Draft Minutes of Proceedings

Joint Rules

20 June 2007
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report




These minutes were provided by the National Assembly Table Staff



Chairpersons: Committee Secretaries:

Speaker of the National Assembly Regina Mohlomi ( 2739

Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces Monwabisi Nguqu ( 2765



CHAIRING: Ms G L Mahlangu-Nkabinde, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly

Ms P M Hollander, Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP



National Assembly

National Council of Provinces

Bapela, KO (House Chairperson)

Setona, TS (House Chairperson)

Botha, CS (House Chairperson)

Sogoni, EM

Ellis, MJ

Windvoel, VVZ

Jeffery, JH


Masutha, MT


Mentor, MP


Nel, AC


Ngaleka, E


Rajbally, S

Rwexana, SP


Seaton, SA

September, CC


Van der Heever, RPZ






Mbete, B (Speaker)

Mahlangu, MJ (Chairperson)

De Lille, P

Holomisa, BH


Mfundisi, IS


Newhoudt-Druchen, WS

Njikelana, SJ


Zita, L




Staff in attendance: M Coetzee (Deputy Secretary to Parliament); K Mansura (Secretary to the NA); L L Matyolo-Dube (Secretary to the NCOP); M Xaso; M Griebenow; R Mohlomi (NA Table); J Borien-Niekerk; M Nguqu (NCOP Procedural Services).





1. Opening and welcome


The Deputy Speaker opened the meeting at 10:30 and presided. She welcomed all members present and asked for apologies to be submitted on behalf of those absent.



2. Consideration and adoption of agenda (item 2 on the agenda)

The agenda, as proposed, was adopted.


3. Report by Subcommittee on Review of Joint Rules (item 3 on agenda)


(a) Draft Rules for the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI)


Mr Masutha presented a document titled Draft Rules for the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and reminded members that the Joint Subcommittee on Review of Joint Rules had previously been mandated by the JRC to draft rules that would guide the functioning of the JSCI.


He further mentioned that the JSCI had been established in terms of legislation and the Constitution. The uniqueness, responsibilities and functioning of that body necessitated that separate rules be created specifically to govern that Committee, hence the mandate given to the Joint Subcommittee.


Mr Masutha said that consensus had been reached between the Subcommittee and the JSCI regarding the approach to be adopted and the structure of the rules.


It was AGREED:


(i) That the redrafted rules contained in Annexure 1 of the Subcommittee’s report be adopted as a schedule to the Joint Rules; and


(ii) that Joint Rule 120, be amended as follows:


(1) The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, established by the Intelligence Services Oversight Act, 1994 (Act No 40 of 1994), must perform the functions in respect of the intelligence services as required by section 199(8) of the Constitution, the Intelligence Services Oversight Act and these Rules.


(2) The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence must conduct its business in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 2.



(b) Scrutiny Mechanism for Delegated Legislation


Mr Masutha presented a document titled Draft Resolution for Establishment of Interim Scrutiny Mechanism and reminded members that a subcommittee had previously been established to consider the implementation of a provision in the Constitution relating to Parliament’s mandate to establish a mechanism for exercising oversight on the Executive’s power of passing delegated legislation. He further explained that it had been noted at the time that while the comprehensive framework for scrutinising delegated legislation was being developed, Parliament needed to put something in place in the interim.


Mr Masutha said that the draft resolution presented by the Joint Subcommittee for adoption by the JRC related to the establishment of an interim scrutiny mechanism for delegated legislation. The mechanism would take the form of a Committee composed of 13 members - four from the NCOP and nine from the NA. The structure would evaluate any delegated legislation and advise the relevant portfolio or select committee in that respect. The idea was that Parliament would not give approval in the case of a negative scrutiny finding.


Mr Setona wanted clarity on the provisions of Joint Rule 19 (b); specifically how the Subcommittee had arrived at the decision relating to the composition of the scrutiny mechanism.


Ms Griebenow explained the provisions of Joint Rule 19, and added that the Joint Subcommittee had referred to the first part of that Rule, namely 19(1) and therefore proposed a draft resolution for adoption by the two Houses.


Mr Masutha added that Joint Rule 19 provided an outline of a particular principle and that the Joint Subcommittee, in deciding on the proposal regarding composition of the mechanism, wanted to adhere to the spirit of that provision as far as possible, while taking into consideration that the mechanism should not be too big and therefore unwieldy.


He said that the ideal situation when the final system had been put in place would be that a comprehensive framework would govern delegated legislation. For the present the interim structure would evaluate any rules and delegated legislative instruments that, in terms of the enabling legislation, must first be approved by Parliament before it became law. Mr Masutha added that a formula and set of scrutiny criteria had been included in the proposal for consideration by the Committee.


He concluded by saying that the nature of the scrutiny committee was that it was technical, and would function as an advisory body to portfolio and select committees where relevant. The portfolio and/or select committee would then make the final decision on the matter. Once the permanent structure was in place, final decision would be made by it.


Responding to a question by Mr Setona relating to the distinct roles of the two Houses,

Mr Windvoël referred members to item 5 of the draft resolution, which deals with reporting. He emphasised that the Scrutiny Committee would not meet often and added that the spirit in which the Joint Subcommittee proposed the draft resolution should be understood, given the differences in size and composition of the respective Houses of Parliament.


The Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP said that there were two distinct mandates for the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, and therefore the proposed composition of the Scrutiny Committee should not be agreed to since the NCOP would be underrepresented.


Mr Masutha responded to a question from Mr Watson regarding the areas of application of scrutiny by saying that a delegated instrument related to any instrument that had binding force by law that was passed by a functionary in the Executive, which derived authority to do so from enabling legislation.


It was AGREED:

That the draft resolution proposed by the Subcommittee for the establishment of an

Interim Scrutiny Committee be adopted and, that the resolution be placed before both

Houses for consideration.


4. Formalisation of the Multiparty Womens’ Caucus: Continuation of discussions (item 4 on agenda)

Ms Rwexana presented a document titled Proposals for formal establishment of

Multiparty Women’s Caucus, and another titled Draft Rules for Establishment of Multiparty

Women’s Caucus, and explained that the discussions on the matter had commenced more

than a year ago. She added that an adjustment had been made to the proposal in response

to concerns raised by the opposition parties. The proposed composition of the Caucus

was a Steering Committee comprising Chairperson, a Deputy Chairperson, three

members from the majority party and two members from the opposition parties. The majority party and the opposition parties would elect their own representatives.


In terms of quorum requirements, Ms Rwexana proposed that the presence of representatives from the majority party and the opposition parties from both Houses should render meetings of the Caucus quorate.


After a discussion on the quorum requirements,


The Committee NOTED:

That the proposals for the establishment of the Multiparty Women’s Caucus and the

proposed Rules are agreed to in principle.



(i) That the proposals for the establishment of the Multiparty Women’s Caucus and the proposed rules be referred to the Subcommittee on the Review of Joint Rules for processing;


(ii) That the Subcommittee engage further with representatives of the Steering Committee on composition and quorum requirements.


5. Report by Presiding Officers on the terms of reference for the ad hoc Committee on the African Peer Review Mechanism (item 5 on the agenda)


It was AGREED:

That the matter stands over.


6. Report by the Task Team on Oversight and Accountability (item 6 on the agenda)

Mr Bapela reported that research on oversight and accountability had been carried out in

Parliament for over two years. He said that the Constitution provided a mandate for

Parliament to carry out oversight on the Executive, but did not provide procedures

or mechanisms to do so.


He presented a document titled Report of Task Team on Oversight and Accountability,

and explained that the Oversight and Accountability Model being proposed in the document

consolidated existing oversight mechanisms and contained some additions to the present

oversight system.


Mr Bapela highlighted the following chapters for particular attention by parties:


Chapter 4, on defining the concept “Oversight” and current oversight practices;

Chapter 5, on the establishment of an oversight advisory service;

Chapter 6, to be read with Chapter 5 of the Constitution, provided a definition of

accountability and proposed three mechanisms for ensuring Executive compliance, namely, the establishment of a Government Assurance Committee, which would consider undertakings made by the Executive in the Houses and monitor implementation thereof, the current Committee on Public Accounts and the Joint Budget Committee and Portfolio and Select Committees;


Chapter 7, on parameters of oversight by Parliament, Provincial Legislatures and Municipal Councils and the co-ordination of oversight activities;


Chapter 8, on procedures to amend money bills. A Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Bill was proposed under Appendix 2;


Chapter 9, on public participation;


Chapter 10, on individual oversight by Members;


Chapter 11, on the Best Practice Guide. The Guide was in final draft form and would be presented at a later stage. Only the principles of the Best Practice Guide were included in that Report; and


Chapter 12, on conclusions and recommendations.


Mr Bapela proposed that parties scrutinise the Report and submit their comments to the Task

Team by 15 August 2007. The drafting team would then commence editing after 15 August.


He further proposed that the office of the Deputy Secretary to Parliament appoints an editorial team to continue with the work, since the consultants who had been sourced by Parliament to do research for the Task Team had completed their work.


The Deputy Speaker suggested that the Task Team be flexible on the cut-off date of

15 August in order to ensure that the Model was inclusive of all inputs.



Mr Swart proposed that the provisions of Chapter 10 be implemented immediately.


The Committee NOTED:

(1) That the model needed to be finalised and adopted as a matter of urgency and put into practice on a trial basis long before the next parliament;

(2) That the Task Team should focus or illustrate clearly the way-forward and what was required by Parliament in order to successfully implement the model; and


(3) That parties should ensure improved attendance by members of Focus Groups and the Task Team, and that dedicated participation by senior management was essential for finalisation of the proposed Model.


It was AGREED:


(i) That the Report of the Task Team on Oversight and Accountability be referred to parties for inputs;

(ii) That submissions be sent to the Task Team coordinator by 15 August. The submission date, however, to be reviewed to ensure that all inputs are included;

(iii) That consideration be given to the immediate implementation of the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Report; and

(iv) That the office of the Deputy Secretary appoints an editorial team to work with the drafters on the report.


8. Consideration of minutes of 3 November 2006


On the proposal by Mr A C Nel, seconded by Ms S A Seaton, the minutes of 3 November

2006 were adopted.


9. Consideration of minutes of 28 February 2007


On the proposal by Mr A C Nel, seconded by Mr M J Ellis, the minutes of 28 February 2007

were adopted, subject to the following correction being effected:


On page 5, at the end of item 5, the next date for the Joint Rules Committee meeting should be reflected as 28 March 2007, and not 28 March 2006.

9. The meeting adjourned at 11:30.










___________________________ __________________________

Ms G L Mahlangu-Nkabinde, MP Ms P M Hollander, MP

Deputy Speaker of the NA Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP


No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: