the first opportunity to react to what the Executive has presented.

Mr W Wessels (FF+) said that the differing opinions on the speaking arrangements are because of the problems with the definitions. He was almost convinced by Dr Ndlozi’s point, but he is now more convinced by Mr Mahlaule’s point about the Executive. The government that has been formed goes in both the Executive and the legislative arm. In the current situation, an agreement of intent has been formed for the GNU. The parties in the legislature vote together to elect the President. This means that all parties that are party to the coalition agreement are in government, but they do not necessarily form part of the Executive. He said that the Members should think of this in the long term because there will be a problem if this is defined in terms of the National Executive. A potential solution is to use the term “government” throughout. For instance, after the Executive presents the State of the Nation Address, then it should be the largest party in government that has the first bite in the debate, followed by the Leader of the (official) Opposition, followed by the rest of the parties according to proportionality. The speaking arrangement should give effect to a multi-party government and the role of the official opposition. He stressed that as a parliamentary convention for debates, it would make sense that the official opposition be given a second opportunity to speak. He agreed with the ANC, to a certain extent, that the first response should be by a Member of the largest party in government, but this should be followed by the Leader of the (official) Opposition and then the rest of the parties according to proportionality.

Dr Ndlozi said that the rules should not simply be made for the present circumstances. The Members should elevate their strategic thinking in coining the rules to the level of universals. The Members should think of all possibilities and ask, “How would a rule apply?” There are circumstances under which the largest party or the second largest party will not be in government or will not be in the National Executive. Due to the present circumstances, Parliament is forced to elevate its conventions into universals.

He noted that the Members should also be mindful of the implications of Section 57(2)(b) of the Constitution, in that one of the office bearers that is explicitly mentioned is the Leader of the Opposition. He posed the question, “Why does the South African Constitution do that?”. He said that the spirit of the South African Constitution already envisages a multi-party system of democracy in Chapter 1. Part of the expression of a multi-party system of democracy is the concept of the Leader of the Opposition. Opposition politics, whether philosophically or by conventions of the world, is to oppose the National Executive. This must find expression in an envisaged House sitting and its speaking order. Section 57(2)(b) asserts that there must be a designation of Leader of the Opposition. In this way, the Constitution elevates the person who is going to introduce a counterargument so that there is a debate. It would not be a debate if there were no opposing sides. In this case, the largest political party that is not in the government would appoint a Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition should speak after the President.

He referred to Mr Gana’s comment about the debate being a separate sitting after the President’s address. He clarified that the entire State of the Nation Address (SONA) is actually a single sitting, although it includes a presentation by the President, a debate, and a reply. This order is the same as any other debate. It is considered as a single session. In the case of mini-plenaries, the Minister would speak first, followed by the chairperson of the committee (who may not necessarily be from a party that is represented in the GNU), and thereafter a Member of the opposition should speak. Dr Ndlozi said that the rule should be formulated in this way as it is broad, and the NA Table staff will be able to arrange the speaking order on the basis of a principle.

Mr Mahlaule noted Dr Ndlozi’s comment about imagining all the possibilities in a multi-party democracy. He said that Members should consider the possibility that a President might not be from the largest party. In that case, the largest party in Parliament must be given the first opportunity to react to the President’s presentation, whether they agree with the President or not. He believed that the principle of proportionality would assist in all possible instances.

Mr Gana suggested that the Speaker of the National Assembly could clarify whether the President’s SONA address and the SONA debate are considered to be a single sitting. He believed that the President’s SONA address was a separate event from the SONA debate. He questioned what the impact of codifying option (b) as a rule would be for speaking arrangements, considering that it might not be applicable if the political arrangements were to change in future. He suggested that there may not be a need to codify this as a rule and rather adopt it as a convention.

Mr Ngubane said that the MK party concurred with the EFF that the Leader of the Opposition should speak after the President. He said that the spirit behind this is to empower the public after they have listened to the President’s speech. The public would want to hear a different view after the President speaks; they do not want to hear the “choir that is in GNU”. He explained that he did not mean to say this in a derogatory way, but when people are part of the same grouping then they tend to agree with one another. After the President speaks, it would be best that this is followed by a differing view. In this way, the public can hear both sides.

The Chairperson noted that there was agreement on the seating arrangement. On the speaking arrangement, two parties supported option (b), which states that the President be followed by the Leader of the Opposition and then the other parties on a proportional basis. The other parties supported option (a), which states that the prevailing practice of proportionality should continue. She reminded the Members that both views will be reflected in the Subcommittee’s report, and this will be referred to the Rules Committee, which will make a decision on these matters.

Mr Wessels reminded the Chairperson that he had proposed something slightly different for the speaking arrangements. He asked that this also be captured in the report.

The Chairperson asked Mr Wessels to summarise his proposal so that it can be included.

Mr Wessels said that he proposed that the first response should be by the largest party in government, followed by the Leader of the Opposition, and then the rest of the parties according to proportionality. 

Dr Ndlozi said that he would raise a point that could reconcile both positions. He agreed that the seating arrangements should not be based on a rule but rather a convention. He would agree to a convention for special debates, where the largest party in the Executive would speak first, followed by the Leader of the Opposition. However, there would have to be a different approach to mini-debates, such as the mini-plenaries. In the case of mini-plenaries, he proposed that the Minister should speak first, followed by the chairperson of the committee, and thereafter a Member of the official opposition should speak.

Mr Xaso sought clarity on Dr Ndlozi’s proposal. He said that, for example, if the SONA were today, then the President would give his address, and the next day would be for the debate. He asked Dr Ndlozi whether he agreed that on the day of the debate, the largest party would speak first, followed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Dr Ndlozi agreed. He said that once the Leader of the National Executive speaks, the largest party represented in the National Executive could speak, followed by the Leader of the Opposition. However, he asked that his proposal for mini-plenaries be emphasised—where it would be the Minister, followed by the chairperson of the committee who would present the committee report, and then a Member of the official opposition.

Mr Mahlaule said that he had difficulty with Dr Ndlozi’s last point. For mini-plenaries, the chairperson of the committee might not be from the ANC. He believed that the largest party (i.e., the ANC) should speak after the chairperson of the committee.

The Chairperson noted that there were different views on the speaking arrangements for mini-plenaries. All views will be reflected in the report and referred to the Rules Committee. She said that the Members would still have “another bite” to discuss this in the Rules Committee.

Mr Gana believed that the Subcommittee were very close to eliminating two options and might not have to submit all three options to the Rules Committee. He noted that there was agreement on the speaking order for special debates but disagreement on the speaking order for mini-plenaries. He suggested that the report should reflect the agreement on the special debates. He noted that the mini-plenaries were concluding on Wednesday, so there might not be an opportunity to come to an agreement on the speaking order before then. He suggested that the Subcommittee could continue thinking about the speaking order for mini-plenaries in preparation for the next set of mini-plenaries.

Mr Sithole said that he was a bit confused, as the chairpersons of the committees are not all from the largest party. For instance, if a chairperson is a Member of the DA, then that chairperson would introduce the report. He questioned whether the proposals meant that the next speaker would be the leader of the largest party.

Mr Wessels said that there are different types of plenaries, not only mini-plenaries. There are also second reading debates. Following the convention, the Minister (i.e., a Member of the National Executive) has the first opportunity to speak, followed by the chairperson of the committee that would table and present the report. He would support the idea that the next opportunity should be given to the leader of the opposition and then to the other parties on a proportional basis. So, the ANC would speak after the Leader of the Opposition and then the DA etc.

Dr M Hlophe (MK) said that he has been listening very carefully. He was persuaded by what Dr Ndlozi and Mr Wessels have said in respect of special debates like the SONA. He agreed that different considerations must apply in mini-plenaries or budget votes. He said that he had recently attended a budget vote on the Office of the Chief Justice. After the Minister spoke, the DA had an opportunity to speak, but the DA had merely endorsed what the Minister had said. He believed that the public would be interested in hearing a different view immediately after the Minister had spoken. He supported Dr Ndlozi’s proposal that mini-plenaries and budget votes must be treated differently.

Mr Mahlaule said that he was quite happy with the Subcommittee’s resolution on special debates like the SONA. He did not agree with the different approach for mini-plenaries. He explained that in mini-plenaries, the Minister has the first opportunity to speak, followed by the Chairperson, who presents the committee's report. He stressed that the chairperson represents all committee members. He suggested that the ANC should be given the first opportunity to speak after the chairperson, followed by the official opposition.

The Chairperson noted that all Members agreed on the speaking arrangements for special debates, but there was disagreement on the speaking arrangements for mini-plenaries and other debates.

[tea break]

Consideration of terms and definitions, and composition of the Rules Committee

Dr Ndlozi presented the EFF’s submission, which stated that the position of “Chief Whip of the Majority” is the sole creation of the National Assembly Rules in keeping with Section 57 of the Constitution. The rules define “Chief Whip” as the “Chief Whip of the Majority Party”. Underpinning this is the assumption of “majority”. There is no majority party in the 7^th Parliament. Instead, there are “majority parties” or a ruling block of parties, none of which is a “majority party”. The rules, taking into consideration the role of the chief whip, cannot simply accept that such a role should be designated as representing a majority if the majority did not elect or choose it.

The EFF proposed an amendment to the definition of “Chief Whip”. It proposed that a section defining Chief Whip must be added under National Assembly Rule 33(5) and must read as follows:

(a) Chief Whip means Chief Whip of the Majority Party.

(b) In case no party attains an absolute majority of the votes in the elections, Chief Whip shall mean Chief Whip of the Ruling Parties which must be appointed from among parties that constitute national executive. And, priority must be given to a party with majority of the seats, or a party that attained majority of the votes in the elections.

On the consideration of the composition of the Rules Committee (as reflected in Rule 191), the EFF proposed that Rule 191(1)(b)(i) be amended to read, “The Chief Whip and nine other members of the majority party or ruling parties”.

Mr Aucamp presented the DA’s submission. The DA proposed that a rule be written to define the definition of a Chief Whip in terms of the “largest ruling party” in addition or alternatively to “majority party”. The DA further proposed that there be a rule and official recognition of a “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party” alternatively to “Chief Whip of the Opposition”. The “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party" would mean the Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party, irrespective of whether that party is in government or not.

Accordingly, the DA proposed that a section defining Chief Whips must be added under National Assembly Rule 33(5) and must read as follows:

(a) Chief Whip means Chief Whip of the Majority Party.

(b) In case no party attains an absolute majority of the votes in the elections, Chief Whip shall mean Chief Whip of the Largest Ruling Party which must be appointed from among parties that constitute the national executive. Priority must be given to a party with the majority of the seats, or a party that attained the majority of the votes in the elections.

(c) The Chief Whip of the “Second Largest Party” shall mean the Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party represented in the National Assembly, irrespective of that party being part of the ruling parties.

On the consideration of the composition of the Rules Committee, the DA proposed several amendments to Rule 191. It proposed an inclusion of subsection 1(a)(iii) to include “the House Chairpersons”. It proposed that subsection 1(b) be amended to read as follows:

(b) in their capacity as party representatives–

(i) the Chief Whip of the largest ruling party in the Assembly; and

(ii) the Chief Whip of the second largest party in the Assembly; and

(ii) 15 other members of the National Assembly determined by the Speaker in a manner consistent with democracy and subject to Rule 196.

It also proposed that subsection (2) be amended to read, “The Leader of Government Business or a designated representative and other members may attend and participate in Rules Committee meetings in accordance with Rule 185.”

Mr Aucamp explained that the DA was the official opposition before the 2024 elections. The second-largest party in the National Assembly (regardless of which party it is) should necessarily act disciplined toward the biggest or second-largest number of people in the National Assembly. He, therefore, proposed the official recognition of a “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party.”

Mr Mahlaule presented the ANC’s submission. He said it was important first to clarify what is meant by “majority.” There are different majorities. There could be an absolute majority (where a vote or decision is decided by a 50+1 principle), a two-thirds majority (where a vote or decision is decided by a 2/3 principle), or a relative majority (which is a plurality vote).

The ANC proposed the insertion of the definition of a majority and majority party in the rules. “Majority” means a relative majority, absolute majority or special majority. “Majority Party” means the largest party in the Assembly with an absolute majority. Mr Mahlaule said that the definition of “majority” will provide guidance on the “Chief Whip”. The ANC proposed that “Chief Whip” should mean “Chief Whip of the Majority”.

The ANC proposed that “Leader of the Opposition” means the leader of the largest party in the Assembly that is not in the National Executive, and “Opposition Parties” means parties that are not represented in the National Executive. The ANC supported the definition of “Chief Whip of the Opposition” in that it means the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly that is not in the National Executive.

On the composition of the Rules Committee, the ANC proposed that Rule 191(1)(b)(i) be amended to read, “the Chief Whip and nine other members appointed by the Chief Whip”. Mr Mahlaule said that this will enable the Chief Whip to factor in all aspects that have informed the majority of the National Executive.

Mr Gana said that there seemed to be agreement on the definition of “opposition” and “Leader of the Opposition”. He agreed that opposition means any party not included in the National Executive. He believed that there should not be a debate about the recognition of the Chief Whip of the Opposition, but there should be a debate about what Mr Aucamp had raised regarding the proposal for “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party”. He said that the concept of the second largest party is not explicitly stated in Rule 191, which deals with the composition of the Rules Committee. However, the second largest opposition party is explicitly mentioned, with a guaranteed number of Members. The question that arises is whether the second largest party (irrespective of whether that party is in government or not) deserves explicit mention. In an instance where the second largest party is not an opposition party and does not have explicit mention in Rule 191, it could mean that the second largest party in the National Assembly will have less representation in the Rules Committee than a party that is in the official opposition. There are two options for addressing this issue. One option is to subject the Rules Committee to the same requirements as other committees, where parties are entitled to be represented in committees on a proportional basis. The other option is to amend Rule 191 by inserting the concept of the “second largest party”. Mr Gana said that considering the current and possible future electoral outcomes, the preferred option is that parties be entitled to be represented in the Rules Committee on a proportional basis but must guarantee seats for the Chief Whip of the Majority (if this proposal by the ANC is endorsed) and Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

Dr Ndlozi recommended that the Members check what the NA Table had proposed in the original document that the Committee Secretariat had presented in the meeting of 9 July. This would be helpful for everyone, as some Members were merely repeating what was already proposed in that document.

Mr Wessels proposed that the Rules Committee should be composed of the Chief Whip of the Largest Party, Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party, Chief Whip of the Opposition, and then additional Members of the National Assembly. He believed that this would encompass what the ANC had proposed in terms of “the Chief Whip and nine other members appointed by the Chief Whip”, but it would also encompass what the EFF and DA had proposed. This will better satisfy the multi-party participation in the Rules Committee.

He said that he was unsure about the “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party” because he battled to find this concept in the rules. He agreed with Dr Ndlozi that this is also about the money. He said that one must also consider the positions that are recognised by the Remuneration Commission. For instance, it uses terminology such as Chief Whip of the “Largest Minority Party”. It does not use terms like “Second Largest Party” or “Official Opposition”. He understood the argument in the DA’s proposal, which suggests that the seniority of a position is also proportional to the responsibilities of that position. He believed that the potential issues could be resolved by creating the three positions: Chief Whip of the Largest Party, Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party (irrespective of whether that party was in government or not), and Chief Whip of the Opposition.

Ms Bodlani said that she totally agreed with the essence of Mr Wessels’ proposal. There was just a need to clean up the language.

Mr Sithole said that he would support Mr Wessels’ proposal. He was just a bit unsure of what Mr Wessels had mentioned about the “Largest Minority Party”.

Ms L Makhubela-Mashele (ANC) said that she was confused as to whether the Members wanted to make provision for a “middle” Chief Whip, which is not part of the structure. She believed that the DA’s proposal for a “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party” was like creating employment or wanting to create a system to benefit from the institution. She told the Members of the DA that they have agreed to be part of the Executive, but there must be things that they forgo in the process. She urged that the Members stop clouding this process and continue with the structure which recognises the Chief Whip of the Majority and Chief Whip of the Opposition.

The Chairperson noted that several options were before the Subcommittee, some of which were supported. She suggested to the Members that if they do not resolve to agree on certain matters, those options be referred to the Rules Committee.

Mr Xaso referred to the Members' proposals on the composition of the Rules Committee. He informed the Members that the addition of two more Chief Whips would make the Rules Committee 23 members (it had previously been 19 Members).

Dr Ndlozi suggested that the Chairperson allow a second round to test whether there was no agreement. He believed that the Members were about to arrive at an agreement, so he would not agree to defer all the options.

He said that the NA Table’s proposal for the composition of the Rules Committee is a relatively good way forward. One must consider why Parliament had deliberately constituted the Rules Committee differently from other committees. The Rules Committee is the highest decision-making body in Parliament, and it mediates on the final rulings. He suggested that the Members not think of remuneration. He said that the DA would have a Chief Whip, whether it is a written rule or not. All parties have Chief Whips, which is why there is a Chief Whips Forum.

He believed that the ANC should drop the language of “different majorities” because it was unnecessary. He explained that in an instance where there is an outright majority, there must be a “Chief Whip of the Majority.” In an instance where there is not an outright majority, there must be a “Chief Whip of the Largest Party.”

He said that the composition of the Rules Committee may want to elevate Chief Whips. He proposed that the Rules Committee should comprise the Chief Whip of the Largest Party, the Chief Whip of the Opposition, and 15 other Chief Whips of the National Assembly determined by the Speaker in a manner consistent with democracy and subject to Rule 196. With this composition, the party component would be composed of six Members of the ANC, three Members of the DA, two Members of the MK, one Member of the EFF, and three Members of other parties (as determined by the Speaker - where it could be argued that preference must be given to the whippery). The Rules Committee would also comprise the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the three House Chairpersons, as well as the Leader of Government Business.

Mr Aucamp said that there was a lot of discussion about the term “majority”, although there is no party with a majority in the 7^th Parliament. He concurred with Mr Wessels that the rules recognise a “Chief Whip of the Largest Minority Party”. He said that if one argues that the ANC is the majority party because they got the biggest number of votes (although not an outright majority of 50+1), then it remains a fact that the DA is the second largest or the largest minority party. While the DA is part of the GNU, this does not mean that all parties in the GNU are one party. Every party has its own identity. It was not about receiving extra money, and it was not about trying to tap the system to create jobs. It was about rewriting the rule to accommodate for circumstances that were not predicted when the rules were written.

He said that it was necessary to clarify whether the Chief Whip of the Largest Minority Party was a party that is in government or not. The Chief Whip of the Largest Minority Party ought to “whip” the largest amount of people. This is why the DA had proposed “Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party, irrespective of whether that party is in government or not. He stressed that it was not about the money of that position. It was about the fact that the Chief Whip of a party with 99 Members in its caucus will have a larger responsibility than a Chief Whip with 45 Members in its caucus. The DA is the largest minority party.

He believed that it was necessary to distinguish between the positions of Chief Whip and the composition of the Rules Committee. He said that he did not have a problem if the Rules Committee consisted of the Chief Whip of the Largest Party, Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party, and Chief Whip of the Opposition. He reiterated that this process was about being fair and rewriting terminology that did not make provision for the present circumstances.

Mr Gana thanked Dr Ndlozi for supporting his proposal that the Chief Whip of the Opposition needs to be included explicitly. He noted Dr Ndlozi’s suggestion that the additional Members of the Rules Committee could preferably be Chief Whips. He believed that it should be the party's decision on who they send to the Rules Committee, whether it is the Chief Whip or not.

He said that he fully understood Mr Aucamp’s argument about the second-largest party, but it required some more thought. It might cause an issue if its argument is based on the current numbers. For instance, if the third largest party (i.e., MK) was in government, and the fourth largest party was the official opposition, could MK then make the same claim to have a Chief Whip of the Third Largest Party?

Mr Mahlaule said that the Members were getting closer to resolving this matter. He thanked Mr Wessels for pushing the Members closer to resolving it. He believed that there was agreement for the Rules Committee to accommodate the Chief Whip of the Largest Party, Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party, and Chief Whip of the Opposition. He said that Mr Gana had raised a question that needs to be responded to, but it is an issue that needs to be navigated as the 7^th Parliament moves forward.

The Chairperson asked if any other Member wanted to say something. She believed that the Members were closer to agreeing on the options.

Dr Ndlozi suggested that Mr Mahlaule’s last comment be seconded. He believed that everyone needed the opportunity to experience the 7^th Parliament for about 12 months. He agreed that the composition of the Rules Committee should include the Chief Whip of the Largest Party, Chief Whip of the Opposition, Chief Whip of the Second Largest Party, and then 15 other members of the National Assembly determined by the Speaker in a manner consistent with democracy and subject to Rule 196. He agreed that this does not have to mention a preference for whippery.

Mr Xaso noted that the Leader of Government Business or a designated representative and other members may attend and participate in Rules Committee meetings in accordance with Rule 185. Ms T Siweya (ANC) is the parliamentary counsellor to the Deputy President, so she will attend those meetings.

Dr Ndlozi asked if Ms Siweya would attend on behalf of the Leader of Government Business (i.e., the Deputy President).

Mr Xaso confirmed this.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson thanked the Members. She felt that the Members did a great job today. She said that the rules of Parliament will always be reviewed and amended when necessary. The Members agreed on almost everything. There was only disagreement on the speaking order for mini-plenaries and other debates.

Dr Ndlozi recalled that the Speaker of the National Assembly was very specific that this Subcommittee needed to address these matters with urgency. He asked that the subcommittee's resolutions be sent to the Rules Committee to assist in preparation for the upcoming Opening of Parliament Address and the budget vote debates, especially on the seating arrangements. He suggested that the Subcommittee advise the Rules Committee to convene on Wednesday so that there can be proper direction about the Opening of Parliament Address, especially on the seating arrangements.

Mr Xaso said that the Rules Committee was trying to secure a meeting for Wednesday. He asked the Members for their opinion on the seating arrangement for the Opening of Parliament Address, which will take place at Cape Town City Hall. He asked if the seating arrangement should change from last week or if it should stay the same.

Dr Ndlozi replied that the proposed seating arrangement would not apply in a cinema-style venue. It would only apply in an oval venue. He was only concerned about the speaking order and ensuring that the Leader of the Opposition would get a second opportunity to speak on Friday’s debate.

Mr Xaso agreed.

The Chairperson said that the Subcommittee convened at night today to finalise the matters before it. She said that Mr Xaso and his team will prepare the report, which will be referred to the Rules Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.