Marriage Bill public participation plan; PPFA Resolution; IEC Commissioners remuneration (with Deputy Minister)

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present at the meeting. The agenda included four items: a presentation from the PEO on the draft public participation proposal for the Marriage Bill, a briefing by the PLS on the draft motion for PPFA, the consideration and adoption of the draft notice on the remuneration of the IEC Commissioners, and the adoption of outstanding minutes for previous meetings.

Following a briefing from the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) in its previous meeting, the Committee resolved on a detailed approach to navigating its public participation process for the Marriage and Immigration Bills. The PEO’s presentation will guide the Committee on how best to do so.

In its second meeting of the new administration, the Committee received a briefing from the PLS on the Western Cape High Court Judgement’s ruling in August reinstating the upper limit for donations and thresholds for political parties and independent candidates. After the judgement was handed down, the Speaker of Parliament wrote to the Committee requesting that it draft the resolution – for the National Assembly to consider – allowing the President to make regulations to set the amounts for the upper limit and disclosure threshold. The draft resolution has since been prepared and circulated to the Committee by the PLS.

He explained that the committee asked to meet virtually because several of its Members were engaged in campaigns for the by-elections on Wednesday.

After making those brief remarks, he asked if the Committee had received any apologies.

Mr Eddie Mathonsi (Committee Secretary) said the Committee received apologies from Ms Lerato Ngobeni and the Minister of Home Affairs, who was attending a Cabinet subcommittee.

The Chairperson noted the apologies and asked if the DHA’s delegation was present at the meeting.

Mr Mathonsi mentioned that the Deputy Minister (DM) of Home Affairs was present in the meeting.

Mr Njabulo Nzuza (DM of Home Affairs) introduced his delegation to the Committee.

The Chairperson then invited the PEO to make its presentation to the Committee.

PEO public participation proposal for the Marriage Bill

Mr Brent Simons (Acting Section Manager: Public Participation) took Members through the presentation.

To begin with, he informed the Committee that the Joint Rules have introduced time limits for the processing of bills. This includes a time limit for completing any step in the legislative process. According to the rules, a Section 74 bill (constitutional amendment) that may be passed by the House alone and Section 75 bills (ordinary bills that do not affect the provinces) must be processed by both Houses within twenty-four months of its date of introduction. Whereas a Section 74 bill must be passed by the National Council of Provinces as well, and both Houses must process a Section 76 bill within thirty months of its date of introduction.

The newly adopted public participation model embraces four interconnected pillars of public engagement: inform, consult, involve and feedback. The model strengthens the work of Members of Parliament (MP) in carrying out their duties and improving public access to Parliament.

Two months before the public hearings on the Marriage Bill take place, the PEO will draft and present its public participation programme to the Committee for approval. Two weeks later, implementation will begin. Before rolling out the programme, the PEO will refer to the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) ward information management system to produce an environmental scan of the identified communities around the approved venue for public education workshops and possible public hearings.

After that, the PEO will operationalise the District Communications Forum (DCF), which the GCIS and other relevant stakeholders will coordinate. It will also produce summarised bills in the relevant local languages.

The draft programme proposes that the PEO, in partnership with the Parliamentary Communication Services (PCS), will host a media briefing led by the Committee Chairperson on 23 September outlining the key content of the Bill. From then on, the PEO will also use community radio programmes to communicate information on the bill and the entire public participation process in partnership with the GCIS.

Educational workshops will occur around the identified public venues in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) from 1 October to 7 November and in Gauteng from 7 October to 14 November.

The draft programme proposes that public hearings begin on either the eighth or tenth of November across ten districts in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). A week later, they would move to Gauteng and be held across the entire province.

(See Presentation)

The Chairperson opened the floor for discussion.

Discussion

Ms F Muthambi (ANC) was pleased with the draft of the public participation proposal for the Marriage Bill presented by the PEO. She supported the suggestion that the Committee hold public hearings in Thusong Service Centres (TSC) rather than in hired venues within cities, as this would allow residents of different communities to attend and save costs for Parliament.

Several complaints were filed in the Sixth Administration regarding insufficient consultation, and she wondered what the PEO considered sufficient public consultation and what role it envisaged Parliament playing in ensuring that the public was sufficiently consulted on the Marriage Bill.

Mr S Ngubane (MK) asked the Chairperson if he would allow him to ask the Ministry a question about an event during his constituency work on Monday.

After making that request, he asked the PEO whether the Committee was still at the stage of gathering input from the public or if it had moved on from that.

One concern for him was the long turnaround time for Parliament to amend bills compared to its counterparts in other countries. He stressed the need to look into how to improve on this.

Mr T Mogale (EFF) asked if the Committee was only limiting public hearings to Gauteng and KZN – which would be unfair if it was the case; how long would the public consultation process be; what role the Speakers’ offices in local municipalities would play in the planning of the public hearings, as they will be able to assist in mobilising communities to attend; and why the presentation only referred to the PEO consulting organisations associated with the African National Congress, like the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African National Civics Organisation (SANCO).

Ms S Khojane (PA) was pleased to hear that greater efforts would be made to include the public in the process, especially through local radio stations. She volunteered herself to assist with the drafting of radio scripts.

After that, she posed several questions to the PEO like if there was a limit on the number of people who can attend the public hearings and how the Committee would evaluate the intended impact of the public hearings according to the number of attendees if there is a limit; if the Committee could receive summarised content of the Bill; which unit was responsible for the checking if the summarised content on the leaflet is easily understandable for members of the public; which community radio stations that have been identified to reach communities in Gauteng and KZN; if the questions for interviews in local newspapers are pre-set; and how the Committee would include other provinces in the public participation process, such as her home province the Northern Cape, which often feel left out.

Mr Y Tetyana (EFF) said the Committee should not limit itself to holding public hearings in TSCs, as they are not present in certain communities. Instead, any venue identified near a community that can feasibly host public hearings should be used. Adopting this approach will prevent the Committee from being taken to court for conducting an insufficient public participation process, which would delay the processing of the Bill.

In addition, he advised the Committee to consider that interest on issues varied across communities. For instance, a community in rural KZN might be more interested in the content of the Marriage Bill than in a bill related to the environment.

Mr A Roos (DA) appreciated the expanded approach to public participation referred to in the presentation and called for the Committee to monitor the preparations for the public hearings.

The Bill had profound consequences in that it took different fundamental human rights. It puts them at odds against each other, requiring Parliament and the public to engage in difficult conversations. Furthermore, the Bill looks at the differences in how communities practise marriage.

He asked if public hearings would be held across all nine provinces or only in Gauteng and KZN and if safe spaces would be created for women to give their input at the hearings, considering the difficulties they may have due to the patriarchy in their communities.

The Chairperson said Members will be able to exchange their views with one another on the Bill after the public participation process.

He said members previously expressed concern regarding the lack of preparation of PEO officials for the public hearings, with many of them not understanding the framework of a draft bill.

Mr Simons agreed that the Committee should not only look to use the TSCs as venues to host public hearings because they are not found in every community. Instead, Members could identify and hand over a list of the different community halls available in their constituency areas to the technical organisers of the education workshops. Discussions around venue choice will occur in the PEO meetings with the management committee (MANCO). He asked Members to remember one of the court rulings, which said Parliament cannot keep going to the same communities with different bills; it had to reach out to others.

The Committee previously decided to host public hearings in all nine provinces, and the PEO suggested the programme begin in KZN and then Gauteng, he said. If the Committee supports the PEO’s suggestion, the office will visit KZN to mobilise the communities in the ten districts identified for public hearings.

Regarding what the PEO considered sufficient public consultation, he said this would differ from bill to bill or from issue to issue. In a previous judgement, the Constitutional Court (CC) highlighted three factors to consider when determining whether a public participation process adopted by Parliament was reasonable. The CC went on to say that Parliament must determine what is a reasonable process to follow. That reasonable process must allow citizens to participate meaningfully – Parliament has determined that a five-week period would be reasonable enough for citizens to participate meaningfully.

The PEO previously distributed leaflets containing a summary of a bill's content and concluded public education ten days before public hearings began. This has been changed, and going forward, the PEO will only stop providing public education the day before the hearings begin.

In the same judgement, the CC said Parliament had to consider the legislation's importance to the public when carrying out the consultation process. In his opinion, the Marriage Bill had serious implications, which required extensive consultation throughout the country.

Referring to whether safe spaces would be created for women, he mentioned that in some instances, the PEO would work with groups representing women to mobilise the women in a particular community to attend public hearings. In its public education drive, the PEO will highlight the constitutional right for all who seek to attend the hearings to freely express their views and their right to participate in the affairs of Parliament. However, whether to exclude men from some of the discussions will be left up to the Committee.

Moreover, the Committee must decide how long the public consultation process will be in each province. If the Committee chooses to conduct public hearings in a select number of provinces, the PEO will still conduct public education programmes in the provinces where no hearings will be held. These programmes could be held in parliamentary constituency offices.

In response to why the PEO planned only to consult ANC-affiliated trade union groups, he clarified that all labour union federations in the country would be considered strategic partners in the public consultation process, where necessary.

On whether there is a limit to the number of people who can attend the public hearings, he said the size of the venue will determine the number of attendees at any hearing.

Regarding the concerns around the lack of preparation of POE officials at public hearings, he indicated there would be a content workshop for the PEO officials before the public participation process. During that workshop, a proposed summary of the Bill’s content will be drafted and then submitted to the PLS, who, after approving it, will submit it to the Committee for final approval. If the Committee approves it, the summary will be handed over to the Parliamentary Language Services, translating it into all twelve official languages. Then, they will be printed onto leaflets. This will ensure that even if a workshop is conducted in English, a citizen can read through the leaflet to understand the content of the Bill.

Touching on which community radio stations have been identified to reach communities in Gauteng and KZN, he stated that the PEO identified twenty community radio stations in KZN to raise awareness of the public hearings on the Marriage Bill to those communities. All radio programmes are scripted, and questions have been pre-set for the presenters. Once the Committee signs off the content of the programmes, the PEO will have Members appear on the community radio station once or twice before the public hearing. Ultimately, the entire public participation programme will belong to the Committee. The programme must be included in the Committee’s submission to the chair of chairs.

Usually, at the final public hearing, the PEO broadcasts live, which allows the community in the area to listen to the questions posed by attendees and the responses provided by Members.

Having noted the shortcomings of previous public participation processes, such as the inability of certain committees to produce evidence showing that they had conducted a public hearing in a said area, Parliament decided to establish a unit focused specifically on improving its engagement with the public, he said.

The Chairperson said the Committee appreciated the thrust of the framework as presented. The PEO is expected to meet with MANCO tomorrow to finalise the programme for the public hearings in the eight provinces identified, and the final report will be brought for endorsement in the Committee’s next scheduled meeting.

He was pleased that Members noticed that COSATU was the only union mentioned as a stakeholder in the presentation. This allowed them to correct this and invite all other unions that wanted to participate in the process.

Mr Mogale asked for a response to his question about the involvement of the Speakers’ offices in local municipalities in organising public hearings.

Mr Simons indicated that once the Committee signed off on the programme, the PEO would activate the DCF, with the district municipalities and GCIS playing a coordinating role. The PEO will also include the provincial legislatures’ public participation forums to ensure that the process is as inclusive as possible and that the Committee’s work is ultimately successful.

Draft Resolution on the PPFA

Ms Telana Halley-Starkey (Parliamentary Legal Advisor) took the Committee through the brief presentation.

Ms M Modise-Mpya (ANC) said the ANC noted the draft resolution on the PPFA and supported the proposal that it be taken for public engagement. However, before doing so, the Committee must go through the public participation programme properly.

She proposed that the Committee open the process for a limited time to allow written and oral submissions so that the matter can be wrapped up as soon as possible so that the House can hold its debate on the resolution.

Mr Mogale supported Ms Modise-Mpya’s proposal.

Mr Roos also supported Ms Modise-Mpya’s proposal. He repeated his long-standing request for the Committee to receive a full impact assessment report on the PPFA before initiating a comprehensive public participation process and reviewing the party's political funding regime.

Ms Khojane expressed support for Ms Modise-Mpya’s proposal.

Ms M Mtolo (ANC) also expressed support for the proposal.

Mr Ngubane sought clarity on whether the resolution would be taken to the House for debate or put to the public for comment. In addition, he asked for the full impact assessment report on the PPFA and an indication of the upper limit and threshold before the court judgement, as well as what the court, in its ruling, wanted Parliament to comply with.

Mr Tetyana also supported the proposal, however, the EFF felt that the threshold had to be increased from R100 000 to R1 million.

The Chairperson asked Mr Halley-Starkey not to make any proposals until after he provided a summary at the end.

Ms Muthambi aligned herself with Ms Modise-Mpya’s proposal.

The Chairperson said the Committee agreed to call for written submissions on the draft resolution for fourteen days, after which members of the public will be allowed to make oral submissions.

The Committee will only deliberate on the draft resolution after concluding the public participation process. Once it has done so, it will adopt the final report and table it in the House for debate. In addition, he said the Committee resolved to invite the Parliamentary Budgetary Office and the IEC to discuss issues related to party political funding.

Ms Halley-Starkey highlighted that the judgement summary had been circulated to Members.

The Chairperson confirmed that it had been, but he asked that it be shared again with Mr Ngubane.

After that, he asked the Committee secretary when the advert calling for the written submissions on the resolution would be released.

Mr Mathonsi indicated that the Committee will first have to get a quotation from a service provider, which takes some time before it can publish the advert. Members of the public will be given a minimum of three weeks to make a submission.

The Chairperson said this must be resolved between Manco and the support staff.

Committee Report on the remuneration of IEC Commissioners

The Chairperson said the report was shared with Members during last week’s meeting, and it was decided that the matter would be deferred for a week so that they could consult with their respective political parties. He invited Members to comment.

Mr Mogale reminded the Committee that the EFF had proposed for the item to be deferred pending the IEC’s presentation on the overview of the 2024 national and provincial elections, which will inform the Committee on whether to agree with the proposed salary increments or not. He felt that it would be wrong of the Committee to agree to the salary increments without knowing how well the IEC Commissioners performed in managing the elections.

Mr Roos expressed the DA’s support for the report and clarified that the draft notice proposed a below-inflation adjustment to keep the IEC Commissioners' salaries in line with the rising cost of living. He argued, the salaries of IEC Commissioners have decreased in real terms. Allowing a decrease in the IEC Commissioners’ salaries would make the roles, which require highly capable and specialised individuals, unattractive.

Mr Ngubane supported Mr Mogale’s proposal and registered the MKP’s dissenting view on the report. Unlike Mr Roos, he believed the Committee could not justify paying exorbitant salaries to the IEC Commissioners under the current economic climate. Furthermore, he felt there were enough unemployed graduates who could replace any IEC Commissioners on their current salaries.

As such, he registered the MKP’s dissenting view on the report. However, the MKP would be willing to change its stance if the report showed that the IEC Commissioners had performed well in the elections.

Ms Modise-Mpya felt that the Committee should not conflate the remuneration of officials working for Chapter Nine Institutions with the IEC’s yet-to-be-presented report on the elections.

She said the ANC was confident that the President, having been advised by the Commission, would have considered the current economic climate when recommending a salary increment for IEC Commissioners. Considering this, the ANC expressed its support for adopting the report.

She pleaded with Members not to conflate the IEC’s yet-to-be-presented report with the draft notice issued by the President. Increments made to the IEC Commissioners' salaries do not depend on their performance, as with Members of Parliament.

She added that members will be provided enough time to interrogate the IEC report in October.

Ms Khojane agreed with Ms Modise-Mpya’s plea that the remuneration of IEC Commissioners not be conflated with the findings of the IEC’s report and expressed support for its adoption.

Mr Tetyana shared Mr Mogale’s view that the Committee should not rush to finalise the report's adoption and could wait until after the IEC presented its elections report.

Ms Mtolo supported the report's adoption. She did not think it was a good idea for the Committee to delay the process because it awaited the IEC’s presentation.

Ms B Machi (IFP) supported adopting the report because she believed the IEC Commissioners worked hard enough to deserve an increment. She added that approving a salary increment for them was not the same as approving a bonus.

Ms Muthambi supported the report's adoption. She, too, believed that the Commissioners were entitled to what was due to them. If the Committee chose not to support the report's adoption, it would go against Section 219 of the Constitution.

Concerns were raised during the budget votes about the IEC's performance in conducting the elections. Agreeing to the proposed salary increments would not diminish the Committee’s responsibility to oversee the IEC, she added.

The Chairperson pointed out that it was not the first time the Committee was faced with adopting the draft notice to increase the salary increment of Commissioners just a few months after an election. It did so after the 2019 national and provincial elections and the 2021 local government elections. After the 2019 election, the Committee managed to deal with the IEC’s overview of the election report separately from the draft notice. Based on this, he urged Members to distinguish between the two matters and wait until October to assess the IEC’s performance in the elections.

Nonetheless, he noted that the majority of Members supported the adoption of the report. As such, the report was duly adopted, noting the EFF and MKP’s objections.

Mr Mogale took issue with the Chairperson’s argument and suggested that the Committee consider how much the political landscape has changed since the 2019 election. One difference is the significant criticism by certain political parties regarding the IEC’s performance in the recent election. Given this development, the Committee could not separate the remuneration issue from the Commissioners' performance.

The EFF, he continued, maintained its view that the Committee should have received the IEC’s report before deliberating and subsequently adopting its draft report on the salary increments of the Commissioners. 

Mr Salmon noted the objections and said they would be added to the report to be sent to the House.

The Chairperson asked if the DM was still in the meeting.                          

Deputy Minister Nzuza confirmed that he was.

The Chairperson said Mr Ngubane could pose his issue to the DM after the Committee had considered and adopted its draft minutes for the previous meeting.

Report: ATC240910: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on the draft notice determining the remuneration of Commissioners of the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 financial years, dated 10 September 2024

Minutes for the meeting held on 3 September 2024

Mr Mathonsi took Members through the minutes.

The Chairperson said the Committee would write to the Speaker to highlight its progress on the draft resolution for the National Assembly.

In its last meeting, the Committee decided to refer Ms Fatima Chohan's resignation letter to the Electoral Reform Consultation Panel.

Mr Roos added that the Committee asked the secretary to circulate the report (he did not state which report he was referring to) he received in the previous meeting.

The Chairperson noted the observation and requested a mover adopt the minutes.

Mr Roos moved to adopt the minutes.

Mr Ngubane seconded the mover.

The minutes were duly adopted.

The Chairperson mentioned that Mr Ngubane had an issue with the DM regarding an event that transpired during his constituency work the previous day.

Mr Ngubane pointed out that Mondays are set aside for Members of Parliament to conduct their constituency work. Members can decide to conduct announced and unannounced visits at the department and entities reporting to the portfolio committees. This past Monday, he conducted an unannounced oversight visit at the Government Printing Works (GPW). Upon arrival at the head offices, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the GPW informed him that she would have first to call the Minister to find out whether he could conduct the visit.

After hearing this from the CEO, he told her that Section 55 (2) of the Constitution empowered Members to conduct oversight at government entities. Nonetheless, she called the Minister, who informed her that the Member (Mr Ngubane) could not conduct an unannounced visit at the GPW as it is a national key point. 

Given this situation, he wanted the Ministry to highlight where such a provision exists in the Constitution or the legislation. To him, it seemed that the Minister was trying to hide something. What worried him the most was that the GPW has faced several scandals over the years, with the evergreen contracts being the most notable.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Ngubane for alerting the Committee to this development. While he noted the seriousness of the matter, he asked that the Committee be given until its next meeting to analyse the parliamentary framework on how Members are to conduct their oversight duties before making further comments.

The Committee planned to conduct oversight over the GPW soon to investigate matters such as the evergreen contracts and the new backup systems implemented to store data. He said details around the oversight visit will be discussed in next week’s meeting.

Deputy Minister Nzuza agreed with the Chairperson’s proposed approach. He asked Members to note the difference between their own constituency work and the Committee’s oversight responsibilities.

He assured Members that the department’s offices would be open for the Committee to conduct its oversight.

Mr Ngubane noted the comments and asked the minister to respond to his question at next week’s meeting.

The Chairperson thanked Members for the discussion.

The meeting was adjourned.