Committee Legacy Report; Induction; Provinical Legislature Petitions Committee

Meeting report

The Chairperson officially welcomed the Members and everyone present in the meeting and proposed the agenda be agreed to.

On item two, which is apologies, he apologised on behalf of the team from the Gauteng Provincial Legislature who could not make it. Apologies were also submitted for Mr N Gotsell (DA, Western Cape) who sent a message and indicated that he would join the meeting later. He allowed Members who would like to make apologies to do so.

Adv IM Nonkonyana (ANC, Eastern Cape) requested to be released before 13:00 PM as he had an emergency.                                                               

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee start with its internal meeting first, then have a session with the invited stakeholders, which are the delegates from the Northern Cape Provincial Legislature.

The agenda was adopted.

Sixth Parliament Legacy Report

Mr Xolani Simelane, Committee Content Advisor, took Members through the report by first noting that the legacy report will speak to the activities that took place within the Petitions Committee between 2019- 2024. It will highlight the commitment of the Committee and Parliament and address issues of accountability, citizen engagement and effective governance. He noted that besides petitions, the Committee was also mandated to deal with executive undertakings which exercise overall oversight; this is therefore a committee that has a dual mandate.

The Petitions Committee is mandated by Rule 149 (1) to address petitions. This Select Committee only deals with petitions that are referred to them. The referred petitions are first handled by the table staff in the NCOP. They receive the petitions, conduct an assessment and make a referral to the Committee guided by Rules 229 and 236 of the NCOP Rules. The Select Committee on Public Petitions does not oversee a specific department. 

Public Petitions Committee: Challenges During the Sixth Administration

Mr Simelane said that the Sixth Administration started with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore Parliament had to make some operational changes. It was decided that priority would be given to certain committees and therefore other committees would be put on hold. As a result, the Petitions Committee was one of the committees that did not have functionalities, as it was not a priority committee, resulting in its work being behind. Most of the duties mandated to the Committee were put on hold, including an international study tour, due to limitations to international travel.

He said that due to the effects of the pandemic, there were limitations in terms of the meetings that were supposed to be held by the Committee, as well as limitations on oversight.

He said that even with the restrictions in place, their office did get petitions from various provinces for various issues. He said all the petitions received during that period are listed in the Legacy Report with timeframes – see more here.

In terms of executive undertakings, he noted that there is a list of all the undertakings in the Legacy Report that were referred to their office, along with timeframes and solutions. Regarding progress, he mentioned that their office waits for progress reports from ministerial committees.

Issues that are still in the Pipeline: 6th Administration

He said there was a plan to introduce a National Petitions Bill. The aim was to strengthen the public petitions cooperation with provincial and local governments. He noted that they had plans to improve or bolster public participation because they got the sense that whilst they were an important committee, they were not a known committee. They had a plan to increase public engagement.

Given that it is a new administration, it is important to embark on a study tour just to see how other parliaments deal with petitions. He noted that they have thought about the prospect of putting a request for a Public Petitions office to be established.

Issues that Arose from the 6th Administration

Mr Simelani reported that they have incurred a backlog of petitions due to the pandemic. There were also delays in the proper oversight of executive undertakings. He noted that they also have to deal with issues of stakeholders not pitching up, which speaks to a lack of proper instruments to force stakeholders summoned to appear before Parliament. There were also issues of arbitrary changes to the NCOP parliamentary programme, such as cancellations of committee meetings. He said before he wraps up his presentation, he would like to appeal to the Committee to help fast-track the issue of capacitating the team with more researchers as they are short-staffed.

Referrals: Executive Undertakings

Another Committee staff member, who is responsible for the referrals of Executive Undertakings, first started off by explaining what Executive Undertakings are and how they are processed in terms of guidelines contained in the rules. He noted that an executive undertaking means any assurances, commitments, resolutions, pledges or promises that are given or made by a member of the executive from time to time. He said such executive undertakings may be made or given during oral question time, debates, debates on bills or any other proceedings of the House.

He explained to the Committee that they use a standard list of expressions to serve as a guide to determine what constitutes an executive undertaking, but the list is not exhaustive. As such, other remarks or expressions may be treated as assurances based on the content of such remarks or expressions. He noted that the standard list of expressions, amongst other things, has the following expressions as stipulated in Annexure C of the NCOP Rules book:

“The matter is under consideration”.

“I shall look into it”

“Enquiries are being made”

“I shall inform the Honourable Member”

“This is primarily the concern of the Department”

Observations Made from the 6th Administration;

During the 6th Administration, regarding the processing of the Executive Undertakings, the Committee hardly undertook an oversight visit to check the reality on the ground. Most of the time, they rely on the information given by the Ministers without verifying to check whether there is implementation or not. He also noted that the Committee did not do quarterly follow-ups with the NCOP on ongoing undertakings.

Proposed Solutions in terms of referrals: Executive Undertakings

It was proposed that the Committee should carefully scrutinise the reports provided by Ministers to make a proper determination whether the undertaking was implemented or not. He made a request that the Committee must prioritise oversight visits to check the implementation of undertakings. The Committee must also provide progress reports until the undertaking is completely implemented as required by the guidelines.

See attached for full presentation

Petitions Process in the NCOP

A staff member from the Public Petitions office started off the presentation by explaining to the Committee what the mandate of the office is. He noted that in terms of Section 69 (d) Rule 5 of the NCOP rules, the petitions office is required to receive petitions and submissions from interested persons and institutions.

He noted that in terms of the rules, a petition is required to be submitted to the Chairperson of the NCOP, and it must be in one of the official languages and should also be signed. He said that it must be within the authority of the NCOP, and that is determined by the use of Section 42 (4) of the Constitution - the role of the NCOP is stated there and what it stands for, and that is how the office is able to locate the responsibility of the NCOP within the framework of petition submissions.

He further noted that there is a difference between petitions that fall under the ambit of the Chapter 9 institutions and those that fall under NCOP, and that does not mean that they reject those that belong to Chapter 9s. Instead, they check whether it is an issue that the Committee can consider. If not, they send the petition or submission to an institution within Parliament called the Office of Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD). OISD falls under the National Assembly and is responsible specifically for issues arising within the different Chapter 9 institutions.

Petitions That Cannot Be Accepted

• Are matters that are under the court of law.
• One that seeks to overturn a court order.
• If it is defamatory or causes harm.
• If it has previously been considered by the Committee or is being considered by another institution.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms J Mananiso (ANC, Gauteng),started by acknowledging how professional the presentations were. She noted that she appreciated the fact that they were simplified. In her first comments, she indicated that in terms of the report they got, she does not think there is a political appetite to make the Public Petitions Committee a formal structure, just like other committees. She suggested that the guidelines for the petitions and undertakings must be included in the NCOP rules. She emphasised that public education is one of the key issues that needs to be conducted to enable access to information to the public. She asked what the relationship is between the public petitions committee and the public participation unit. She suggested that this Committee could also adopt the same model as the one the Public Participation unit uses in civic education, to raise awareness about the importance of petitions to the public. She asked the Public Petitions team about the volume of petitions they receive either in a month or a day.

Mr M Billy (DA, KZN) said he wanted to touch on a few points, the first being the Committee of Public Petitions not being known. He noted that it is incredibly unfortunate that, with its important mandate, this structure is not being formalised and known to the public. He requested that there must be swift strategies put in place to make this Public Petitions Committee known. He noted that there is quite a voluminous amount of work that needs to be done around Public Petitions, and therefore wanted to find out if the Committee was fully capacitated in terms of personnel and researchers. He enquired about the issue of compliance in terms of petitions, and the stakeholders not pitching up and the undertakings not being complied with. He went further to say that for the Committee to be taken seriously, its Members need to find a way to ensure that the decisions and expectations are being seen through, whether it is through legislation. He asked whether the team is looking into introducing e-petitions, as they are currently a big thing at the moment. He suggested that e-petitions would help South Africa move away from paper and escalate the rate of submissions and processing. He welcomed the idea of study tours, but suggests that it should not be just about study tours, but rather to look into how other countries use them effectively. Asking about the state of petitions, he noted that petitions usually close at the end of each Parliament and that they cannot be reopened at the start of another Parliament. He asked if the petitions were currently closed or not.

Ms D Medupe (ANC, North West) asked if the Executive Undertakings only involve the Ministers who appear before the Public Petitions Committee or also the MECs who report to the NCOP from the different provinces.

Adv Nonkonyana put forward a request to the Petitions office to release the status of petitions that are still outstanding.

Mr V Gericke (EFF, Western Cape) said that it is disappointing that with all the resources that the state has, Public Petitions is not known to the entire public as an office that exists within Parliament. He asked what authority the Committee has after the petition has passed to all the administrative processes. Adding to the issue of authority, he said that the Committee cannot just serve as the referral committee - there must be some kind of authority to put people’s problems to rest. Lastly, he suggested that the team must work on a strategy to roll out civic education to the public about Public Petitions and their processes.

Mr P Phala (ANC, Limpopo) asked the staff to explain the processing of petitions in all the spheres of government. How do petitions start and end? He asked under which department Public Petitions belong.

Mr P Noe (ANC, Free State) asked the Public Petitions officials about the process they use to conduct oversight to make sure that all the petitions that have been submitted were attended to. After the petition has been finalised, what happens as far as the findings are concerned?

Dr N Mcinga (EFF, Eastern Cape) requested for the Committee to strategise on roadshows or civic education outreaches that will teach the public about the Public Petitions office and how it can benefit them. To the Executive Undertakings team, she asked what mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability and timely follow-ups on commitments made by the executive. Are there specific measures in place to address delays in the implementation of undertakings that impact public service delivery? Regarding petitions, how effective are the petition’s systems in addressing the concerns of the public? What improvements can be made to streamline the referral process and ensure that petitioners receive timely responses, especially for issues that affect vulnerable communities?

Responses

Mr Simelane responded to the Committee Members and said that as the office of Public Petitions, they do not have any department to whom they report issues to. They deal with submissions as they arise and solve them independently. He noted that they determine the relevant stakeholders as soon as the petition gets to their office, no matter how minimal their role.

He noted that on the issue of support in the committee, they are in need of more members in their team. He said that on the issue of the public petitions office and the public participation unit, they have for a long time recognised that office as their partner, more especially on the issue of publicising the work the public petitions committee does.

He noted that with regards to study tours, maybe their office would have to conduct a comparative study first before embarking on the study tours to identify the methods used by other countries when dealing with public petitions.

Another staff member responded to the issue of the guidelines being incorporated into the rules, noting that they are already incorporated into the NCOP handbook. He noted that the rules were adopted in 2021.

He said that on the issue of compliance, when Ministers are called to the Committee, they send junior staff to respond on serious matters which is not right. In terms of reporting, the Committee should reflect that in its report and bring it to the attention of the Chairperson to deal with it.

On the issue of an oversight visit, he noted that in terms of the rules, the Committee has the capacity to determine its mechanisms in terms of dealing with these issues. The guiding mechanism on this point is that the Committee would have to make its own determination in terms of the information that the Minister would have given at the site visit.

Another staff member responded to the question that was raised regarding the authority of the House to deal with the issues that have been referred to. The House has the power, as guided by Section 69, which says that Parliament has the right to summon whoever they want to come and present required information. In terms of the oversight responsibility, there are tools that Members can use to make sure that they hold the executive accountable.

He said that on the issue of a digital petition system, there is a process currently underway in Parliament led by the Secretary of Parliament, in which we were asked to give input regarding the administrative side. He said that the construction of the Digital Petitions website is with the IT people.

Regarding the office of executive undertakings and its relationship with different provincial legislatures, the provinces understand the role of the NCOP. For instance, if there is a national competency issue, they write to the NCOP indicating that they need the NCOP to attend to the matter since the Ministers are not accountable to the provinces. He noted that the office of Executive Undertakings does not have a strengthened relationship with local government and maybe that is an issue that will have to be dealt with by the Committee.

On the issue of the effectiveness of petitions, he noted that even though there is still a lot of work that still needs to be done, petitions remain a very key important tool used by society to hold government officials accountable.

Briefing by the Northern Cape Provincial Legislature Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Petitions and Public Participation

The Petitions Officer in the Northern Cape Provincial Legislature took Members through the presentation. He first stated that petitions ensure service delivery duties are fulfilled and taxpayers' money is spent wisely. He said petitioning is the most essential part of public participation because it is the most essential part of ensuring people’s views and needs are heard, instead of service delivery protests or burning and destroying government buildings or service delivery points.

He noted that people may petition the Provincial Legislature on any matter for which the local, provincial or national government is responsible for.

Scope of the Petitions Act: Sections 56 (d) and 69 (d) of the Constitution

Speaking on the legislative framework that governs petitions, he said that petitions may address any matter within the legislative authority of the province, within the executive authority of the province assigned to a Member of the Executive Council or any matter relating to the provincial supervision of local government.

He said that there are certain requirements for petitions to be lodged, and those are whether the petition falls within the scope of jurisdiction; not concern a matter pending in a court of law or other tribunal or forum; not be in connection with the conviction and sentencing by a criminal court of law of a convicted

person; not deal with a matter that has already been before a committee.

Different Types of Petitions

He noted that petitions come in categories and those categories are;

• Single petition - single petitioner, association petition -single petitioner mandated by an association or organisation.
• Collective petition - collection of signatures from a number of petitioners.
• Mass or group petition -submissions from a number of petitioners dealing with single or same or substantially similar complaints or requests. He noted that the NC Provincial Legislature currently has 34 petitions submitted to their committee.

Who may submit a petition?

He explained that petitions may be submitted by a person acting either in his or her own interest; in the interest of another person who is not in a position to submit a petition in his or her own petition. They can also be submitted in the name or capacity; as a member of or in the interest of a group or class of persons; and in the public interest.

The Role of the Petitions Office

Receipt of a Petition

In writing, inform the chairperson of the receipt of the petition.

Acknowledge petition.

Determine whether the petition meets the scope of the Act and advise the petitioner.

If it does, register the petition and provide registration number

Timeframe: within seven working days.

He noted that the structure of the petitions committee in the NC Legislature is composed of both political and administrative support staff. In terms of accountability structures, he noted that the Committee reports to the Legislature or House through quarterly and annual reports. It also holds external petition hearings open to all people of the Northern Cape.

See attached for full presentation

Discussions

Dr Mcinga asked if specific measures were put in place to address the problems submitted to the Provincial Legislature that deal with service delivery issues, dilapidated infrastructure and poor roads. How will the Legislature ensure that these long standing problems are solved?

Mr Phala asked the NC Legislatures if they knew whether other provinces have a committee similar to the one the NC Provincial Legislature has and whether they have provincial engagements as the Provincial Legislatures. He pointed out that during the presentation, it was noted that they have 34 petitions on their current track record; he asked how many of those have been passed.

Ms Medupi asked if the mention of 34 petitions was for the entire financial year. On that point, she wanted to establish the number of petitions received versus the protests that have been experienced by the Northern Cape. How many service delivery-related problems have been resolved out of the 34?

Mr Noe noted that the previous presentations made mention of closed petitions, such as the CPAs one. He asked if the finality of that petition was to the effect that that legislature does not have authority to intervene in National Departments – is that where the matter ended? Or is the matter escalated to the relevant authorities in those instances.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their questions and asked the NC Provincial Legislature’s, Mr Lebogang Motlhaping, to assist the Committee with responses from his team of delegates.

Responses

Mr Lucky Sedisho, Researcher, NC Provincial Legislature, responded to the question of the 34 Petitions dealt with by the committee versus the petitions referred to the legislature and said that the 34 that were referred to in the presentation is the total number of petitions that were successfully finalised and closed by the Committee. All those finalised petitions were for the period of five years.

He said that concerning the relationship question with other provincial legislatures, the NC Provincial Legislature only has a relationship with just the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, because they share a similar scope when it comes to the public petitions process and framework.

He said they have introduced a process of rolling out community outreaches and raising awareness among the public about the importance of public petitions.

He stated that regarding non-compliance, they refer the petitions to the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) if the other departments fail to respond to them instantly.

Mr Thabo Jantjies, Committee Coordinator, NC Legislature, responded and said that in the event that they cannot process the CPAs, they are mandated to assess the petition and look for the relevant department and elevate it properly.

The Chairperson thanked everyone and said that the Committee is planning to reach out to all the provincial legislatures across the country and continue with the engagements.

The meeting was adjourned.