Socio-Economic Development: Audit Report on Legislation and International Instruments; planning for public hearings

Mr Njikelana suggested that stakeholders who were unable to attend the public hearings should be able to make written submissions. For example, an ICT research group at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) should be allowed to make a written submission even though the programme for the public hearings was full.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would invite the ICT research group from Wits to the public hearings in order to make the hearings as representative as possible. Stakeholders who made late submissions or were invited late would be scheduled to make their presentations on the final day of the hearings.

Mr Njikelana noted that if the submissions process had started earlier, the Committee would have been ‘flooded’ with submissions. The Chairperson added that many organisations had expressed an interest in observing the public hearings.

Ms Manjezi stated that the cost for the Committee to use the Parktonian Hotel in Braamfontein, Gauteng for the public hearings was R32 700 for three days. She would check whether the office of the Secretary to Parliament had approved this budget.

The Chairperson expressed concern about the budget for the public hearings. The Committee was originally asked to conduct public hearings at the Gauteng Legislature; however, the cost of transport to this venue was prohibitive.

Mr Njikelana queried whether the budget for the APRM had been approved. The Chairperson answered that the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for the APRM had not yet adopted the proposed joint budget of R5.5 million. The joint budget was supposed to be consolidated from the budgets of the participating committees. When the Committee proposed its budget, the other committees had not yet done so.

Mr Njikelana asked how the money budgeted for the APRM would be spent.

The Chairperson replied that the budget had not been finalised. The original budget for the APRM was R9 million, but this had decreased to R5.5 million. Committee costs were high, and the bulk of the Committee’s budget would be allocated to advertising and the public hearings. The Committee’s programme had been adopted, and the programme had financial implications. The Secretary of Parliament would approve the Committee’s budget that day.

Mr Njikelana noted that the Committee was appointed by the Speaker of Parliament rather than the Secretary of Parliament, and therefore the Speaker should make the final decision on the Committee’s budget.

Ms Manjezi commented that the Speaker instructed the Committee to make concessions for stakeholders who were unable to make written submissions.

Mr Njikelana felt enthusiastic about allowing oral submissions, but said that the Committee should interrogate how the Speaker’s directive ‘would translate into resource allocation’.

Final Audit Reports on Socio-Economic Development
Mr Z Mvulane, Committee Researcher, presented to the Committee the Final Audit Report on Socio-Economic International Instruments and the Final Audit Report on Socio-Economic Legislation passed since 1994. The Committee had engaged with the audit reports in previous meetings. The Final Audit Report on Socio-Economic International Instruments highlighted those instruments (such as the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child) that were listed as standards and codes in the APRM questionnaire. The Final Audit Report on Socio-Economic Legislation passed since 1994 included a summary of each relevant piece of legislation.

Mr Njikelana observed that the African Union (AU) was referred to in the Final Audit Report on Socio-Economic International Instruments, and noted that South Africa was also part of other international ‘platforms’ such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). He enquired whether the Committee would evaluate South Africa’s compliance with resolutions taken in these forums, and whether the Committee would focus only on international conventions and protocols, or if it would also look at resolutions taken at the IPU.

Mr Mvulane said that he would investigate the regional institutional agreements that South Africa was party to. Other committees on governance were also evaluating South Africa’s compliance with regional agreements.

Mr Njikelana suggested that the Committee test the Socio-Economic Legislation passed since 1994 against the International Instruments to determine whether international legislation was fulfilled in Acts of Parliament.

The Chairperson responded that, as part of the APRM, the Committee would evaluate South Africa’s compliance with international resolutions to which it had subscribed. However, the Committee would not test Socio-Economic Legislation against the International Instruments as it would assume that South Africa’s legal framework responded to international legislation.

The Chairperson added that the Committee would determine its function within the APRM through a process of ‘trial and error’. Of the countries reviewed by the APRM, South Africa was the first to involve Parliament in the process, and other countries would learn from the process followed by South Africa.

The meeting was adjourned.