Draft Minutes of Proceedings
Joint Rules
20 June 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
JOINT RULES COMMITTEEDRAFT MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY, 20 JUNE 2007
These minutes were provided by the National Assembly Table Staff
Chairpersons: Committee
Secretaries:
Speaker of the National Assembly
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
PRESENT
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nel, AC |
|
Ngaleka, E |
|
Rajbally, S |
|
Rwexana, SP |
|
Seaton, SA |
|
September, CC |
|
Van der Heever, RPZ |
|
|
|
|
|
APOLOGIES
|
|
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:
4. Formalisation of the Multiparty Womens’ Caucus:
Continuation of discussions (item 4 on agenda)
The Committee NOTED:
That
the proposals for the establishment of the Multiparty Women’s Caucus and the
proposed
Rules are agreed to in principle.
and AGREED:
(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:
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