Deliberations

Rules of the National Assembly

17 May 2007
Chairperson: Ms Baleka Mbete, Speaker of the National Assembly
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

Present:

House Chairpersons

 

Bapela, K O

 

Botha, C-S
Doidge, G Q M

 

 

 

Baloyi, M R (ANC)

 

Ellis, M J (DA)

 

Gibson, D H M (DA)

 

Jeffery, J H (ANC)

 

Mabe, L L (ANC)
Masutha
, M (ANC)

 

Mfundisi, IS (UCDP)

 

Modisenyane, L J (ANC)

 

Mulder, C P (FF)
Nel, A C (ANC)

 

Newhoudt-Druchen, W S (ANC)
Njikelana, S J (ANC)

 

Rajbally, S (MF)
Schoeman
, E A (ANC)

 

Seaton, S A (IFP)
Tsenoli, S L (ANC)
Tshwete, P (ANC)
Van der Merwe , J H (IFP)
Van Wyk, A (ANC)

 


Staff in attendance:
M B Coetzee (Deputy Secretary); M K Mansura (Secretary to NA); M Xaso (NA Table); M Griebenow (NA Table); C Mahlangu (NA Table), T Molukanele (NA Table); F S Jenkins (Legal Services); A Mamabolo (Committees); and E Hendricks (NA Table).

Opening and welcome (Agenda item 1)

The Chairperson opened the meeting at 08:38.

Apologies (Item 1 on agenda)

Apologies were tendered on behalf of the Deputy Speaker (G L
Mahlangu-Nkabinde), P De Lille, N C Kondlo, M T Likotsi, G T Madikiza, E Ngaleka, L L Matyolo-Dube, N Keswa, M P Mentor and R Van Heever.

Adoption of agenda (Item 2 on agenda)

The agenda as proposed was agreed to.

Consideration of minutes of 11 October 2006 (Item 3 on agenda)

On the proposal of Mr Doidge, seconded by Mr Ellis, the minutes of 11 October 2006 were adopted.

Draft Rules pursuant to adoption of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004 (Item 4 on agenda)

Adv Masutha reported that the draft Rules before them were as a consequence of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004. The Joint Rules Committee had agreed to refer the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act to the Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules for the drafting of the necessary Rules. Section 12 of the above-mentioned Act provides for the establishment of a separate committee for each House to deal with breaches of parliamentary privilege.

On 3 June 2005, the Joint Rules Committee agreed to a proposal by the Subcommittee to the establishment of a single committee in the National Assembly to deal with matters relating to contempt of Parliament and misconduct or disciplinary issues, but excluding breaches of the Code of Conduct which would remain with the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests.

The Subcommittee on Review of the Assembly Rules had several meetings and has since concluded its deliberations on the draft Rules for the establishment of the “section 12 committee”. The Subcommittee, on 11 October 2006, presented three options to the NA Rules Committee for consideration. These options primarily dealt with the composition of the “section 12 committee”.

Adv Masutha pointed out that further political input was however still required with regard to the notion of breach of privilege in relation to freedom of speech.

The Speaker indicated that the matter (establishment of the section 12 committee) had been with the Committee since 11 October 2006 and now needed to be finalised. She requested members to respond to the presentation by Adv Masutha.

Ms Seaton said that this was the first time that she saw the draft Rules and would need to take the matter back to her political party for consideration. She noted that her political party would probably have preference for option two, but that she needed to consult the party before a decision was taken.

Mr Ellis also indicated that he would also need to take the matter to his party. He further indicated that he would provide a written response within 48 hours from his party, indicating its decision. Ms Seaton also committed herself to responding within 48 hours.

Mr Jeffery mentioned that the Subcommittee on the Review of NA Rules was unable to reach consensus on one of the three options. He was concerned that consensus on this matter could not be guaranteed, even though parties had undertaken to submit written responses to the Speaker. He therefore proposed that a special meeting of the Committee be convened to deal with the matter.

The Speaker indicated that feedback from political parties would still be necessary. She requested that political parties urgently consider the matter so that progress could be made. She requested parties to submit feedback to her on this matter.
 
On the proposal of the Speaker, it was

AGREED
: That -
the matter be referred to political parties for discussion; and
the Rules Committee take a decision on the matter at its next meeting.  

Report of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC)  (Item 5 on agenda)

Dr Schoeman reported that research had been conducted into the title of the Leader of the Opposition in countries within and outside the British Commonwealth. With the exception of a single country, no other country had a constitutional provision which made reference to the Leader of the Opposition.

He said that the Freedom Front Plus had presented a paper to the CRC on the matter but failed to produce a concrete proposal.

Against this background, the CRC resolved to acknowledge that the title “Leader of the Opposition” in section 57(2)(d) of the Constitution was confusing and had given rise to dissatisfaction amongst the smaller parties. The committee also suggested that all political parties seek to obtain a position of consensus in this regard.

Mr Ellis cautioned against amending the constitution simply to suit smaller parties. He said that his view was that the debate in respect of the Leader of the Opposition was aimed at a specific individual.

Ms Botha enquired into the appropriateness of the CRC imploring a particular political party to be sensitive to concerns about a particular constitutional provision as well as to actively contribute towards an acceptable resolution.

Dr Mulder explained that the debate around the Leader of the Opposition was not aimed at an individual. He further explained that prior to 1994 there was a constituency based system that created a situation where there were mainly two large political parties. After the 1994 elections, South Africa had adopted a proportional system. The consequence of the proportional system was the existence currently of 16 opposition parties. He submitted that the smaller parties had discussed the matter amongst themselves and agreed that an impression had been created that a single political party had the sole right to speak on behalf of the opposition.

Ms Seaton suggested that the matter be referred back to the CRC. She also stated that the IFP did not support the title of Leader of the Opposition. The party did not believe that a leader of one party could represent all opposition parties. She explained that the IFP agreed with the recognition of the leader of the largest minority party instead.

Mr Nel requested that the Speaker guide the meeting as to what decision was required in this regard. He suggested that the Committee not lose sight of the history of the matter under discussion. The matter first arose in the context of who should speak first in response to the President’s state of the nation address. The matter then evolved into a broader discussion which included, amongst others, the role and status of the Leader of the Opposition. At some stage of the discussion, the focus turned to the alignment of the Rules with the Constitution. It appeared that the terminology used in the Rules and the Constitution was not consistent. The matter was then referred to the CRC. He suggested that if political parties felt that there was a need for further consideration of the matter, such a view should be entertained. Members were in agreement at the last meeting that the Constitution was supreme and that it would be inconceivable to have Rules that were not aligned with the Constitution.

Mr Mfundisi said that the title, Leader of the Opposition, should be removed from the Constitution.

Mr Jeffery acknowledged that “Leader of the Opposition” was an odd title. He, however, cautioned against unnecessarily amending the Constitution. He suggested that the option of a private member’s bill could be used to remedy the terminology. He further suggested that the Subcommittee on Review of the Rules should be mandated to bring the Rules in line with the Constitution to remedy the contradiction between the Rules and the Constitution.

The Speaker requested that political parties discuss the constitutional provision dealing with the leader of the opposition, as it was clear that an anomaly existed in section 57(2)(d) of the Constitution.
 
Mr Njikelana agreed with the Speaker that there was an anomaly in the Constitution. He suggested that the Committee should identify the options available to it.

Mr Tsenoli suggested that the matter be referred back to political parties and that they be given time-frames. Ms Mabe also expressed a concern regarding the time already spent on the matter. She requested that the matter be dealt with expeditiously. She further requested that the matter be referred to political parties so that they could discuss it.

Dr Schoeman also agreed that there was an anomaly in the Constitution in regard to the title of Leader of the Opposition. He pointed out that an option available to remedy the anomaly could be to exclude the words “as the Leader of the Opposition” as contained in section 57(2)(d) of the Constitution. He urged political parties to reach consensus on the matter.

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was

AGREED: That -
the matter be referred to political parties for discussion; and
the Rules Committee take a decision on the matter at its next meeting.  

Joint reporting by two or more Assembly Committees (Item 6 on agenda)

Mr Mansura explained that the request to provide for joint reporting by two or more Assembly committees arose in 2006. The Chairpersons of the Portfolio Committees on Public Enterprises, on Minerals and Energy and on Science and Technology had written to the Speaker requesting advice as to whether they could report jointly. They were advised that the Rules did not provide for a mechanism for Assembly committees to report jointly on matters.

Mr Mansura pointed out that the practice had been established where committees confer, at their own initiative or by direction of the Speaker or the House. The committee within whose portfolio the matter fell most directly would be required to report as the primary committee. There was, however, a need for the rules to permit joint reporting.

Mr Mansura proposed that if the Committee was in agreement, the matter could be referred to the Subcommittee on the Review of Assembly Rules for drafting of appropriate rule amendments. In determining such Rules the following practical issues should be considered:-
Who should decide on the need for Assembly committees to report jointly (the committees themselves, the Speaker, the House);
How are matters decided by such Assembly committees to report jointly (by each committee voting separately, by members of all committees voting together); and
Who chairs these joint committee meetings (should they be co-chaired).

After a discussion, it was 
AGREED: That –
there was a need for Assembly committees to be able to report on matters “jointly”, and
the matter would be referred to the Subcommittee on the Review of Assembly Rules for drafting of appropriate rule amendments.

8.         Closing (Item 8 on agenda)

The meeting adjourned at 09:31.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • 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: