Minutes and Committee's Annual Report adoption

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted an apology for Ms G Borman(ANC), and Mr P Van Dalen (DA) apologised on behalf of Mr S Van Dyk (DA).

Mr M Nhanha (COPE) raised a concern that the Committee’s proposed trip in January had been postponed because of the upcoming local government elections, although he had now discovered that other committees were continuing with their trips.

The Chairperson responded that this matter had already been raised with the Chair of Chairs, who authorised the granting of study trips. The reason for the postponement was given as the local government elections. This trip was now scheduled for June and this Committee should get a firm commitment that it would not be postponed again.

Minute adoption
The Chairperson then proposed to deal with outstanding minutes

Mr Van Dalen commented that there seemed to be little substance in the minutes.

Dr G. Koornhof (ANC) proposed that the Committee should begin with the minutes of the meeting on 23 March and deal with each in sequence.

Dr Koornhof asked whether the Committee would agree to ask the Committee Secretary to extract and list all the resolutions in the Committee’s minutes, which should then be presented at the strategic workshop to be discussed later on the agenda.

The Chairperson agreed that it would be beneficial to the Committee to package all the resolutions. Dr Koornhof’s suggestion was noted.

Minutes 23 March 2010
Dr Koornhof assumed that the annual report highlighted in these minutes was that of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor for 2009/10, and said that if this was so, then the minutes should reflect that this report was submitted to Parliament.

Members adopted the minutes, subject to this amendment.

Minutes 13 April 2010
Dr Koornhof asked for clarity on which report was presented by the Committee Secretary, and whether it was from the researchers, the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE or the Department) or the Committee.

Mr Disang Mocumi (Committee Secretary) responded that he had presented a Committee Report on the Budget Vote.

Mr K Dikobo (AZAPO) noted that this had been stated in the heading.

Mr Koornhof said that the heading was acceptable, but it should be clearly stated in the minutes themselves that the Secretary had presented the report of the Portfolio Committee.

The Committee adopted the minutes, subject to this amendment.

Minutes 20 April 2010
Ms C September (ANC) noted that the minutes did not reflect the chairperson for the meeting.

The Members adopted the minutes, subject to clarification of the point raised.

Mr Nhanha was concerned that often delegates from the Department and/or the State Owned Enterprises promised that they would respond to the questions raised by the Members, but often failed to do so. This was something that he recommended should be discussed by the Committee.

The Chairperson responded that it would be advisable for the Committee always to have the minutes of the previous meetings, which would help in following up with the Department. However, he also suggested that if Mr Nhanha was waiting for specific answers, then he should raise this with the Committee Secretary, who could then take it up with the Department.

Mr van Dalen suggested that the Committee should establish a practice that every agenda would always contain an item for approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.

Minutes 6 May 2010
Members adopted the minutes, with no amendments.

Minutes 21 July 2010
Mr Dikobo asked for clarification in terms of the name “Themba” that was highlighted in brackets in the introduction to the minutes, since this person did not appear on the attendance list.

The Committee Secretary explained that the Portfolio Committee had held a meeting jointly with the Select Committee, and Ms Themba was the Chairperson of the Select Committee.

Ms September advised that the minutes should be amended to reflect a joint meeting.

The Chairperson asked how this Committee should proceed with adoption of the minutes of a joint meeting, and whether it should consider and adopt them separately from the Select Committee.

Mr Mokoena stated that it was not proper for this Committee to adopt the minutes of the joint sitting, but that a special joint sitting of the two committees should be arranged to adopt the minutes.

Ms September stated that the Committee Secretary should seek proper guidance on the matter, but pointed out that when the President delivered a statement to a joint sitting of the houses of Parliament, he would normally respond to the National Assembly sitting on its own.

Mr Dikobo stressed that he raised the same issue in the previous meeting, noting that in practice each of the committee was sitting and adopting minutes, although perhaps not in the same way. He proposed that in future there should be a special joint session in order to adopt the minutes of joint meetings.

The Chairperson said he did not think it would be proper for this Committee to adopt the minutes separately, but leave them for adoption at another joint meeting with the Select Committee.

Dr Koornhof agreed with the Chairperson. He suggested amending the heading to reflect “Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises (joint meeting with the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises).” The minutes should be noted. The Committee Secretary should clarify how the Committee should handle the adoption of these minutes.

Mr Mokoena said the Committee should not delay itself now, but defer the matter pending advice from the Parliamentary Legal Advisors.

The Committee agreed to defer adoption of these minutes until another joint sitting of the two committees.

Minutes 17 September
The Committee adopted the minutes, with no amendments.

Minutes of meetings between 12 October and 23 November 2010
Dr Koornhof stated that the format of the minutes from 12 October onwards had changed to become a summary of outcomes and resolutions. The Committee had already made a decision that the outcomes and conclusions of all the meetings should be captured and summarised for presentation at the strategic workshop, no matter with whom the Committee had met. The Committee had some challenges. He thought there were two options: either to rewrite all the minutes in a proper format, or defer the adoption of these minutes. The Committee Secretary should obtain clarity as to the format of the minutes, and the Committee should commit itself to producing minutes in the prescribed way. He suggested that these minutes, between 12 October and 23 November, should be noted with all their defects but not approved.

Ms September agreed that the minutes should be rewritten, and referred again to the Committee, but did not think that they should be noted.

Mr Van Dalen noted that the Committee’s adoption of the minutes would indicate that the Committee believed those to be a true reflection. If it did not accept the minutes, they had no standing.  He agreed that the minutes should be referred back for redrafting in the proper format, so that the Committee could approve them, and there should be a set time by when they should be available.

Mr Dikobo suggested that the Committee would deal with two sets of minutes in the next meeting, since Mr Van Dalen was asking for a timeframe for the minutes to be redrafted.

Mr Van Dalen noted that if the Committee did not accept the minutes, then the resolutions contained in those minutes could not be referred to the workshop.

Ms September agreed, pointing out that there would be no time to deal with the minutes at the workshop.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee Secretary should try to rewrite the minutes before the workshop, so that the Committee could adopt them at the workshop.

Dr Koornhof stated that the workshop agenda was already full, and there would be no time. He pointed out that there were ten sets of minutes from 12 October, and he thought that a special meeting should be arranged for adoption of those minutes.

The Committee Secretary suggested a date of 22 February for adoption of the rewritten minutes.

The Committee agreed that the rewritten minutes would be resubmitted for adoption on 22 February

Committee Annual Report 2010 Adoption
The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to take the Committee through the Annual Report of the Committee.

The Committee Secretary stated that the Annual Report of the Committee (the report) reflected what the Committee had done in 2010. It firstly dealt with the State entities who reported to the Department and the Committee. It also dealt with the Budget Vote, and outlined the presentations of the Department and considerations of the Committee. The Committee had not considered any Bills in 2009/10. There were no international agreements or protocols for the Committee to approve. The Committee did not undertake any international visits or study tours in the 2009/10 financial year. There were no seminars or conferences for the Committee in that same period. All the papers that were before the Committee were dealt with and the financial statements of the Department were reviewed. The meetings held by the Committee were highlighted in the report, and the adoption of the minutes was also set out in a column of the report. There were two meetings that were held in an outside venue, and also two meetings that were cancelled by the Committee, and the reasons were explained in the report. There was an application for a study tour last year, which was not approved. One application was received by the Committee for its annual Winter School, which was paid for by the Department, the aim of which was to familiarise Members with the mandate of the Department and the entities.

Dr Koornhof stated that the Committee spent one third of its budget. That would translate to R100 000 of the total budget of R300 000, as highlighted on the last page of the report.

Ms September said that she had some recommendations for changes on the mandate of the Committee, particularly in regard to legislation and oversight, which she would forward to the Committee.

Mr Nhanha said bullet point number 2 in the report essentially spoke to what Ms September had highlighted. However, it was incorrectly worded and needed to be corrected.

Dr Koornhof stated that when the Committee visited Alexkor, only four Members had attended, and this should be reflected in the report.

Mr Mokoena responded that that was because of the dynamics of the proportional representation in the Committee. This attendance was therefore representative, and the Members represented the whole Committee.

Mr M Sonto (ANC) agreed with Mr Mokoena. Because ANC Members were in the majority in all committees, they were included in most tours.

Mr Koornhof stressed that the last pages of the report, from page 10, needed to be updated since the minutes must still be approved.

Ms September asked if whether there was any difference between a meeting of the Committee inside or outside Parliament.

The Chairperson said that the difference related to the costs.

Mr Nhanha asked which report was adopted on 30 April.

Mr Dikobo noted that the report reflected “deliberations and considerations and a Committee Report on the Strategic Plans”, which was adopted.

Dr Koornhof emphasised that adjustments needed to be made on the minutes that the Committee had approved today, and those referred back.

The Chairperson asked the Secretary to ensure that all the dates of the minutes corresponded, according to whether they had been approved or referred back.

Members asked that the Report be re-worked.

Strategic Workshop preparations update
The Committee Secretary informed the Committee that the Committee’s application for a strategic workshop around the Department’s strategic plans had been approved by the House Chairperson. It was scheduled to take place from 24 to 26 February 2011. Formal communication on the venue of the workshop would be sent to Members. It was planned for the Western Cape, but outside the City of Cape Town.

The meeting was adjourned.