Norwegian delegation: visit

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
1 MARCH 2007
NORWEGIAN DELEGATION: VISIT

Chairperson: Mr L Mokoena (ANC, Limpopo)

Documents handed out:
The Storting’s Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs 2005-2009

SUMMARY
A delegation from the Norwegian Storting met with the Committee to discuss its work, as part of a study tour being undertaken by that delegation to South Africa and Uganda. The Chairperson briefly outlined the structure of Parliament and the work of the Committee. Questions from the Norwegian delegation related to the work of the Committee, its cluster work, and the legislative amendment procedure. The Norwegian delegation outlined the work of its Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and outlined the procedure for amending the Constitution, which did not often happen. They asked if a Minister had been reprimanded, whether the Committee influenced the budget, whether the Committee was briefed on secret service issues, and the stance on terrorism. It concluded that South Africa was correct in seeking reconciliation instead of revenge and that checks and balances were important in black economic empowerment issues. 

MINUTES
The Chairperson cordially welcomed the Norwegian Delegation and gave an introduction on the structure of Parliament, describing the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). He mentioned that the two houses received mandates from their provinces in everything they undertook to pursue. He then opened the floor to the Norwegian Delegation.

Mr L Solholm (Chairman, Norwegian Delegation) asked what the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs dealt with.

The Chairperson replied that there were 54 members in the NCOP. This resulted in clustered committees so that there could be an oversight of all the departments. He stated that this Committee played an oversight role for five departments, comprising the Departments of Defence, Social Security, Justice, Correctional Services and Intelligence. He mentioned that the oversight role in intelligence was small. No Bills could not be sanctioned by Parliament before they had been discussed and approved by the Committee.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee was leaving for the Province of KwaZulu Natal on Sunday so that it could follow up on those departments falling under the Committee’s oversight. He gave the example that the Committee would monitor the magistrate’s courts so that they did not have a backlog of cases. He also explained that they monitored the prosecutors to be assured that the prosecutors were well trained. He praised the police in Cape Town for fulfilling their duties effectively.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) emphasized that Select Committee was so named because it dealt in clusters with matters. This one dealt with matters in security, justice and many other departments that fell under that cluster.

The Chairperson remarked that the main aim of the Department of Correctional Services was to ensure that all those arrested would be rehabilitated rather than to be punished.

The Chairperson also stated that there were numerous troops that had been sent to monitor The Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. Therefore it was the duty of the Committee to ensure that the army personnel received counselling in those respective countries and that they were well looked after.

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC, Kwazulu Natal) stated that the Committee’s overriding function was one of peace and stability.

Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) remarked that the Committee checked that the budgets were utilised properly by ensuring that the money was spent correctly.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC, Mpumalanga) stated that the various departments were accountable to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was a multiparty one. It derived its powers from the Constitution, which gave the Committee the power to summon anyone to appear before the Committee in order to give clarity on any issues.

Mr Solholm asked how South Africa dealt with changes to legislation, including to the Constitution.

The Chairperson responded that in most cases legislation started with the National Assembly before it came to the NCOP. He stated that Parliament would ensure the constitutional correctness of any legislation by consulting with constitutional lawyers or experts. The Committee members would take the Bill to their various constituencies so that the communities could give their input on the purposes and clauses of the Bill. .

The Chairperson distinguished between Section 75 and 76 Bills. The Section 76 Bills had to go to the Provinces for approval, while the Section 75 Bills were national competencies that did not need to go to the Provinces.

Mr C Hagen, Vice President, Storting, Norwegian Delegation stated that the Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs Committee in Norway controlled governmental affairs. He remarked that in terms of constitutional affairs, the amendments had to be proposed by a member within one of the electoral periods. This was a special procedure that required a two-thirds majority. He stated that the Constitution could not be changed easily.

Mr Hagen further stated that this Committee could ask a Minister to appear for a public hearing in order to obtain clarity on certain issues. Furthermore reports from the Auditor General were submitted to this Committee. The Public Protector also submitted one yearly report. The Committee was responsible for the Secret Service. Any members of the public who had reason to believe that they were under surveillance or were subjected to telephone tapping complained to the Committee.

Mr P Foss, The Conservative Party, Norwegian Delegation stated that the Storting was quite conservative about changing the Constitution. For example, the Constitution retained the wording that the King was responsible for selecting the Cabinet although in practice this was no longer the case.

Mr Foss asked if there were any examples of a Minister having been reprimanded by the Committee for lack of initiative.

Mr Mzizi replied that the Committee had not encountered serious repercussions that compelled it to reprimand a Minister. The Committee’s oversight function did mean that the Committee noted any shortcomings and asked the Ministers for their responses.

Mr Mack added that his duty was to ensure that in a hearing there would be adequate questions asked of the people appearing before the Committee.

Ms Nyanda stated that when Members received complaints in the different Constituencies they would write to the Minister, who could then address public hearings.

Mr Hagen asked whether any Committee was responsible for scrutinizing Parliament.

Mr Mzizi replied that the Committees served in different clusters and that all the Select Committees dealt with their respective departments.

Ms M Meltveit, Centre Party, Norwegian Delegation asked whether the Committee was able to influence the budget in any manner.

Mr Mzizi replied that the Select Committee on Finance was responsible for the budget.

Mr Ntuli added that the budgeting started at the local levels through the Integrated Development Programmes, and community needs would be channeled through the municipal councilors to the various Ministries.

The Chairperson added that this year the Committees had held debates on the issue of influencing the budget, because Parliament could not change the money Bills. He added that budget briefings were held, when the Minister of Finance obtained feedback from the different departments on how much they required.

Mr Hagen asked whether the Committee was briefed on any secret service issues.

The Chairperson responded that he could not give too much detail on that as this issue would be discussed in the intelligence Committee discussions which the Norwegian Delegation would attend that afternoon.

Mr Hagen asked what the South African position was as regards terrorism.

The Chairperson replied that there was an Anti -Terrorism Act and that terrorism was strongly condemned.

Mr Ntuli asked what the rate of unemployment was in Norway.

Mr I Ryan, First Deputy Chairperson, Norwegian Delegation replied that unemployment was below 3%.

Mr Mack asked what the Norwegian Delegation thought of South Africa as a country with a young democracy.

Mr Hagen replied that he thought South Africa was headed in the right direction since it sought reconciliation instead of revenge. He stated that he understood the reasons behind black economic empowerment and hoped that there would be checks and balances.

The meeting was adjourned.