Finalisation of Priority Matters & Opening of Parliament Address Preparations

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting. She explained that it was convened to finalise matters that they have not finalised and brief Members on the preparations for the president's opening address tomorrow.

Apologies were recorded.

The Chairperson: The agenda was circulated. I just want to indicate that on your agenda, 6.3, the venue for the reply and sitting of the National Assembly, we have removed that issue for now because we are still consulting. We haven't finalised where it will be, so once we have, we will again confirm.

The agenda was adopted.

Minutes dated 3 July 2024
The minutes were considered and adopted with a correction to the attendance.

A correction was also made to the exclusion of the programming whip decided on in that meeting.

Matters arising
Mr Masibulele Xaso, Secretary to the National Assembly: the matters arising are contained in the report of the subcommittee in the main and others that relate to the configuration of committees - committees have since been established; that was a main issue. The matter of question clusters will be implemented as agreed to, but the Subcommittee on the Review of Rules has got a report, which forms part of the matters arising. We'll just request the Members to sign the attendance register. It helps with the capturing of attendance for the minutes as well.

Report of the Subcommittee on Review of Assembly Rules
Ms D Dlkaude (ANC) asked Mr Xaso to present the report.

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF): it is wrong what Ms Dlakude is doing. She must present the report.

Ms Dlakude:  Okay, fine, I'll do it. On 26 June and 3 July 2024, respectively, the National Assembly Rules Committee referred several issues to the Subcommittee on Assembly Rules. These included a speaking sequence in plenaries, seating arrangements in the chamber, terms and definitions in the rules and composition of the Rules Committee.

The subcommittee met on 9, 11 and 15 July 2024 to consider the above priority matters and written submissions were received from the EFF, the DA and the ANC. This report summarises the discussion on these matters and the recommendations made in relation to them. Other matters referred to the subcommittee, including legacy issues from the Sixth Parliament, will be reported on in due course. With regard to the speaking sequence in the plenaries, it was noted that the current configuration of Parliament and the Executive had given rise to questions about speaking arrangements, especially regarding special occasions such as the State of the Nation Address. It was further noted that the sequence of speakers in the House does depend on the type of business. In a debate on a Member's motion, for example, the Member in whose name the motion stands speaks first. Following earlier deliberations within the subcommittee, the administration has presented two options for consideration, namely that A) the prevailing practice of proportionality continue to be applied or B) 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. Parties expressed different preferences regarding the options given. After extensive discussions, the subcommittee recommends the following speaking sequence a) the President, the largest political party, whether in government or not, the Leader of the Opposition and all other parties based on proportionality. The recommendation is on the understanding that the arrangement would apply to special debates, such as the State of the Nation Address or the Opening of Parliament address.

Its extension to debates on other items, like bills and motions, would be considered at a later stage.

With regard to the seating arrangements, the view expressed was that all parties in the governing coalition should sit on the right of the Speaker insofar as this is practically possible. In addition, the Executive should have designated seats, and all Cabinet Members should occupy front seats or benches. On the other hand, the opposition should be seated on the left of the Speaker, with the largest opposition first. The subcommittee recommends that parties that have representation in the national Executive should occupy seats on the right side of the House from the direction of the Speaker and should sit proportionally with the largest party first, followed by other parties represented in the national executive. Opposition parties should be seated on the left-hand side of the Speaker, with the largest party first and the smallest last.

On terms and definitions and composition of the Rules Committee - in the absence of a single party that has an absolute majority of the seats in the National Assembly, and in the view of inclusion in the national executive of various parties represented in the National Assembly, including the second largest party, the Rules Committee noted that certain rules, practices and terminology may require review. Regarding the Leader of the Opposition, section 57 (2) of the Constitution of 1996 provides that the rules and orders of the National Assembly must provide for the recognition of the leader of the largest opposition party in the Assembly as the leader of the opposition. In terms of the National Assembly rule, 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 elections must be recognised as the Leader of the Opposition. In the subcommittee, different definitions regarding opposition party and leader of the opposition were discussed, namely, opposition party means any party whose Members are not in the National Executive as either the President, Minister or Deputy Minister, even if they are not Members of Parliament. Leader of the Opposition means the leader of the largest party in the Assembly, that is not in the national Executive. The subcommittee recommends as follows: Leader of the Opposition means the leader of the largest party in the Assembly that is not in the national Executive. Opposition party means any party that is not represented in the national Executive.

With regard to the definition of the Chief Whip, the subcommittee had regard to various contributions, which included that traditionally, the Chief Whip of the majority party has various institutional responsibilities to carry out. A view was expressed that the term Chief Whip should be redefined to include Chief Whip of the majority party or, alternatively, when there was no single party with an absolute majority, to mean Chief Whip of the ruling parties. It was also proposed that the Chief Whip could also be defined in terms of the largest ruling party or, alternatively, the majority party. Secondly, that rule should be inserted that provided for the Chief Whip of the second largest party, which could be different to the Chief Whip of the opposition. Whether the second largest party was in the national Executive or not, the motivation for this was in the context of the political management role of the Chief Whip. Further, a proposal was made to include a definition of the terms “majority” and “majority party”. Regarding majority, it was suggested that it be defined to mean a relative majority, an absolute majority or a special majority. A related majority meant a plurality of seats, where the party with the largest number of seats failed to obtain a majority of seats but remains the largest party. Some of the definitions proposed included: Chief Whip means the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly. If the largest party in the Assembly is not in government, the party with the relative majority in the National Executive and majority party means the largest party in the Assembly with an absolute majority. The subcommittee recommends that the definition of the Chief Whip be adjusted to take into account the different categories of largest, second largest, and opposition parties. This definition would be finalised in the overall amendment of the identified aspects of the rules.

Composition of the Rules Committee: The Rules Committee, in terms of National Assembly rule 191, had 19 Members. Given the composition of the Seventh Parliament, this composition had to be reviewed. The subcommittee recommends that the composition of the rules committee should include, as a standing arrangement, the Chief Whip of the largest party, the Chief Whip of the second largest party, and the Chief Whip of the opposition.

Recommended rule amendment: Unless the House by resolution decides otherwise, the rules committee consists of a) in their capacity as elected office bearers, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the House Chairpersons, and, in their capacity as party representatives, the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly, the Chief Whip of the second largest party in the Assembly, the Chief Whip of the opposition, and 15 other Members of the National Assembly, determined by the Speaker in a manner consistent with the democracy and subject to rule 196. The Leader of Government Business or designated representative or other members may attend and participate in rules committee meetings in accordance with rule 185. Please note, if this composition is agreed, the party component, excluding the Chief Whips, would be as follows: ANC 6, DA 3, MK 2, EFF 1 and other parties three.  The effect of this composition is that the rules committee would have 23 Members.

Discussion
The Chairperson:  Thank you, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Review of the Assembly Rules. Members, I'm sure you have had a briefing from your representatives on that committee. And now the report has been tabled for consideration. We'll start with 5.1 on the sequence of speaking. A recommendation has been proposed.

Dr Ndlozi: the emphasis is on the largest political party in the national Executive because if it's the largest political party, you say, whether in government or not, it would be, in some instances, the opposition, if that makes sense. So it must be in government because the Leader of the Opposition would represent the largest political party that is not in government. So either you have the President, the largest political party represented in the national Executive, because the largest political party in Parliament, if it's not in the national Executive, will be the official opposition, and the second part would be covered. That's what we had said.

The Chairperson: Okay. There's a recommendation that we remove the reference to whether it is in government and leave it as the largest political party in the National Executive.

Dr Ndlozi: yes, represented in the National Executive.

Mr W Wessels (FF+): I think that's a good suggestion. I don't think there's any problem with that. It is redundant to say that because obviously, as Dr Nldozi pointed out, it will be the official opposition if it's not the party in government, so I think we can say the largest political party in the National Executive or represented in the National Executive. I think it was an oversight from the subcommittee, and I think that is what we actually meant.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC): we agree.

The Chairperson noted consensus on the seating arrangement. Agreed to.

The Chairperson turned to terms and definition in the rules.

Dr Ndlozi: Yeah, we didn't have this. It says an opposition party means a party that is not represented in and is opposed to the government. No, the line is “represented in the National Executive” because you can vote for a President but not take a Cabinet post and reserve your opposition status.

Ms V Mente (EFF): I also want to understand when you say, “opposition party means any party that is not represented in the national Executive”, and now the reality is that we have a group of parties that have an agreement to be in government but they are not an Executive. So you mean that that party, if ever, for example, Mk was in the GNU, would now still be an official opposition because they didn't take an Executive post? That can’t be true. So, it is wrong to say that an opposition party means any party that is not represented in the national Executive. You might not be represented in the national Executive, but be part of the collective agreement of governing. Therefore, you are not in opposition.

Mr M Gana (Rise Mzansi): the points on page three that Dr Ndlozi is raising are the points that were considered to inform the recommendation.  It's important to ensure that in our definitions, we do not import something that does not happen in the Assembly. So let's say, for instance, during an election, there is an agreement between political parties to decide how they will vote for the President if they do not take an Executive position if they are not in the national Executive, you cannot then create a class of political parties that are sitting in the middle. Either you are in the national Executive or you are not; you can't be in the middle. Let's say MK decides to sign the GNU but does not take an Executive position; you cannot then classify them as the Executive when they are not in the Executive. Insofar as Parliament is concerned, it's either parties are in the Executive, or they are not, unless they attempt to create a third class of political parties that find themselves agreeing outside Parliament on political direction. It happens especially in local government, where political parties will say we'll support this party to be the mayor, but we're not going into the Executive. So for the purposes of Parliament, either a party is in government or it's not. They can’t be in between classes that we then introduce. And that was the understanding that the subcommittee on rules had that you cannot have three classes – they are either executive or opposition; you can’t have the third class of political participants.

Mr Wessels: I have exactly the view that Ms Mente now expressed in the sub rules committee. But I was convinced that for now, let's stick to national Executive. I think it's something that should be explored in future. Dr Ndlozi also made valid points with regard to how the Constitution defines, and then we must talk about the national Executive. But on page three, as Mr Gana said, only the views were expressed. The recommendation is on page four, so we can't omit anything on page three. Those were the views, but then we agreed on page four on the definitions. And I think that is the proposal from the subcommittee and I don't think there’s any problem with that. But I did have that view as well.

Mr Mahlaule: in addition to what the two Members are saying, the EFF came with its own definition. The ANC came with its own definition in its document. The DA came with its own definition. MK, not in writing, but they participated in the debate and came up with that definition. They are outlined here to demonstrate the background on which we arrived at this recommendation. So whether those four are there or not is immaterial because that is the background in which we arrived at a recommendation. So, it's not whether it's removed or it's there; it doesn't matter. What matters is we arrived at this recommendation based on the discussions that were brought by different political parties. I thought clarifying that will help.

Mr J Ngubane (MK): we did speak about this, and it was meant to say that if we go dig deep on what the GNU intended and that other parties have signed, it's got some clause that hinders them from exercising that fully-fledged right of opposition. It was in that spirit that we said there is no middle party. If you've signed the GNU, you're bound by that statement of intent. That's where we proposed to say there is no middle class, or whatever you call it. The spirit was to say that the mere fact that you signed the GNU means you will have hindrances to opposing the other side. At that point, we even spoke about it as MK; we even spoke about it in an issue of the Scopa chair’s appointment. We saw a deficiency there, so the chairperson will probably have difficulty fully holding the executive accountable.

Mr F Shivambu (EFF):  I think what possibly helps this discussion is that this report is a report of the Subcommittee on Rules, which has to be processed here. So, we legitimately have to find absolute clarity from what the subcommittee has recommended. Yes, it's a narrow way. You have a group of political parties that agree on a coalition agreement, whatever they call it, whether the GNU or coalition outright. And then they say that as part of our working arrangements, we are going to chair committees there, we are going to get Executive positions in provinces, and then when we come to Parliament, the same group of parties they say no, we're no longer working together because we have not occupied an Executive position here, we are now opposition, official opposition or whatever they call it because we currently are not in the national executive. I think it's not a proper representation of what opposition should be. I would think that the opposition should not be in any form of alliance or coalition with the government or those who are in the national executive at all levels. I think that should bring clarity in terms of this context. It's like making an arrangement that, okay, we'll get together, but when we get to Parliament, act like you’re in the opposition to us. There are some key questions that we have to then innovate and not in the way of undermining the discussions in the sub-Rules Committee. The Subcommittee on Rules is just trying to strengthen the multi-party system of democracy, which recognises the official opposition and that there must be opposition parties. So if we fuse opposition with those who are executives, it becomes problematic. It's not a mechanical discussion; it's a political discussion that we have to make due consideration to so that we do not feign opposition when it's really not there. So that is that is the issue. We're not attacking the Subcommittee on rules; we are questioning your wisdom thus far as to whether this wisdom is durable; let us test it.

Mr S Zondo (IFP): I think we need to correct the narrative that says GNU is something official in this Parliament when you are inside because there is no constitutional agreement in terms of the GNU. Signing the GNU was a political agreement outside of Parliament that was to be implemented. So, there is nothing binding in terms of that. Politics and Parliament are two separate things. So we cannot come here and argue that those who are the GNU…. No, let’s leave out the GNU; that is a political agreement and should not be included here in something official. Let’s adopt this and move on.

The Chairperson: I think we've got clarity on page three that these were definitions that were discussed in the review subcommittee. I don't think there's any difference on the Leader of the Opposition. That's very clear. On the opposition party, I think what is being raised, and I was going to appeal to Members that maybe for now, let's not conclude on this other matter. We note that there are concerns that you might have an arrangement where members of the GNU who are not necessarily in the Executive, what becomes of their status? I think Mr Ngubane was saying, in the reflection, do you then create another class in between? And I would suggest that maybe let's not finalise. We have this as a working definition, and we allow the Rules Committee to apply itself to say, how do we coin a party that may not necessarily be in the Executive but does work with the collective of those parties that are in the national Executive? If you would agree with me. Can I agree that we TBC this one?

Mr Gana: So we've just agreed on C, which is the seating arrangement, which says that the parties that have representation in the National Executive sit on the right-hand side. We agree. Then everyone else is an opposition party because you can't be in between the National Executive and the other side. So if you have accepted C, then D follows because if you keep D….

The Chairperson: Can I prevail on you? I've noted, and that's why I said let’s allow this as a working definition until we reflect. That is why I said I have noted the issue that is being raised. But for now, we may not have enough time to reflect, persuade, and say how we finally close this matter. So we allow it as a working definition for now, as the subcommittee has advised us, but we do note that this is a matter we have to go back to and reflect on it. So you agree with me.

Mr Mahlaule: so the definition around the opposition party means any party that is not represented in the National Executive, but is there anyone who is refusing that?

The Chairperson: I prevail on you. Some Members raised a point to say that you may have parties that agree with the spirit of the GNU but are not necessarily in the Executive, so how do we deal with that? And that is why I'm saying we do not have enough time to persuade one another on that matter. So that is why I was saying, let's allow this as a working arrangement, but allow the Rules Committee to come back on this matter, and we finalise it and persuade one another. So, we agree with the recommendation as the working definition, and we come back to the matter. I appeal.

Mr Shivambu: what is the working definition?

The Chairperson: as it is on B. page four.

Mr Shivambu: but this takes into account the observation that we're making. Let’s say it is an objection so that you’re clear. If you have a known working relationship with a group of political parties, and you accommodate them as chairs of committees, you accommodate them in provinces, and then you come here [to Parliament] and say no, let’s act like the opposition. That is the issue. Let's agree that there is no unanimity in terms of this. It's going to be subject to further deliberations and discussions. We can come up with a much more acceptable agreement as to who is opposition in the context of the politics that we have now. That is what we have to deal with.

The Chairperson: Yes, that's why I said, in order for us to continue deliberating this matter, which we have not yet agreed on, let’s be allowed to come back to the issue. I've clearly stated what other observations have been made. my worry is that if we continue, we will not finish because each one will persuade each other, and I don't think we can actually finally resolve this matter today. Can I get a consensus? Agreed. Let's move to the recommendation on the composition of the rules.

The Chairperson: There is a recommendation there that the definition of chief whip be adjusted to take into account the different categories of largest, second largest, and opposition practice. Are we agreed? Okay, can we move to E on the composition of the rules committee?

The Chairperson: can we now move to the briefing on the arrangements for the opening of parliament address tomorrow?

Mr Sithole (Committee Staff): Members will note that tomorrow will be the 18th in terms of the President having requested the Joint Sitting of the two Houses in terms of the Constitution, read together with the Joint Rules that are relevant to the convening of the joint sitting. So, tomorrow will be the joint sitting, and the president will then address the joint sitting of parliament. The sitting will take place at City Hall at the normal times at 19h00. The theme of the sitting tomorrow is “Your Parliament, Your Voice and Your Future”.

The ceremonial component will include all the military responsibilities that the military would perform. The procession of the Provincial Speakers, Premiers, and the Judiciary will take place, and the praise singer will be from the province of Limpopo. In this case, you will note that the presentation does indicate that the flypast will be excluded, given that it will be dark.

The next slide shows the percentages of our preparation. You will realise that in the guest relations section, it says we have not been doing well. However, this is influenced by the number of guests who have confirmed, which we will keep on updating. We are not in a panic because we've updated the percentages up until now.

The next slide basically indicates that Parliament has already issued the notice and the Order Paper for the proceedings and that all other arrangements of interpretation, including reporting on the Hansard, have been put in place.

The next slide is a protocol arrangement. It basically indicates the VIPs who have been invited and confirmed at the time we prepared this particular slide, and this number will change in relation to the number of other VIPs who have not yet confirmed.

A draft order of proceedings has been prepared, basically sequencing all the processes that will take place. The last bullet indicates that the briefing of the Presiding Officers did take place today.

We indicate all the guests that will be invited on the rotation, particularly other organisations, academics, trade unions, and NGOs. I must also indicate that the Pan African Parliament has also been included as one of the organisations invited to attend the event.

The next slide deals with the venue. It basically deals with the venue's allocation and where our guests will be seated at the Banqueting Hall. They will be accommodated in the council chambers and in the marquee that has been put in place. All those structures have been put in place, and today, we've been able to take the Presiding Officers and the relevant ministers through a process to indicate the preparedness or the state of readiness.

The next slide deals with the stakeholders that we normally involve in terms of preparation and all the organisations that we are involved with, like the Presidency, the Judiciary, and all other departments mentioned, including the City of Cape Town.

This slide basically lists the dates of the activities that we'll be dealing with, in terms of the different activities that will take place.

Regarding the security arrangements, all members of parliament who will be coming from the villages will be taken straight to the venue by bus. All Members of Parliament who may decide to drive to Parliament on that day will then have access to their parking, and they will be shuttled from Parliament to the venue and then after the sitting, they'll be shuttled back to be connected with the vehicles at Parliament.  All other guests will then be shuttled in accordance with the arrangement that we have with the guest. I can indicate that the media and service providers have been accredited by State Security, and all other guests have been accredited by Parliament.

Mr K Sithole (IFP): I see that they say all Members from the villages will be delivered to the venue. Is that possible? Does it mean that from 14h30 I must go and sit in the City Hall?

Mr Gana: Will the same transport be used for MPs' guests? Should guests be told to come to Parliament and then be shuttled to City Hall?

Dr Ndlozi: can we have transport for the caucus time?  [spoke in another language]

The Chairperson: [spoke in another language]

Mr Sithole: we can make sure that transport is there in the morning for caucuses, and indeed, shuttles will be moving MPs and their guests to and back.  We will work on the suggestion made as a matter of urgency.

Ms Mente: [spoke in another language]

The Chairperson: arrangements will be made to facilitate that. There is indeed a backlog in the accreditation. So I think the point is by Ms Mente it's important. And we take note of that, but also the issue of caucuses, those parties who will have caucuses in the morning. The ideal time for coming into Parliament was a concern raised that 2pm might be a bit too early for Members to come to the precinct. So I will ask if the team can reflect on that and communicate with the whips.

Mr Mahlaule: considering that tomorrow it will be raining and they are saying it will be 100%, those who drive cars and as such, remember they're not allowed to get into the tent where police are. Is there an arrangement that when it's searched there, they are not rained on? Because ordinarily, they push you back to say no, we're searching your car, we're searching, you will be outside so that we don't get rained.

Ms Dlakude: I want to propose that the two or half-past two buses be withdrawn, and then at half-past four, all parks have two buses. Half-past two or two o'clock is too early for Members of Parliament to be here, and it's very cold.

Mr C Frolick (ANC): Members would check the SMS messages. There is a message that came out at 5:30 this evening to say that the times of the buses are 2:30 and 3:30 for the last bus at 4:30. They must just check in terms of the number of buses that will be dispatched at the time, but the message is on the SMS notification.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much. I think there was a proposal that maybe the two o'clock bus should not be there. Rather, it should become part of the 4:30 passes. House Chairperson Internal Arrangement, I'm sure you’re noting that. But we've taken proposals that have been made, and we’ll soon be informed of the plans that have been made. Can we now move to the seating arrangements?

Mr Xaso: This morning, there was a discussion on the seating arrangement, and some parties urged that they want to sit together. Initially, we made an effort to place leaders in the front row or close to the front rows. But parties gave us feedback and said they would rather be together, even if it means they sit at the back. So this is an effort to do that. There was also a view that the seating arrangement must already reflect what has just been accredited here. In terms of the seating arrangement, we did appeal that because it’s a joint sitting, we may not be able to make that rearrangement. So, for the purposes of tomorrow, Friday, and Monday, if we're sitting at the City Hall, we keep the seating arrangement as is. So this is what was presented to the whippery this morning with certain adjustments, a few adjustments. So what you have in the front row is the ANC, the NCOP, then the Democratic Alliance, MK, EFF and IFP because the IFP did not indicate their preference not to sit in the front row, so we have kept the IFP in the front row. So that is one version that I'd like to present. We did later on get some inputs from the NCOP, which the Deputy Chief Whip has been dealing with, where there was an intervention that the NCOP would prefer to sit from the left of the chair. However, the Deputy Chief Whip was talking to the Chief Whip of the NCOP regarding that proposal and its implications for the sitting arrangement. The Deputy Chief Whip might be able to say more on that. That is what was mandated this morning by the Chief Whips Forum to work on, which was that proposal, but after the call from the NCOP, we thought let’s do another option and leave it to the political leadership to decide on that, but the Deputy Chief Whip may want to say something about it.

Ms Dlakude: Given the discussions that we had as the National Assembly with regard to the seating arrangement, what is being proposed by the NCOP might cause some problems for us. So the proposal is that we stick to what was agreed upon in the Chief Whips Forum, or we stick to the current arrangement because City Hall is not our chamber, and we cannot achieve what we want to achieve. So it would be better to stick to what we currently have, sit the way we were sitting in the previous Joint Sitting, or maintain this, which was proposed by the Chief Whips Forum earlier today. So, my discussion with the Chief Whip of the NCOP was that if we take their route, it will give us some problems because there is already an understanding of saying that on the far left-hand side of the Speaker, it should be opposition parties. Then the NCOP want to be on the far left of the Speaker, which will lead us to discuss this matter of seating arrangement until tomorrow. So, my proposal was that we should retain what we currently have or sit it as proposed by the NA table. I think no one will lose anything with that, so there will be no disruption to the Opening of Parliament.

Mr N Kwankwa (UDM): I just want to be clear, which “current” are we talking about? The one on the screen or a different “current”?

The Chairperson: This is what was proposed in the morning to the Chief Whips Forum.

Mr Kwankwa: But I'm confused. Okay.

Dr Ndlozi: we had asked when we make a proposal, it must be considered to make the same schema. We asked that the NCOP sit together from N to S. That must be the NCOP terrain. It looks like our proposal was not filtered through. If the National Assembly sits in the City Hall after the amendment rules of the rules, what would it look like? Because that must take place from Monday, on budget vote one.

The Chairperson: I was informed that the NA made a proposal on the sitting arrangement for tomorrow. Consultation then happened with the NCOP, who on their own actually felt that as another House that makes Parliament, they want to sit together as a House, but their choice was not the N to S; their choice was from A but occupying the seats on that extreme left. That's what they were proposing. We then requested that maybe the Deputy Chief Whip and the Chief Whip of the NCOP must consult. The NCOP was very clear: they don’t want to sit in the middle as was proposed by the NA table. They wanted not to bear the back as it came as a motivation in the Whips meeting; they said they wanted to see it from A. I think we need to appreciate that Parliament is made up of two Houses, and none is lesser than the other in terms of the Constitution.

Mr Xaso: the sense we got this morning was that all the other parties would want to sit together. The UDM Member was there, and she did not object to that. So, if the indication is that the UDM would want to go back to where it was, we'll make that adjustment.

Mr Kwankwa: Mr Gana was speaking for himself and his cluster. The UDM did not agree to that proposal. So, we'd like the UDM to go back to its original position if you don't mind. What I wanted to establish is whether then the NCOP agreed with the initial proposal. Because if we if they did, and we're not able to amend the original proposal in line with the submission this morning, the most sensible compromise in this case would be to agree to a proposal to which the NCOP might have agreed to earlier in consultations. Otherwise, we're going to discuss this thing until the cows come home.

Ms S Khojane (PA):  Maybe we could be shown the proposal by the NCOP if possible, but I just wanted to say that in the Chief Whips Forum this morning, when I suggested that our Members sit together from the PA, which is in the yellow, that was not with the inclusion of the president of our party, who was initially in the front. We don't mind being at the back, but since he is in the National Executive, we would like him to be in the front. We will cheer for him from the back. It wouldn't make sense, in our opinion.

Mr Mahlaule: I just want to make a suggestion that because Mr Kwankwa was saying that the Member who was in the meeting was speaking for himself, not the party, maybe next time don't send people who don't have authority to make decisions because they become useless. And then we're coming here back, we're discussing the same issue that your Member agreed to.

The Chairperson: I think here, we are trying to look at the sitting. Let’s just agree to what is workable.

Dr Ndlozi: I want to I want to second this one with one adjustment – the NCOP must be in the blue [see image]. We need some marriage. You have not responded to Tuesday.

Mr Xaso: We have not rearranged for Tuesday because we know we won’t be meeting at City Hall. So we can show this venue [God Hope Chamber] here and what it would look like with this proposal that was adopted today so that Members can have a sense of how it will look. We have shown the NCOP picture and what it would be like if that recommendation was taken. So, is it our understanding that we're going back to what was shown earlier?

Ms Dlakude: I think if we can go back to our old Chamber, which went up in smoke, the NCOP was always in the middle. So I think we need to convince them that we will take that proposal that they've shown up there so that we have a smooth sitting. We adopt this, we agree to this proposal, then we move forward with the sitting, then further discussions on the seating arrangements can be done after the Opening of Parliament and the debate. But now, if we open this up even further, we will sit discussing this until tomorrow, and it will not assist anyone.

The Chairperson: You've made a request and the unfortunate part is that we have to also respect the other House. They’ve expressed their view. When the NA table made the proposal to you in the morning, it was trying to accommodate what has always been in the old chamber where the NCOP was sitting in the middle. They vehemently objected to that. They say they want to be on the extreme left. So if we have to accommodate your view of saying the blue must be next to the yellow, it means you must also agree to move and allow them to be on the extreme left. I'm saying it follows because we can't want to accommodate them in the way we want only. So, it's either we accept the proposal that has been made by the NA table in the morning or we change to what the NCOP would like to have. And I would really appeal when we have our own sitting… our rules have been agreed to in terms of the recommendation that has been made by the subcommittee that doesn't change. The unfortunate part is that this is the Joint Sitting, and we've got two Houses.

Ms H Denner (FF+): In principle, we agree with the seating arrangements as proposed. But I do think we should look at maybe arranging it so that the leaders of the parties, and I don't want to say especially those who are in the Executive because I think it's important for all the leaders to be prominent, must sit nearer to the front. If I can just put that on the table, please.

The Chairperson: I have noted, but it really would take a bit of persuasion and time, which you don't have. And I will really appeal that we agree with the current proposal. Let's agree with the Speaker. Agreed. That brings us to the end of the meeting. You will be advised through your whips on the issue of buses for tomorrow.

The meeting was adjourned.