Deliberations
NCOP Rules of the National Council of Provinces
14 June 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES RULES COMMITTEEDELIBERATIONS
14 JUNE
2006
These
minutes were provided by the National Council of Provinces Table Staff
PRESENT
Mahlangu, Mr
M J (Chairperson of the NCOP)
Hollander,
Ms P M (Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP)
Doidge,
Mr G (House
Chairperson: NA)
Goeieman, Mr
C M (
Kolweni, Mr
Z S (
Mack, Mr
N J (
Mokoena, Kgoshi
M L (Chairperson: Subcommittee on Review of
Rules)
Mzizi,
Mr M A (IFP)
Nyanda,
Ms F (
Ntuli,
Mr Z C (
Oliphant,
Mrs M N (House Chairperson: NCOP)
Terblanche ,
Ms J F (Democratic
Vilikazi, Ms J N (IFP)
Van Rooyen,
Mr C J (
Watson, Mr A (Democratic
APOLOGIES: Mr V V Z Windvoël (Chief Whip of the NCOP), Ms B
IN ATTENDANCE: STAFF: Adv. B V L Momoti, Mr S Makhasi, Mr B Nonyane, Ms J A Borien,
Adv A Gordon, Mr M Tyumre, Mr M Nguqu, Mr M Tshaiviti.
1. OPENING
The Chairperson of the NCOP, Mr M J
Mahlangu, opened the meeting and welcomed all to the meeting.
2. APOLOGIES
As stated above under apologies.
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda was adopted without
additions.
4.
REPORT BY THE TASK TEAM ON OVERSIGHT ON PROGRESS REGARDING
THE OVERSIGHT MODEL
The
Chairperson reminded members that it was agreed in the previous meeting that
the Rules Committee would receive a report from the Task Team on Oversight on
the progress with regard to the Oversight Model.
Mr Setona, the NCOP House
Chairperson: Oversight and Institutional Support, reported that in 1998 the
Speaker and Chairperson of the NCOP commissioned a report on how Parliament could
comply with its constitutional mandate of exercising oversight over the
executive. Prof. Hugh Corder and other members of the academia were tasked to
compile a report. A Joint Ad Hoc Subcommittee was subsequently established
which interrogated the report and proposed that the recommendations in the
report be implemented. The JRC then established a Joint Task Team which would
advise the JRC on how to take the recommendations forward. The Task Team was
appointed in 2005, headed jointly by Mr Nhleko and Mr Setona. Mr Setona said
that the report of the Task Team was now in its final draft and would be
presented to the JRC at a meeting which would be taking place during the coming
week. Mr Setona added that it would be at the discretion of the JRC to adopt the
report or to refer it back to the Task Team. He stated that it was important
for the NCOP Rules Committee to look at the implications of the report on the
NCOP and arrive at recommendations which could enrich the report. Also, to
ensure that the NCOP prepare its position around specific matters in the
report.
Mr Setona then introduced Mr Bailey,
a research consultant that had been working with the Task Team, to continue the
presentation on the progress with regard to the Oversight Model.
Mr Bailey tendered apologies for the
Deputy Secretary to Parliament and Mr George Kunnath (Head of Projects Office
and Sponsor of the project).
Mr Bailey reminded members that the
Task Team consisted of the three specific Focus Groups which were looking at
the specific areas of oversight. The Focus Group on Projects was mandated to
look at the position of Chapter 9 institutions and their oversight role vis a
vis that of Parliament, the Focus Group on Committees was mandated to look at
best practices for committees and was in the process of developing a best
practice guide; and the Focus Group on Budget Processes was tasked with looking
at section 77(3) of Constitution which provides that an Act of Parliament must
provide for a procedure to amend money Bills before Parliament. He said that
the Focus Group would be presenting a draft Bill at the next JRC meeting.
Mr Bailey provided an overview of
the objectives of the Oversight Model. He said that the model combines existing
and new best practice into a simple framework. He said that the framework
itself was greatly debated in the various Focus Groups and that the framework
aimed to provide a process by which Parliament would be able to engage in
oversight in the long term. He reminded members that the Corder Report as well
as the Joint Subcommittee’s report emphasised that government action could not
be seen as something that fits into one calendar year, especially when it
related to outcomes. He said that when exercising oversight Parliament would
need to have a longer-term approach to oversight and the Task Team also tried
to address that concern in the model. He stated that the model also provides a
tool for better management of committees’ workloads, resources and planning.
He referred to the documents that
were distributed to the members and said that the constitutional principles and
values, the constitutional mandate focusing on the separation of powers, the
joint mandate of the two Houses and the separate mandates of the National
Assembly and NCOP were used as basis. The model also looked at executive
accountability and a specific protocol that could be instituted to govern
executive accountability and elements of cooperative government. He said that
the Task Team was also cognisant of Parliament’s mission and values and the
implications of the notion of a People’s Parliament for the oversight function.
The above –mentioned elements were
plotted against the core functions of Parliament as contained in Parliament’s
Strategy namely the lawmaking function, oversight over executive action, the
importance of public participation, the constitutional imperative of
cooperative government and international participation.
The Task Team looked at those core
functions in relation to the people centred approach to oversight and accountability.
He said that when the Task Team designed the oversight model, it was of the
view that it would be important to start with the people who express their
needs through electing the representatives in the national, provincial and
local spheres of government. He said that the role of the NCOP in oversight was
quite unique and SALGA who was representing organised local government in the
NCOP had also been taken into account.
He stated that the constitution
makes clear reference as to who conducts oversight over the different spheres
of government. However, although the constitution does not refer specifically
to the NCOP having an oversight role, it was clear in what was expected from
the NCOP, in that it should provide forum for consideration of provincial
issues at national level, that the NCOP had an oversight role. He added that
when integrating these elements, the Task Team looked at the values, mechanism,
process and resources that would be required to conduct oversight.
In terms of the values, the Task
Team looked specifically at the Strategic Plan of Parliament and the values
expounded therein namely constitutionality, people centredness, cooperative
government and good governance. In essence, the mechanism identified puts all
the elements namely the values, Parliament’s oversight objectives and executive
action together and on a conceptual level this was identified as Parliament’s
oversight cycle. This again was put against the MTEF process and on the one
level there was executive action and on the other Parliament’s oversight
objectives which are received by Parliament via input from the people through
activities such as the Peoples’ Assembly, Taking Parliament to the People,
committee hearings etc. In terms of executive action, the planning processes,
strategic plans of departments, the President’s speech, government fiscal
review and various fiscal documents are taken into account. The planning
element is then followed by the budgetary element of executive action. Mr
Bailey said that the oversight cycle therefore expresses a desire to include a
long-term perspective which would include a multi-year process.
Mr Bailey stated that there had been
a lot of debate regarding the mechanism to be used. He said that the Task Team
would be presenting three proposals to the JRC.
He reminded members that at the
previous JRC meeting the Task Team proposed, when dealing with oversight on a
parliamentary level, that an integrated oversight committee (IPOC) be created
with a mandate to coordinate transversal oversight issues that cut across
government portfolios and spheres of government and suggested that these
transversal elements would on a cluster level be put together in forms of
different themes and that the consolidated parliamentary priority oversight
report would be submitted to the Presiding Officers.
The Presiding Officers would have
the responsibility to reveal the parliamentary oversight priorities report and
refer it to the various Houses for adoption. It would then be publicly launched
and at committee level, it would flow back to the development of business
plans, budgeting, required resources, annual programmes and oversight would be
conducted in terms of the report and the best practice guide alluded to
earlier. The next level would require reports to be tabled in the Houses and
referred to ministers and the Leader of Government Business. A specific
protocol would also track executive compliance. In terms of this option, the
creation of an additional committee, a super committee was negatively received.
The Chairpersons of Committees in the Task Team was of the opinion that it
would take away the ability of committees to operate independently.
The alternative proposal is that an
integrated parliamentary oversight committee consisting of the House
Chairpersons be created. The House Chairpersons would be responsible for
identifying transversal oversight issues, the development of a joint
parliamentary oversight report and conferral with the JRC. The JRC would review
the report and the adopted report would flow into the programming committees.
Where there are transversal issues to be dealt with jointly, existing ad hoc
committees would be used. This proposal mirrors the mechanism used for African
Peer Review input of Parliament. The second Option to be proposed to the JRC
would be the inclusion of a Committee of Chairs of Committees in the NA and
NCOP.
Mr Bailey stated that there were
sometimes vagueness on committee level in terms of prioritisation of committee
business and one of elements of developing the integrated parliamentary
oversight mechanism was to ensure greater co-ordination of activities. The idea
was that the Chairpersons of Committees should be allowed to review the
business plans of the various committees and flow into the mechanism of the
House Chairpersons who would develop the joint oversight report and identify
transversal issues, and then confer with the JRC. The two alternative models
were briefly tested with other drafters and procedural staff and the concern
was raised that if any one of the two alternative models were to be adopted,
the multi-party nature of the oversight system might be taken away.
Mr Bailey referred to the impact of
the model on Parliament and said that there would be a need to increase the
research and content specialist capacity of committees. The Legislation and
Oversight Division (LOD) made a proposal which was referred to by Mr Doidge in
his speech the previous week. The proposal recommends a pilot programme which
would include three clusters of committees consisting of five committees each.
It was proposed that each committee be provided with a dedicated researcher and
content specialist. That the library be capacitated with specialised librarians
to assist committees. It was also proposed that the administrative and logistic
functions currently residing with committee secretaries be incorporated in an
administrative department within LOD that would take that responsibility to
allow committee secretaries to focus on procedural maters. The first pilot
phase of fifteen committees would be rolled out in this financial year.
With regard to the implementation of
a system to capture and manage information within committees, Mr Bailey said
that the Clerk of Papers was steering a Parliamentary Content Management System
that was launched the previous week to improve the way in which Parliament had
been dealing with information. It was envisaged that through the use of ICT
there would be greater efficiency.
Mr Bailey stated that the
development of a public participation model was desperately required for the
oversight model to work. Especially greater co-ordination of public
participation activities in Parliament is required so that the information
coming from the different activities could effectively be filtered. The
Parliamentary emphasis on public participation would also be another mechanism
to be introduced this year that would allow for greater public participation.
Mr Bailey reminded members that there would be changes required to policies and
rules to accommodate the integration of Parliament’s oversight mechanism.
In conclusion, Mr Bailey referred to
the need for continuous capacity development of members with regard to ICT,
budgeting practices and other skills required for oversight. He informed
members that there was a consortium of South African universities that were
working on a curriculum for short courses and even postgraduate courses for
members to deal with the specific skills required for oversight. Training of
staff in line with the best practice guide would also be required as well as
change management and the adoption of the procedure for executive compliance.
Mr Setona added that the Task Team
came up with the options in the midst of heated debate. That interviews were
held with people involved in the crafting of the constitution which resulted in
different views, including from members
of the same party. The approach of the Task Team was that there was a need to
find expression in interpretation of the current practices.
Mr Setona added that the most
difficult focus area was the one on Budget Processes as it was expected to come
up, as per the mandate of the constitution, with legislation that will
determine the procedure for amending money bills. He indicated that the Focus
Group had come up with a draft Bill which would be presented to the JRC.
Mr Setona requested Mr Doidge to
provide a report on the initiatives undertaken to capacitate committees.
Mr Doidge said that it was important
to recognize that government was becoming complex in what it does and that as a
legislature compelled by the constitution to oversee executive action,
Parliament must not underestimate the workload before it. He referred to the
criticism in the public domain and the comments from the Minister of Finance.
He further referred to the resources that support a government department such
as National Treasury and said that it was currently impossible for Parliament
to conduct effective oversight over that department taking into account
Parliament’s current capacity. He stated that he was in agreement with the
Minister in that Treasury supplied Parliament with all the information but the
question was how does Parliament use that information effectively.
Mr Doidge said that the first
challenge would be to find an oversight model, and that this should be
approached with an open mind. That it would not be possible to have a once-off
presentation to the JRC, as this is an evolving process. Mr Doidge informed
members that the Task Team had interacted with a number of parliamentary
delegations and that some parliaments could not understand the process that the
South African Parliament was involved in. They were of the view that it would
create tension between the legislature and the executive. Mr Doidge said that
the Task Team indicated to them that the South African constitution mandated
Parliament to exercise effective oversight over the executive. He said that he
finds the option that utilises the existing structure of the House Chairpersons
the most attractive one. That it was important not to narrow the individual
mandates of committees and that he was comfortable with the option that talks
to a mechanism that would co-ordinate the work without going into the terrain
of other committees. He acknowledged that there would be a direct impact on
what happens in the provinces.
With regard to the support provided
to committees, he argued that all committees should be a part of the pilot
phase and not only fifteen committees as currently proposed. He said that Parliament
had been talking about the lack of capacity for 12 years and he appealed to the
Presiding Officers and the Secretary to Parliament to involve all the
committees from the start. He challenged Parliament to put the ball back in the
court of the Minister of Finance by identifying the capacity required and
requesting the budget for it.
He further indicated that the
support referred to was based on a holistic approach. That each committee would
be provided with a researcher, a content specialist, a committee secretary and
a librarian. That the administrative function of the committee secretaries
would be removed to an administrative office within LOD to enable committee
secretaries to concentrate on content and the provision of procedural advice.
He said that the proposed support system for the entire committee structure
must be funded within the current year. He informed members that a technical
team consisting of Adv. Matyolo-Dube, Ms Keswa and officials from the NA Table
and other sections was drafting the best practice guide. That they were nearing
the end of the technical phase. He said that the best practice guide contained
current practices as well as what should be best practice. He said that in the
NCOP, the Taking Parliament to the People Programme had become best practice
and should also be captured in detail in the best practice guide. The reason
for the best practice guide was to capture the institutional memory and
operations so that it is in place for use by future parliamentarians.
The Chairperson requested comment on
the two alternative options to be presented to the JRC. He congratulated the
Task Team on a job well done. He enquired as to how far the Task Team had gone
in terms of doing comparative studies bearing in mind the view of international
parliamentarians that the South African Parliament would be at loggerheads with
the executive. He remarked that in some countries the executive was stronger
than the legislature or the judiciary and said that the three arms of
government should be in balance. That is why there were checks and balances
built in the South African constitution.
Mr Setona responded that other
Parliaments found it strange that the South African constitution provided these
powers to Parliament. He reminded members that there were huge debate in
The Chairperson opened the floor for
comments on the options.
Mr Shiceka referred to slide 5 which
referred to the three branches of government and said that it should refer to
“executive” instead of “government”. He said that the model does not refer to a
system that would compel the executive to respond. He asked whether
parliamentarians contributed to the prioritisation of issues for delivery,
whether impact was made on the budget before it was tabled in the House.
Mr Mzizi referred to page 20 and the
understanding of the oversight role of the NA and NCOP. He said that it was
strange that both the NCOP and NA committees conducted oversight on the same
matters on provincial level.
Mrs Oliphant, in response to Mr
Shiceka’s remark, said that a number of members sat on the Task Team and the
three Focus Groups. She said that Parliament conducted oversight over the
executive and both Houses constituted Parliament. She stated that if the NCOP
were isolated as a House it would create confusion. She requested that the slide
be corrected to read that “Parliament” rather than the “NA” conducted
oversight. On the issue of the IPOC, she asked whether it had not been agreed
in the last meeting that it would be put on hold until clear terms of reference
was provided.
Mr Van Rooyen said that there was
still a fundamental problem as the model was based on the expenditure side of
departments. He said that by the time committees considered the budget it was
already finalised.
Mr Kolweni said that more time was
needed to understand the process. He was expecting an element that talked to
oversight in terms of legislation and on issues that were affecting the
constituencies of members. He said that Bills were amended and regulations made
but that Parliament were sometimes not involved in these processes.
Ms Vilikazi referred to page 15 and
echoed the sentiments expressed by other members regarding the oversight
function of the NCOP. She said that coordination and collaboration would yield
better results.
Mr Hendricks remarked that the
policy should be more practical. He questioned why a NA committee conducted an
oversight exercise alone.
Mr Watson noted the absence of
participation by opposition parties in the model.
Kgoshi Mokoena also referred to page
15 and to the constitutional provisions that provide for the oversight function
of the NCOP. He quoted sec 92(2) and referred to section 42(2) and said that
these sections should provide clarity in regard to the oversight function of
the NCOP.
The Chairperson responded that members
should refrain from taking any decisions in the meeting. He said that he would
allow another discussion to take place.
Mrs Nyanda responded to Mr
Hendrick’s remark by saying that the NA committee conducted oversight alone as
the Select Committee was not in a position to go with them.
Mr Setona said that he welcomed all
the comments and reminded members that it was important to get consensus on
issues. He responded to the comment around ensuring that executive compliance
was captured and said it was clearly captured but that the rules had to be
amended to provide guidance as to how to deal with it. He acknowledged the lack
of opposition party participation in the model and said that the Task Team was
cognisant of the importance of including the multi party element. He referred
to the remarks made by Mr Mzizi and Ms Vilikazi and said that the initial
report referred to the inherent oversight role of the NCOP. That the report had
indicated the inherent oversight role but the question was how the NCOP would
play that oversight role, taking into account intergovernmental relations and
the mandate of ensuring provincial interests were taken into account in the
national sphere of government.
Mr Doidge responded that the powers
and functions of the committees should not be underestimated. In response to
the question of how Parliament influenced the budget, he said that members sat
on the budget council and the joint budget committee. He said that the best
practice guide should indicate what the specific tasks of members would be when
they sat on specific committees. He enquired whether any committee had started
with the interrogation of the coming year’s budget. He said that if oversight
was done correctly and the recommendations were clear, it would mean that members
had influenced the budget for the coming year. He stated that the mechanism to
hold the executive accountable was already being practiced and made the example
that when resolutions were passed by the House, recommendations were made to
the executive. He indicated that an audit was requested of all recommendations
made to the executive to see which ones were responded to. He acknowledged that
the intergovernmental relations aspect was lacking but indicated that it had
been addressed. That there was a need to identify its place in the model.
On the issue of the IPOC, he
responded that there were already structures in place. He acknowledged the lack
of opposition party participation in the model and said that Mr Gibson was in
agreement that existing structures be utilised. That these issues still needed
to be addressed.
Mr Doidge also said that oversight
was really done ex post facto but that the constitution provided a proactive
role for Parliament and therefore the model also demanded a proactive role.
With regard to the issue of legislative oversight, he said that it was
important for Parliament to pass good laws but also to follow up on
implementation of those laws. In addition, that the sections in the
constitution dealing with oversight would have to be revisited by all.
The Chairperson said that it was
important to document the work of Parliament as it would be of importance for
generations to follow. He was in agreement with Mr Doidge that the committees
should be allowed to do their work. In response to the discussion on the
oversight role of the NCOP, he said that the constitution was clear. The
constitution provides that the NCOP has an oversight role and the NCOP had been
exercising that oversight role. The joint monitoring committees conduct
oversight and the NCOP had been part of those monitoring committees. The NCOP
called the executive to respond to questions, to partake in subjects for
discussion etc. He referred the members to the speech of the President wherein
the President said that the NCOP was the only House that was able to operate
between the three spheres of government. The Chairperson said that section 69
of the constitution granted the NCOP the power to summon anyone to report to
it. That no sphere of government was independent, they were all inter-dependent
and interrelated and the NCOP played a role in intergovernmental relations.
However, the Chairperson added that the coordination of the work was important.
He concluded by saying that the NCOP had a lot of work to do especially in the
third sphere of government, that it should be biased in its oversight function
towards that sphere and that it would have to get involved in Project
Consolidate.
5.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF 15 MARCH 2006
The following corrections were made
to the minutes:
- That the names of Mr A Watson and Mr T S Setona
be added to the attendance list.
- That the second last bullet on page 4 of the
minutes be rephrased.
- That the redundant words “on the proposal” on
page 7 be deleted.
- That Ms Terblanche’s initial view be inserted on
page 5.
The minutes, as amended, were
adopted as a correct reflection of the meeting of 15 March 2006.
6. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
OF 15 MARCH 2006
The Chairperson referred to page 3
of the minutes and asked whether the policy guideline on fast tracking had been
circulated.
Ms E van der Horst responded that
she had a copy of the memorandum sent to the Chairperson in the name of the
Secretary to the NCOP. She said that the guidelines had been scrutinised and
that it set out broad guidelines on fast tracking. However, that it did not
specifically refer to the four or six week cycle.
The Chairperson requested that a
copy of the policy guidelines be submitted to him.
Mr Sulliman referred to item 6.2.1.
(Protocol /Policy governing members and committee travel to Provincial
Legislatures) and suggested that it be revisited at a later stage.
The Chairperson responded that a
decision had been taken. That provincial Speakers discussed the matter at the
NCOP and the position had been clearly stated that NCOP would not be
responsible for the cost when Provincial Legislatures invited permanent
delegates. The Chairperson reiterated that the matter had been finalised and
would not be revisited.
Mr Kolweni requested clarity
regarding item 6.1. (Four/Six week cycle) of the minutes.
The Chairperson said that the NCOP
Rules Committee approved the policy that provides for the legislative cycle of
the NCOP to be a minimum of 4 weeks (to deal with technical legislation) and a
maximum of 6 weeks (to deal with more complex legislation). The Chairperson
said that in terms of the rules the NCOP is allowed to request an extension
from the JPC if it is not in a position to pass legislation within the cycle.
He said that this rule had not been applied.
Mr Ntuli referred to item 6.2.1.
(Protocol /Policy governing members and committee travel to Provincial
Legislatures) and said that the Finance Department of his Provincial
Legislature said that given that the permanent delegates to the NCOP did not
belong to their persal system, they were not in a position to pay for them. He
wanted to bring that to the attention of the Chairperson.
Chairperson responded that they
would have to find a way to deal with the matter.
Mr Shiceka proposed that a
communiqué be sent to the Provincial Legislatures which clearly set out the
policy position.
The Chairperson responded that a
policy decision had been taken on the matter and that all Speakers were part
thereof. He failed to see the reason why a second communiqué should be sent.
The
Chairperson referred to item 6.3. (Discussion on the establishment of a
committee dealing with discipline of the House as well as contempt of members)
and said that the matter had been referred to the Chief Whips Forum for
discussion. He asked whether anyone would provide a report in the absence of
the Chief Whip.
Mr Sulliman requested that matter be
revisited in the next meeting.
The Chairperson said that the rules
would have to be finalised before the committee could be created as certain
powers needed to be granted to the committee. He asked Kgoshi Mokoena whether
the rules had been drafted on the matter.
Kgoshi Mokoena responded that the
rules had been drafted but that the item had been removed from the agenda of
the Subcommittee. He said that it was decided that the matter would be dealt
with by the Chairperson, the Chief Whip and that a multi-party structure.
The Chairperson requested Mr Nonyane
to assist his office in composing a small subcommittee to deal with the matter.
The Chairperson added that a report would be provided at the next meeting.
7. MATTERS ON THE AGENDA
7.1. Report by the Deputy
Chairperson on the ruling made regarding the dispute between the Chief Whip and
Mr Watson
The Deputy Chairperson said that Mr
Sogoni requested that she make a ruling on the dispute between the Chief Whip
and Mr Watson. The Deputy Chairperson said that she referred to NCOP Rule 97
(Order in meetings) and it actually referred to order in sittings. The Deputy
Chairperson said that the tapes were revisited. She stated that the dispute was
between the two members and there was no disrespect for meeting or the
Presiding Officer and therefore there was no need to ask Mr Watson to leave the
meeting. However, in order to uphold the decorum of the House, the Deputy
Chairperson requested members to respect one another when dealing with
political matters. She said that such incidences placed Presiding Officers in a
difficult position and it was important to prevent unnecessary political
tension.
Mr Watson requested that a copy of
the report on the ruling be provided to him. He reaffirmed that he had the
highest regard for the Office of the Chief Whip as well as for the person. He
added that the interaction on that day did not reflect on the Office or the
person.
The Deputy Chairperson said that she
would send a second copy of the report on the ruling to Mr Watson.
The Chairperson responded that free
discussion in committees needed to be allowed and that members should be
careful when using points of order at committee level. He said that the rules
were clear and that abusive language would not be tolerated. He requested
members to respect one another and to work towards reaching consensus in
committees.
The Deputy Chairperson emphasised
that NCOP Rule 97 applied to situations in the House and not committees.
7.2. Deputy Chairperson to report on
workshop with SARS on tax implications for members
The Deputy Chairperson said that the
workshop was scheduled to take place on 19 June 2006 at 2 p.m. in the Old
Assembly Chamber. She said that she had received correspondence that the
Commissioner for SARS, Mr P Gordon, would address members on the tax
implications on the benefits and allowances of members. She said that members
would be informed regarding developments on this matter. She added that she was
uncertain whether the venue would be the Old Assembly Chamber.
The Chairperson responded that he
had requested the Speaker to avail the NA Chamber and that the NA would have to
take a resolution in that regard. He emphasised the importance of attending the
workshop and said that he had requested the Chief Whip of the NCOP and the
Chief Whip of the Majority Party
in the NA to allow the members to attend the workshop since it would be a party
day. He said that members’ salary benefits had been highly affected by tax and
that it was important for members to know what the impact would be on their
salaries and allowances.
The Deputy Chairperson informed
members that SARS would be distributing information packs to members at the
workshop.
7.3. Discussion on the mandate of
the Disciplinary Committee (its powers and functions) and its composition
The Chairperson said that the
Secretary to the NCOP was supposed to provide a report on the matter. He asked
whether Adv. Momoti had a mandate to report.
Adv. Momoti replied that he had no
mandate to report.
7.4. Report by Subcommittee on
Review of Rules on outstanding issues
Kgoshi
Mokoena submitted the report of the Subcommittee and put the following
proposals before the Rules Committee for consideration and approval:
(1) Amendment of definition of money
bill
Kgoshi Mokoena requested that the
definition of a “money bill” in the NCOP Rules be amended to read “a bill to which
sec 77(3) of constitution applies” as the definition as espoused in the rules
did not fully reflect the definition as provided in the constitution.
The proposal was agreed to.
(2) To amend rule 14A by inserting
an additional power of the House Chairpersons namely the power “to consider and
approve committee requests for travel for purposes of oversight”.
Mr Sulliman proposed that “in
consultation with the Chief Whip” be added to the proposal.
Mr Van Rooyen asked if the approval
applied to travel and cost.
Mr Shiceka said that in exercising a
power, the authority would consult different people. He said that the financial
implications would be added to the proposal and if anything needed to be done
by the deciding power, it would consult with the finance people. Also, that the
Chief Whip’s task would be to ascertain whether the quorum of the House would
be affected.
The Chairperson said that Kgoshi had
indicated that the powers of the different structures could not be mixed and
that the issue of consultation would be dealt with in another rule.
The proposal was agreed to.
(3) Form of address
Kgoshi Mokoena said that it was
convention for a member to be addressed by calling the member by his or her
name. He said the NCOP Rules did not provide for members to be addressed in a
specific way.
The Chairperson said that he would
have thought that South Africans would want to use their own terminology when
addressing one another. He said that members have been using different forms of
address in the House. He however was in agreement with the Subcommittee’s
proposal as it aimed to ensure respect and dignity between members.
It was resolved that members would
address one another by using the prefix “Honourable”.
(4) Approval of committee travel
Kgoshi Mokoena explained that if a
committee wanted to hold a meeting during session, it needed the permission of
the House Chairpersons and also approval from the Chairperson of the NCOP. The
Chief Whip of the NCOP would also be consulted to ensure a quorum in the House.
He said that the approval of this
rule by the committee would be in line with its approval of Rule 14A.
The Chairperson said that the
approval should be sought from the House Chairpersons and that he should only
be informed.
Mr Setona was in agreement with the
Chairperson in view of the fact that the Chairperson had delegated some of his
functions to the House Chairpersons. He however said that it would be important
to inform the Chairperson.
Mr Shiceka agreed that the
Chairperson should be informed to ensure that he was aware of what was
happening in the institution.
The Chairperson said that members
could look at subsection (b) on their own. That it was not a question for
amendment now.
The proposal was agreed to.
(5) To amend rule 232 by insertion
of the following:
Kgoshi Mokoena said that the
Subcommittee recommended the amendment of Rule 232 by insertion of the
following subsection:
(6) Questions must be directed at
the Ministry that is officially tasked with the particular area of
responsibility for which information is requested.
Kgoshi Mokoena explained that it had
been practice for a question which had been incorrectly directed by a member,
to be referred back to the member. The proposal was that instead of the question
being referred back to member, it be rerouted to the relevant minister.
The Chairperson said that if that
was happening, it should be corrected.
He asked whether this was a matter of a rule.
Adv. Momoti responded that the
Questions Office was responsible for questions and that he would look at the
procedure they followed and bring it to their attention. He responded that it
was not a matter of a rule.
Mr Mzizi said that the practice was
that the Questions Office would refer the question, if wrongly directed by a
member, to the relevant ministry and inform the member that they had referred
it.
Mr Shiceka said that whilst Mr Mzizi
might have had that kind of experience, it might not hold true for other
members. He said that the purpose of the rule was to ensure uniformity in the
way things are done.
Mr Setona said that there were a
number of shortcomings with regard to questions. He said that when a deadline
was set, the Questions Office would print questions received first and
questions received later in the day would not be printed. He added that the
Questions Office did also not take multi-party democracy into account. He
proposed that the Subcommittee relook the issue of questions and how to deal
with the shortcomings that are there.
The
Deputy Chairperson was in agreement with the proposal made by Mr Setona.
Agreed:
- That the Subcommittee would relook the issue of
questions and that it would be considered at the next meeting.
- That Adv. Momoti would have regard to the
practice and join the Subcommittee to assist with the formulation of the
rule.
(6)
Three-day rule
The Subcommittee proposed that Rule
172 be amended by insertion of the underlined words:
172(1) the Council may not
consider or pass a bill before at least three working days have lapsed, since
the committee’s report was tabled:
(i)
unless it is a bill before the House in terms of
rule 216 of the Joint Rules; or
(ii)
an urgent bill before the House.
Kgoshi Mokoena explained that
subsequent to a committee’s deliberations on a bill, a report would be tabled
in the House. The proposal was that a three-day rule be applied before the
Council considered the report. The three days would allow for a quality control
process to take place. He added that the three- day rule could be waved in the
above-mentioned circumstances.
The Chairperson agreed that the rule
should be there to allow committees to prepare their reports. He said that the
rules would normally be suspended if the House had to deal with an urgent
matter.
Mr Setona was in agreement with the
proposal and enquired whether there were systems in place to ensure that
reports are scrutinised to ensure compliance. He said that it was something for
a committee to pass an unconstitutional bill, but another thing for the House to
do so. He asked if the necessary systems might be lacking in the House.
Adv. Momoti responded that the
procedural office was not capacitated to deal with the matter at present.
However, that it was the duty of the Committee Section. He said that the issue
would be taken up with the management.
The Chairperson said that it was
important to read the reports of committees. He referred to the report on the
ICASA Bill and said that when he read it he was sure that the report had not
been scrutinised.
The proposal was agreed to.
(7)
Proposal on the legislative cycle
Kgoshi Mokoena referred to the
policy that had been adopted by the Rules Committee regarding the legislative
cycle of the NCOP. He requested that it be formalised into a rule.
The proposal was agreed to.
(8) When does a member lose his/her
seat in terms of his/her absence from Parliament?
Kgoshi Mokoena said that if a member
absented him or herself from the Council for 15 consecutive days, the member
automatically ceased to be a member. He informed the members that the NA deemed
it fit to remove the rule from their rules. He proposed that the Rules
Committee discuss whether the rule would still be applicable to the NCOP and
that the provinces also be brought on board.
The Chairperson said that the debate
should be put into context, as it should look at members as permanent delegates
from Provincial Legislatures. He said that in terms of the constitution
provincial delegations as a single delegation, represented a particular
provincial legislature. He said that it was important to involve the provinces
when discussing the matter. He added that once a member was appointed as a
permanent delegate to the NCOP, it was as if the province forgot about the
permanent delegate and after five years they decided whether to retain or
remove the permanent delegate without any formal discussions with the permanent
delegate.
The Chairperson said that when a
member absented him or herself for 15 consecutive days the member must apply
for leave from the Council. He said that the question of what to do when a
member absented him or herself and there was no quorum should also be
addressed. He said that the matter was merely introduced and needed further
discussion.
Mr Setona proposed that political
parties and provincial delegations discuss the matter. He said that the
question was what the standing of a member of the NCOP was vis a vis the fact
that the member was also a representative of a Provincial Legislature. He said
that section 62 of the constitution provides powers to the NCOP to determine
its own rules as to how it deals with matters. He proposed that the Chief Whips
Office be tasked with ensuring that provincial delegations and political
parties discuss the matter in order to arrive at some degree of consensus.
The Chairperson referred to section
62(4)(e) of the constitution and said that that it was not a question of merely
amending the rules but also looking at the constitution.
Mr Watson was in agreement that the
matter had far reaching consequences. He said that it had to tie into the
Electoral Act which provides for the number of members to be appointed by a
province. He said that even if a member were dismissed, the province would have
to ask the party to submit a name. He asked what would prevent a party to
submit the same name. He agreed that parties should consult with their party
leadership.
The Chairperson reminded members
that it would also apply to sittings of committees.
Mr Mzizi proposed that parties
should periodically be furnished with reports of members’ attendance.
Mr Ntuli highlighted that in order
for committees to work effectively, provinces must be represented. He said that
if members absented themselves, the province would not be represented. He
agreed that the provinces should be consulted on this issue.
Agreed:
·
That the matter be discussed in the
Chief Whips Forum, in party caucuses and by provincial delegations.
8. CLOSURE
The Chairperson adjourned the
meeting.
_______________________
Hon.
Mr. M J Mahlangu, MP
Chairperson of the NCOP Rules
Committee