Deliberations
NCOP Rules of the National Council of Provinces
20 September 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES RULES COMMITTEEDELIBERATIONS
20
SEPTEMBER 2006
These
minutes were provided by the National Council of Provinces Tabled Staff
PRESENT
Mahlangu, Mr
M J (Chairperson of the NCOP)
Goeieman, Mr
C M (
Hendricks, Mr
N D (UIF)
Mack, Mr
N J (
Matlanyane,
Ms H F
(
Mokoena, Kgoshi
M L (Chairperson: Subcommittee on Review of
Rules)
Mzizi, Mr
M A (IFP)
Nyanda, Ms
F (
Oliphant,
Mrs M N (House Chairperson: NCOP)
Tlhagale,
Mr J O (UCDP)
Mr Tshwene ,
Mr B S (Chief Whip:
Vilikazi, Ms J N (IFP)
Van Heerden,
Dr F J (Freedom Front Plus)
Van Rooyen,
Mr C J (
Watson, Mr A (Democratic
Windvoël, Mr V V Z (Chief Whip of the NCOP)
APOLOGIES: Ms P M Hollander, Ms B
IN ATTENDANCE: STAFF: Adv. L L Matyolo-Dube (Secretary to the NCOP),
Adv. B V L Momoti, Mr B Tyumre, Mr B
Nonyane, Ms J A Borien, Adv. A Gordon, Mr M Nguqu, Ms E van der Horst.
1. OPENING
The Chairperson of the NCOP, Mr M J
Mahlangu, opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. and welcomed all to the meeting.
The Chief Whip proposed that items
6.1. and 6.2. on the agenda be treated as one item. The meeting agreed.
2. APOLOGIES
As stated above under apologies.
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda was adopted without
additions.
4. CONSIDERATION
OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 14 JUNE 2006
The minutes were adopted as a
correct reflection of the meeting of 14 June 2006.
5. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
OF 14 JUNE 2006
The Chairperson referred to the
bottom of page 3 of the minutes of 14 June 2006. He reminded the meeting that
when Mr Setona presented the proposed Oversight Model he said that it was
important for the NCOP Rules Committee to look at the implications of the
report on the NCOP and to arrive at recommendations which could enrich the
report. That Mr Setona also stated that it was important for the NCOP to
prepare its position around specific matters in the report. The Chairperson
referred to the above extract from the minutes and asked Mr Setona to indicate
who would be dealing with the matter. The Chairperson was of the view that
there should be someone who would be able to guide the meeting or at the least
put some ideas on paper so that the meeting could consider the matter.
Mr Setona responded that a joint
workshop of the Joint Rules Committee (JRC) was supposed to take place but that
it was cancelled at short notice. He said that a review of the report, which
content differed from the report presented to the NCOP Rules Committee, would
have taken place at this workshop and would have provided a basis from which
the two Houses would have engaged the report before it would have been
submitted to the JRC. He said that he needed guidance as to how to proceed with
the matter since the workshop had not taken place.
The Chairperson asked if it would
not have been better for the workshop to take place.
Mr Setona said that there were
issues of contention. He said that at the last meeting of the Task Team new
issues, which were different from the ones that were presented to the NCOP
Rules Committee meeting, arose. He said that these issues were political in
nature. That it was thought that in the joint workshop the issues would be
attended to and issues unique to the NA and NCOP would have been referred to
the two Houses. Thereafter, the two Houses would have conferred with the Task
Team before a final report would have been presented to the JRC.
Mr
Setona proposed that a special NCOP workshop be convened to look at the report.
He emphasized that the report was different from the one that was presented to
the NCOP Rules Committee. He said that most of the issues were political in
nature and needed political decision. That the Task Team did not have the
authority to make decisions on these issues but that it could identify the
options and present them to the relevant competent bodies such as the NCOP and
NA Rules committees and finally the JRC.
The Chairperson asked whether Mr
Setona was talking about the report that had been presented to the NCOP Rules
Committee meeting.
Mr Setona responded in the
affirmative and said that it was a draft report. He said that the report had
not been presented to the JRC.
Mr Setona repeated that a workshop
had been convened but was cancelled due to both Presiding Officers not being
available to attend the workshop. He said that the workshop was intended to
highlight some of the issues and arrive at political agreement on the issues in
the report.
The Chairperson asked whether Mr
Setona’s proposal was that the NCOP should have its own workshop or whether the
joint workshop should be proceeded with.
Mr Setona responded that the
workshop of the JRC was supreme and from that workshop the two Houses could
look at the implications of the report. He cautioned that the report belonged
to the JRC and proposed that a joint workshop should take place before issues
that were pertinent to the NCOP could be identified.
The Chairperson asked who the coordinator
was.
Mr Setona responded that Mr Bapela
and himself convened the workshop. Mr Setona added that the JRC workshop would
have been convened on instruction of the Presiding Officers. He said that it
would be helpful if the Presiding Officers could identify a date for the JRC
workshop to take place. He further said that the report was supposed to be
launched in October or November 2006. However, that most of the processes could
not take place before the joint workshop had taken place.
The Chairperson responded that the
conveners of the Task Team should propose dates to the Presiding Officers,
which the Presiding Officers would then consider.
The Chief Whip was of the view that
it was important for the NCOP to prepare its position prior to attending the
JRC workshop. He said that it would empower members who were attending the JRC
on behalf of the NCOP to understand the issues in the report and would enable
them to participate maximally in the JRC workshop. It would also ensure that
the views of the provincial legislatures were taken into account because
oversight could not be done in isolation and without acknowledging the
implications on provincial legislatures and SALGA. He proposed that the NCOP
conduct a preparatory meeting in order to formulate a common understanding
before attending the joint workshop.
Mrs Oliphant supported the
suggestion that a NCOP workshop be held. She was of the view that the Presiding
Officers and not the conveners of the Task Team should coordinate the JRC
workshop since it was the work of the Joint Rules Committee and not the Task
Team.
The Chairperson requested the
meeting to indicate whether it was in agreement with the proposal of a NCOP
workshop to enable members to have a common understanding of the report.
The meeting agreed. The Chairperson
requested Mr Setona to facilitate the NCOP workshop.
Agreed:
- The NCOP to have a workshop on the Report of the
Task Team on Oversight and Accountability in order to prepare NCOP members
for the JRC workshop.
- Mr Setona to facilitate the NCOP workshop on
behalf of the Chairperson.
Mr Watson referred to item 7.1. on
page 13 of the minutes. He said that he had still not received copies of the
ruling from the Deputy Chairperson.
The Chairperson replied that the
matter would be raised with the Deputy Chairperson.
6. MATTERS ON THE AGENDA
6.1.
Discussion on the establishment of a committee dealing with
discipline of the House as well as contempt of members.
6.2.
Discussion on the mandate of the Disciplinary
Committee (its powers and functions) and its composition.
As per agreement, Items 6.1 and 6.2.
were dealt with as one agenda item.
The Chairperson requested Kgoshi
Mokoena to report on the item.
Kgoshi Mokoena said that the matter
had been removed from the agenda of the Subcommittee on Review of Council
Rules. He reminded the meeting that the Subcommittee had briefed the meeting
but that it was then decided that the forum consisting of the Chairperson,
Deputy Chairperson and Chief Whip would attend to the matter.
He said that the Report of the
Subcommittee, dated 17 October 2005, had been re-distributed to allow members
to refresh their memories. He referred to the report and said that the report
contained different options which were to be considered by the meeting.
The Chairperson referred the meeting
to the 3 options provided for in the report of the Subcommittee. He requested
the meeting to discuss the principle, agree on it and leave the establishment
and composition of the committee to the Chief Whip’s Office. He said that the
Presiding Officers and the Chief Whip had considered the matter and that the
forum had specifically looked at section 12 of the Powers, Privileges and
Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act. He said that the Act
provided for the establishment of a contempt committee. He said that the forum
was of the view that since the Act provided for the establishment of such a
committee, the said committee’s functions should be extended to deal with
issues of discipline. In this way there would be one structure to deal with
both contempt and discipline.
The Chairperson requested the
meeting to pronounce itself on whether it agreed with the principle namely,
that a committee with extended functions be established. He proposed that the
committee should consist of no more than 5 members and said that the committee
would report back to the Rules Committee.
Mr Watson was in agreement with the
principle. He also agreed that the committee should consist of fewer rather
than more members. He said that the question arose as to the composition of the
committee as well as its mandate. He also said that a document on the matter
was needed as members would need to report back to their parties or provinces
to discuss the matter. He said that the committee would function like a court
and that it would need to have powers of suspension. That there should also be
a structure where charges could be laid and the member should also have the
opportunity to state his/her case.
The Chairperson said that Mr Watson
was already raising the second part of the process. That he wanted the meeting
to agree on the principle before it entertained discussions around the
composition and functions of the committee. That the report contained the
proposed powers and functions of the said committee.
Mr Watson replied that consideration
should be given to the mandate of a contempt committee as opposed to a
disciplinary committee.
The Chairperson emphasised that the
powers of the contempt committee would be extended. In terms of section 12 of
the Act, a contempt committee should be established. He said that his proposal
was to extend the powers of the contempt committee in order to prevent the
creation of more than one committee.
Dr Van Heerden said that the
principle of the contempt committee having to deal with disciplinary issues was
obvious. That if a body was tasked with hearing charges of contempt, that body
would also have to provide judgment and penalties. He was in agreement with the
principle and also supported the recommendation that the committee be small in
its composition.
Mr Mzizi supported the principle of
the creation of a committee with extended powers. He said that the committee
should have disciplinary powers as well. He expressed his concern regarding the
election of the members of the committee. He said that members came from
different parties as well as different provinces and that these two backgrounds
would play a role.
Mr Setona stated that he was
reluctantly in agreement with the principle and the composition. He said that
the ideal situation would have been to have a committee if and when the need
arose. That it should not be a permanent committee as it would create
stigmatisation. He was also of the view that it should be a small committee of
the House which would not be representative of provinces.
The Chief Whip was also in agreement
with the proposal and the composition of the small committee. He said that
there should not be two structures dealing with overlapping issues, as most
contentious conduct would also cover issues of ill discipline.
Kgoshi Mokoena referred to section
12 of the Act and said that it provided for the appointment of a standing
committee which would deal with discipline in the House. That the constitution
provided for the creation of this Act and non-compliance with the
constitutional imperative could lead to legal challenges.
The Chairperson read section 12 of
the Act to the meeting. He said that it was important for members to
familiarise themselves with the Act and specifically section 12 thereof. He
also referred to the report of the Subcommittee and specifically to the part
dealing with the powers and functions of the committee. He said that the powers
and functions as stipulated in the report were taken directly from the Act. He
referred to the annexure to the report and said that the procedures were
contained there.
He added that he was aware that
members wanted to brief their caucuses on the matter and asked members to look
at the powers, functions and procedures. He further requested members to
relook the report of the Subcommittee, to discuss it with their caucuses and to
come back with a decision for the next meeting. The Chairperson said that
he wanted the powers and functions of the committee to be adopted at the
next Rules Committee meeting. He reiterated that the proposal was that a
small committee be established composed of 5 members. That the committee should
not be cumbersome or political in nature and able to discipline any member
regardless of the member’s party or province affiliation. That the committee,
in terms of the Act, would be representing the House and that the House will
decide and vote on the report of the committee.
The meeting agreed to the principle
and that the composition of the committee should be small.
The Chairperson further added that the
committee would have to be appointed before the end of the next term, as
there were many issues the committee would have to deal with.
Mr Hendricks asked whether there
would be a space for appeal.
The Chairperson replied in the
affirmative. He requested members to scritinise the report and to make
additions if need be. He said that the report would be considered in the next
meeting.
Mr Watson asked if the report of the
Subcommittee dated 17 October 2005 was the correct report. He proposed that the
formula currently used for overseas travel be used as a basis when composing
the committee.
Mr Mzizi was in agreement with the
Chairperson. He said that there would be a problem if the connotation of party
representation came in. He said that if there were five members and one of the
five members asked to be recused, the committee would not be able to quorate.
Dr Van Heerden requested that a copy
of section 12 of the Act be circulated. He was in agreement that the committee
should not be representative of parties but requested that the appeal procedure
be looked at.
The Chief Whip said that it should
not be a committee of one party but a multi-party committee. However, that
should not mean that it would be party representative. That it would be a
committee of the House and when the committee was appointed, consideration
would be given to members with the necessary background and members who would
be able to be objective. That the committee would be constituted of those
members that would be able to look at contemptuous conduct regardless of party
affiliation.
The Chairperson requested that the
Act and the Report of the Subcommittee be re-distributed to all members in the
meeting. He again said that a decision should be taken in the next meeting
and appealed to all members to consult with their caucuses and come prepared to
the next meeting.
Agreed:
·
That the principle of the establishment of a contempt
committee with extended functions be agreed to.
- That
such committee would consist of no more than 5 members.
- That
parties would scrutinize the report of the Subcommittee, discuss it in
their caucuses and come with a decision to the next Rules Committee
meeting.
- That
the composition, powers and functions of the committee be considered and
adopted at the next meeting.
- That
the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial
Legislatures Act be distributed to all members in the meeting.
- That
the report of the Subcommittee be redistributed to all members in the
meeting.
6.3. Report of the Subcommittee on
Review of Rules
Amendment of Rule 232 (Questions)
The Chairperson reminded members
that the issue was that questions should be directed to the ministry which was
officially tasked with it. To re-route a question that had been incorrectly
directed, to the relevant minister.
The Secretary said that the
Questions Office on behalf of the Chairperson generally did the processing of
questions. She said that there were two documents in Parliament that outlined
the rules regarding the form and content of questions and that it provided a
guideline as to what should be contained in a question. She said the Questions
Office was supposed to apply these guidelines. She added that when there was a
misunderstanding between the Questions Office and a member, it should be
brought to the attention of the Office of the Chairperson. That the Questions
Office should inform the member that the question was incorrectly directed and if
the member insisted, the Questions Office should direct the matter to the
Chairperson’s Office. The scenario that members were referring to should not
have happened since the procedure was provided in the rules. If there was a
misunderstanding between the Questions Office and the member, the Questions
Office must submit the matter to the Chairperson’s Office. The Chairperson
would then inform the member that the question needed to be redirected to the
relevant minister.
Kgoshi Mokoena referred to the
incident that happened in the House when the Deputy Minister of Local
Government said the question should be asked to the Minister of Finance. He
proposed that to avoid similar occurrences, if a question was directed to a
particular minister, the Questions Office should assess the question and, in
consultation with the member, redirect it to the relevant Minister.
Kgoshi Mokoena requested, on behalf
of the Subcommittee, that the meeting approved the review of Rule 236(2) and
Rule 237(1) as amended. He said that since the Rules Committee had taken
the decision to allocate a specific day to questions, it was no longer
necessary that a member be restricted to two questions per day.
Mr Watson agreed that once a
question had been printed on the Question Paper it had to be attended to. He
referred to a scenario that occurred in the House when Mr Setona was in the
chair and said that neither the chair nor a minister had the right to decide
that a question should not be attended to.
Mr Mack was in agreement with Kgoshi
Mokoena and said that a review of the mentioned rules was necessary. He
requested that the documents that the Secretary referred to, be made available.
He asked who decided which questions would go on the Question Paper. He said
that he would like to sit on the subcommittee and be a Questions Whip.
Mr Sulliman agreed that there was a
need to revisit the rules. He said that previously all the questions could not
be dealt with during one sitting due to the fact that the House dealt with
other business as well. He said that the situation had changed and the rules
should reflect that.
The Chairperson said that since no
one disagreed, the Subcommittee had the mandate to revisit the rules.
Mr Mzizi asked why a minister should
refuse to answer a question in the House based on that it should have been
referred to another minister. He agreed that once a question was printed on the
Question Paper, it should be attended to during the Questions session.
Mr Setona said that rules could not
be created to compensate for human error. He referred to the statement made by
Mr Watson and said that the member who had asked the question was not in the
House at the time. That he wanted to bring the two parties together before
making a ruling on the matter.
The Chairperson responded that the
matter should not be discussed at the Rules Committee meeting.
The Chief Whip of the
The Chairperson said that there were
rules guiding this process. He said that the Office of the Secretary should,
on his behalf, when there is any question which the Question Office doubts
refer it to the Office of the Chairperson, discuss it with the member and
redirect the question. However, that once the question appeared on the
Question Paper, it was the business of the day. He said that members of the
executive needed to avoid refusing to answer a question on the basis that the
question was not correctly directed. He said that his office would talk to
the Leader of Government Business. He further said that members of the
executive should not be rude to members.
Agreed:
- That
the Subcommittee on Review of Council Rules would review rules 236(2) and
237(1) as amended.
- That
the documents the Secretary referred to be distributed.
- That
the Secretary would, when there is any question which the Question Office
doubts, refer it to the Office of the Chairperson, discuss it with the
member and redirect the question appropriately.
- That
the Chairperson’s Office would address the etiquette of members of the
executive with the Office of the Leader of Government Business.
6.4. Continuation of discussion on:
definition of sitting days; and
when does a member lose his/her seat
in terms of his or her absence from Parliament
The Chairperson requested the Chief
Whip and the political parties to provide a report on the agenda item.
The Chief Whip said that the
definition of sitting days should include both plenaries and committee work. He
said that the word “or” was used in the rule and that it should be replaced
with the word “and” as it provided an option. In terms of when a member loses
his or her seat, the Chief Whip responded that the NCOP should remain within
the framework of the constitution.
The Chairperson referred to section
62(4)(e) of the Constitution and read it aloud. He also made reference to rule
17(2) and said that the word “or” resulted in a different interpretation. He
said that there were members that continuously absented themselves from
committee meetings without requesting leave. He asked whether members were in
agreement with the proposal.
Kgoshi Mokoena said that the
Subcommittee had proposed that rule 17 be deleted as the Constitution already
dealt with the matter. He said that the National Assembly had removed the rule
from their rules. He further said that the Constitution states that action must
be taken if a member absents him or herself. That the Subcommittee had
consulted widely on the matter and was of the view that rule 17 should be
removed. He said that in the previous Rules Committee meeting the Subcommittee
had proposed that the rule be removed and it was decided that members and
parties would consider the matter and provide feedback to the Rules Committee.
The Chairperson responded that he
did not always want the NCOP to refer to what the NA had done since the NCOP
had its own dynamics. He said that it was important for members to be informed
by the dynamics of the NCOP.
The Chairperson further asked how
the absenteeism of members should be dealt with. He said that the Constitution
said that it must be prescribed in the rules.
Mr Watson recommended that the rules
be changed to reflect the words “and” and “or”.
At this stage of the meeting, the
Chairperson had to leave to attend another meeting and Mr Setona took the
Chair.
Mr Mzizi said that the rule should
include both sittings and committee meetings. He proposed that the word “and”
be used and the word “or” be deleted.
The Chief Whip said that the
constitution stated that the rules and orders must provide for the
circumstances under which a member may absent him/herself. He said that if some
members absented themselves in the NA, a quorum could still be formed. That
this was not possible in the NCOP, as it had different dynamics. Practically,
once two members were absent in a committee, their absence would be felt. He
said that if rule 17 were retained, it would be in conformity with the
constitution. He proposed that the Secretary looked into the proposed
amendment. He was in agreement with Mr Mzizi that even if the word “or” was
combined with “and” it would still create an option. He proposed that “or” be
deleted.
Mr Tshwene was in agreement that the
word “or” should be deleted as it created an option.
Mr Setona said that the proposal was
that the definition of 15 sitting days should include both sittings and
committee meetings. He said that the committee would look at the draft in
the next meeting.
Kgoshi Mokoena said that he was in
agreement. He asked what would the position be if a member was absent from the
Council for 8 days and from committee work for 7 days.
Mr Setona said that Kgoshi Mokoena
was opening another debate and said that there was a view that it would be a
party matter since members were nominated by their parties.
The Chief Whip said that it was
within the mandate of the constitution to take that decision. He said that no
consultation was required with the provincial legislatures as the constitution
referred to the rules and orders of the NCOP.
Agreed:
- That the word “or” in Rule 17 be replaced with
the word “and”.
- That the Secretary would look into the proposed
amendment.
- That the NCOP Rules Committee would consider the
draft rule in the next meeting.
6.5. Legislative cycle in the NCOP
The Secretary reported that the item
was back on the agenda due to the discussions in the Programme Committee
meeting. She said that the Chairperson was responding to the discussion and the
question as to why provinces were not utilising JR 159 (why provinces were not
dealing with the Bill once it has been gazetted). The Chairperson requested
that the matter be further discussed in the Rules Committee meeting. The
Secretary said that provinces were advancing different reasons for not being
able to deal with the draft legislation. One of the reasons was that they had
to deal with it in terms of their rules and another was that they were supposed
to deal with the Bill that had been referred to the NCOP. The Secretary reminded the meeting that a
decision had been taken on the matter which effectively provides for a cycle of
4 weeks. That rule 230A had been drafted and adopted by the Rules Committee.
The Secretary enquired whether
members were aware that the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) was not a NCOP
committee and that a proposal would therefore have to be made to the JRC to
change the functions of the JTM. She asked how this would practically be done as
tagging was done by the two Presiding Officers and the legal advisers attached
to that process. Without the provinces, who will be taking the decision? She
also informed members that the JTM decision was not appealable. If provinces
found that they could not deal with the Bill in four weeks and the JTM had said
four weeks, what would happen?
Mr Setona related a practical
example from his province. He said that the relevant committee would get the
briefing on Friday and in terms of the cycle, the following week they should
have Public Hearings. That effectively, whoever wanted to make submissions
would not have enough time. He said that there was already legislation dealing
with uniform mandating procedures. He asked the legal adviser and the Secretary
to what extent the rules of the provincial legislatures were subordinate to the
rules of the NCOP. He said that he thought that only legislation could bind the
provinces.
Mr Watson referred to the Joint
Programming Committee process and said that it was clear that in order to avoid
all the problems, a lot more thinking would have to go into the process.
The Chief Whip said that in the long
term mandating legislation might cover some of the issues. That there might be
a need to have regulations. However, that the question was what would happen in
the interim. He said that it was clear that the four-week cycle was no longer
an option. That the NCOP should take lessons from the recent constitutional
court judgments and understand that if provinces were not given enough time,
the NCOP would be held liable. He said that it was important to table priority
legislation in time.
The Secretary responded to the
question of whether the rules of the provinces were subject to the rules of the
NCOP. She quoted section 116 of the constitution and said that the provinces
had the right to determine their own procedures. That the NCOP do not have the
right to set rules for the provinces.
Mr Setona replied that the provinces
said that their rules only allowed them to consider legislation once they had
been briefed by a permanent delegate and not at the time of receipt of a JR 159
notice.
Mr Sulliman said that the Further
Education and Training Bill (FET) was a clear indication that the six-week
cycle was not sufficient. That the NCOP needed to apply its mind to six weeks
and more.
Mrs Oliphant said that in the
previous Programming Committee meeting the Chairperson requested provincial
whips to indicate how long provinces took to process Public Hearings. She said
if that information was there, a decision could be taken on the cycles and how
to deal with particular legislation. In terms of fast tracking of section 76
legislation, if the provincial legislatures could indicate whether it was
possible to fast-track section 76 legislation. She said that the FET Bill
missed the deadline and she was not sure whether provinces had been requested
to allow members to work during the constituency period.
The Chief Whip said that if
provinces were requested to work during recess or constituency period, such a
request should go through the Office of the Chairperson.
Adv. Gordon referred to the two recent
In relation to the question regarding the
relationship between the provinces and their independence in respect of the
NCOP, section 116 of the constitution provided that provinces were independent.
She said that it was so because some of their business fell outside the scope
of the NCOP. That provinces had an independent mandate to govern provinces but
that there were matters in which provinces needed to have a say in national
government. She said that the court, in the same judgment, said that the NCOP
was a Council of Provinces and that provinces must inform the processes in the
NCOP. That without provinces, there would be no NCOP. She said that one
paragraph stood out in the judgment namely that “…the NCOP played a pivotal role
as a linking mechanism…” Adv Gordon was of the view that this was important
when looking at the relationship between provincial legislatures and the NCOP
in relation to cycles and time. That national government should take into
account the time demands of provincial legislatures.
Adv Gordon further commented and said that the
court did not touch on the issue of mandates. It set a benchmark for what would
be regarded reasonableness in the legislative process. The court cautioned that
if provincial legislatures were not going to apply themselves when mandates
were communicated to the NCOP, it would be difficult for the court or anyone
else when having to review a process to exercise its discretion appropriately.
That mandating was not only casting a vote. The court said that it wanted to
see record keeping and motivations. Adv Gordon said that the court had in
effect given the NCOP clear direction. That when there was a constitutional
obligation on the NCOP, the NCOP could defer that obligation. She used the
example of public participation and said that if the provinces would do it, the
NCOP itself would not have to do it but the NCOP would remain the ultimate
custodian of the constitutional obligation. However, if no effective mandate
were communicated to the NCOP, how would the NCOP be able to say that it could
correct the falter on behalf of a province?
Adv Gordon concluded by saying that it
ultimately was national legislation which provinces had an interest in and
which the NCOP took responsibility for. Therefore, the four-week cycle should
no longer be an option.
Ms van der Horst said that she would like to
bring it to the attention of the meeting that the NCOP normally faced a problem
with the Division of Revenue Bill. That in terms of the Programming Framework
accepted for 2007, the NCOP would have four weeks to deal with the Bill. That
Treasury usually insisted that both Houses process the Bill by end March.
The Chief Whip responded that the issue of the
Division of Revenue Bill and its programme should be dealt with in the
Programme Committee meeting.
Mr Setona said that the programming of the
Division of Revenue Bill was essentially related to the discussion on the
four-week cycle.
The Chief Whip said that he would not
participate further in a discussion run in such a manner. He said that some
issues belonged to the political leadership. He referred to the question asked
by Mr Setona regarding Treasury.
Mr Setona said that Treasury was the executive
and it was talking to the NCOP which was the legislature. He said that the NCOP
had in the past been told to pass the Bill before the time and now this should
be looked at since there was a ruling of the court.
Mrs Oliphant responded that a Joint Programming
workshop would be held to finalise the issue of how to deal with the
programming in order to accommodate the cycles of the NCOP. She said that the
NCOP should in the interim continue with its cycles. She said that whilst she
understood the rulings by the constitutional court, it was important for the
NCOP to deal with its programming. Also, that after the workshop all
stakeholders might be in a position to come up with a final solution to the
issue.
Mr Setona said that if everyone were in
agreement with Mrs Oliphant, the envisaged follow-up workshop on programming
would look at the short and long term implications.
Agreed:
·
That the envisaged follow-up
Programming Workshop would finalise the issue of how to deal with programming
in order to accommodate the cycles of the NCOP.
8. CLOSURE
The House Chairperson adjourned the
meeting at 12:15.
_______________________
Hon.
Mr. M J Mahlangu, MP
Chairperson of the NCOP Rules
Committee