Version 7 of the Draft Rules: finalisation

Meeting report

Draft 7 of the National Assembly Rules: Party inputs 
The Chairperson noted that the meeting would allow for the inputs of the political parties on Draft 7 of the Rules

Chapter 1: Sources of authority of National Assembly

Rule 1
Mr N Singh (IFP) pointed out that the definition of “working day” for the sitting of committee meetings stipulated that “any day of the week except (a) Saturday and Sunday” but there were some committee meetings that were sitting on Saturdays. 

Mr Kasper Hahndiek, Private Consultant to the Committee, responded that Rule 138 (g) allows committees to meet on any day and at any time.

The Chairperson added that indeed committees could meet at any time and they can decide on the venue to convene.

Mr Hahndiek clarified that Rule 223 (2) made it clear that “if a committee or subcommittee applies to the Chief Whip to sit on a day which is not a working day, or at a venue beyond the seat of Parliament,” the Chip Whip may give permission in terms of subrule (1) only after having consulted the Speaker”.    

Rule 3
The Chairperson indicated there was a lengthy discussion on Rule 3 but the general consensus was that it would require a special majority in order to be able to suspend the Rules. There was also a suggestion that the Committee should define and contextualise “special majority” and this should be included in the options.  

Rule 5C
It was noted that nothing has been changed.

Chapter 3: Presiding officers and members
Rule 18A
The Chairperson indicated that the issue of a secret ballot for the removal of Speaker from office had been taken to court and there was as yet no ruling that had been made on the matter. Therefore, the Committee should rather put the proposal for the secret ballot for the removal of the Speaker as an option while still waiting for the court ruling. He wanted to highlight that what would be put to the Rules Committee would be what the Committee had generally agreed upon, and the options were only meant for the Rules Committee to expedite on those matters.

Mr N Matiase (EFF) suggested that the secret ballot for the removal of Speaker from office should be made as an option for further consideration.

The Chairperson clarified that the secret ballot was an option, but it was not primarily what the Committee was proposing to the Rules Committee.

Members agreed with the clarification.

Chapter 4: Sitting of the National Assembly
Rule 24A
Nothing had been changed.

Rule 35
The Chairperson mentioned that the general consensus was that there should not be Speakers’ list in the mini plenary sessions. There were some options that had been flagged by Members earlier that there should be Speakers’ list in the mini plenary sessions.

Mr Matiase said that there was nothing wrong in proposing options to the Rules Committee to consider matters which could make mini plenary sessions to work efficiently and effectively.

The Chairperson stated that the basic understanding was that the mini plenary sessions would work in accordance with the rules governing the the portfolio committees. The matter that was discussed extensively was the time allocation and fair balance in the accommodation of Members participating in the mini plenary sessions.

Mr Matiase suggested that “mini plenary” should be included under definitions, as there could not be an assumption that everybody understood it.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Chapter 5: Order in public meetings and rules of debate 
Rule 45
The Chairperson indicated that the main issue here was on dress code. The general consensus was that the Committee should retain Rule 45(3) and then leave it up to the Rules Committee to decide on the guidelines for a dress code. In essence, it would be up to the Rules Committee to make a decision on whether Members could wear clothing or clothing accessories that were revealing or displayed a party’s logo or style, and if they could wear dress not generally considered to be formal, such as denim, jeans, t-shirts, golf shirts, overalls and helmets or makarapas in the House.

Ms D Carter (COPE) suggested that it would be best for the matter of dress code to be split between business and traditional attire.

The Chairperson responded that this was an option, but the preference was the Committee should rather retain Rule 45(3) as an option. The EFF was against the removal of “according to their personal tastes” in Rule 45(3).

Mr Matiase agreed that the EFF was against the removal of “according to their personal tastes” in Rule 45(3) as this was a violation of a constitutional right of freedom of choice. It must be stated categorically that Parliament had been living with this provision for the last 20 years without seeing anything wrong with it. 

Mr B Mashile (ANC) responded that all rights were coupled with limitations and therefore Members could not simply dress as they pleased in the House. Members were not just representing themselves, but the general public

Mr Matiase clarified that people had been changing from one form of dress code to another and this could be located as one of the norms of human society, but this was not a matter of principle. The fundamental role of Members of Parliament was to hold the Executive accountable. 

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) wanted to know the meaning of “according to their personal tastes”.

Mr Matiase responded that these rules were obviously  confusing even to Members of the ruling party. There was no uniformity in the understanding and interpretation of these rules, and the ruling party had “been fast-asleep for the last 20 years” without fully comprehending the implications of all these rules. The EFF was very clear from the onset that the wording “according to their personal tastes” should be retained, and any attempt to delete this part would be construed as a violation of a constitutional right.    

Ms Carter proposed the insertion of “business and traditional attire” in Rule 45(3).

The Chairperson stated that the matter of traditional dress should not be a fundamental problem as not a lot of Members were wearing traditional dress, except for cultural events. Parliament could not be held at ransom by people who did not even wear the traditional dress code.

Mr Matiase maintained that the removal of “according to their personal tastes” undermined everything and the limitations are actually defeated by the personal taste. 

Mr M Booi (ANC) felt that it would be the best to stick to the broader approach and the Rules Committee would deal with the guidelines of dress code of Members in the House.

The Chairperson noted that the majority opinion was that it would be the best to stick to the broader approach and the Rules Committee would deal with the guidelines of the dress code of Members in the House. The concern of the EFF on the proposed removal of “according to their personal tastes” would be flagged.

Mr Enver Daniels, Chief State Law Adviser, clarified that even the personal taste that was to be chosen by a Member had to be exercised within the principle that a person still needed to dress in accordance with the dignity and decorum of the House. It was complex to determine precisely the meaning of “dignity and decorum of the House” as this could be interpreted differently. He suggested that the Committee should perhaps insert another option to accommodate the concern of the EFF that could read: “According to their personal tastes, provided that no party symbols may be displayed and provided further that such dress is in accordance with the dignity and decorum of the House and in accordance with any guidelines approved by the Rules Committee”. 

The Chairperson agreed with the proposed addition that had been made and further proposed that the Committee needed to define “dignity and decorum of the House”.

Mr Hahndiek suggested that the matter of  a definition for “dignity and decorum of the House“ should be referred to the Peer Review, where there would be a multi-party group of Members who agreed on what would be interpreted as dress code that was in accordance with the dignity and decorum of the House. 

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Rule 47, 48, 50A
Nothing had been changed in these rules.

Rule 51 to 54
Mr Hahndiek indicated that the EFF had proposed that Rules 51 to 54 should be deleted.

Mr Matiase indicated that Rules 51 to 54 represented “the greatest undoing of the ruling party” and the tightening of these rules was further exposing the ruling party to humiliation. He asserted that people on the ground could see this already. His brotherly warning to the ruling party was that it would be extremely difficult to restore what had been lost in the last 12 months.

The Chairperson said that the general agreement from the majority of Members was that Rules 51 to 54 should be retained but the concerns of the EFF would be flagged to the Rules Committee.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Rule 59
Mr Hahndiek mentioned that the option here was for the presiding officer to inform a Member in advance of the switching-off of the microphone.

Mr Mashile said that the presiding officer needed to be empowered to take a decision in cases where there was an unexpected interruption in the House.  

Mr Singh suggested that the matter of switching off the microphones should also be dealt with in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).

Mr Matiase mentioned that it was up to the ruling party to decide if it wanted the EFF inside or outside Parliament. The attempts of the ruling party had been about muzzling Members of Parliament and stifling their voices.

Ms S Kalyan (DA) indicated that her party believed it was unnecessary for the presiding officer to inform a Member before taking the decision to switch off the microphone.

Ms N Mazzone (DA) stated that there was a very good reason why the microphone would be turned off and this was to prevent the situation where other Members were not obeying the rules of the House. It is clear that while the majority of Members obeyed the rules of the House, some others chose not to do so, and this was a factor that needed to be taken into consideration.

Mr Daniels stated that the switching off of the microphone was an extreme measure and Chairpersons, in any meeting or forum within and outside of Parliament, needed to be constrained as much as possible and must always act in an acceptable and principled way. In essence, the switching off of the microphone infringed on the freedom of speech. That was why there was a proposal that the presiding officer needed to inform Members before the switching off of the microphone.

Mr Booi wanted to put it on record that the rules were not made for any political party but for all Members, in order to adhere to the rule of law.

Mr Matiase agreed that it would be constitutionally offensive for the Committee to propose that microphones should be switched off without informing Members first. The ANC had tried all means to stifle debate in Parliament by introducing rules that were unjust, and he cautioned that this attempt would fail dismally, through defiance. The ANC was the last party who should talk about adhering to the rule of law, when this party itself had had disrespected court orders and Chapter 9 institutions.

The Chairperson said that there had been a general principle applied whereby the presiding officer would inform Members before the switching off of the microphone. However, the Committee agreed that it should be stipulated in the rules that the presiding officer should inform Members before commencing to switch off the microphone.

Members agreed with the proposal.

Rule 61
Nothing had been changed.

Rule 70
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee had proposed that Rule 70(2) should be retained and all the options should be deleted.

Ms Kalyan proposed that there should be an option for Members who raised point of orders, in order to ask questions.

Mr Hahndiek responded that there is already a rule saying that Members are not to be interrupted and this was a matter to be taken into consideration in the event of a point of order being raised.

Ms Kalyan wanted to know if there is a rule which provides for Members to ask questions during debate.

Mr Hahndiek responded that there is only a rule for raising a point of order. A Member standing up without raising a point of order may be ruled out of order. This was a technical matter.

Ms Kalyan proposed that the Committee should have an option for a point of order, and a point of clarity.

Ms Carter responded that Rule 47(a) and (b) already contained the proposal that had been asked by Ms Kalyan. 

The Chairperson proposed that perhaps the Rules Committee should deal with the matter in detail.

Chapter 6: Decision of questions
Rule 76B
The Chairperson indicated that options on the secret ballot proposal should be deleted from here, as this was not the proposal of the Committee, but an option to be considered by the Rules Committee.

Ms Carter wanted to know the reason why this proposal was to be removed while it had been retained in the previous versions of the rules.  

The Chairperson corrected that this would only fall under the options that had been raised by Members in order to be considered further by the Rules Committee. However, it was not something that the majority of Members supported. He wanted to clarify that whatever was being put as a proposal by the Committee would be something where there was a consensus on the matter. The options were included where there had been a general disagreement. 

Members agreed with that clarification.

Rule 77
The Chairperson said that there was an agreement from Members that the phrase in Rule 77(1) - “may at the discretion of the presiding officer be” should be deleted.

Members agreed with the proposal.

Rule 80
The Chairperson reiterated that the general consensus was that there should be no secret ballot proposal, but that the subCommittee would include the options that had been flagged by other Members.

Rule 81
The Chairperson proposed that the time to be allocated to a Member from each party for making a declaration of vote should be changed from 3 to 4 minutes.

Ms Dlakude clarified that the general agreement was that 3 minutes was not enough, since most Members would be speaking about matters that were not on the agenda.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had proposed the inclusion of Rule 81(1A) and this emphasised that the time to be allocated to a Member from each party for making a declaration of vote should be determined by the Rules Committee, and must take into account the proportional strength of the party in the House.

Ms Mazzone agreed that there should be more time allocated to the ruling party to respond to all the questions that had been asked by Members of the opposition parties. However, she cautioned that this should not suggest that a party with, for example, one representative should be stifled from making additional declaration of votes, as their electorate would still be interested on the party’s inputs. 

The Chairperson responded that this was not the intention of Rule 81, but the matter should be referred to the Rules Committee to further deliberate on the issue.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Rule 82
Nothing has been changed.

Rule 84
The Chairperson mentioned that the option was to increase Members supporting demand for division from four to ten in number.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Chapter 7: Motions
Rule 97
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee had redrafted what was to be regarded as a Motion without Notice, as indicated in page 49 on Rule 97.

Mr Matiase said the Committee should not allow a situation where the right of political parties to formulate their own motions was taken away from parties, and instead place such right to appointed officials of Parliament, whether it was the Secretary of Parliament or even the Speaker.

The Chairperson interjected and pointed out that the criteria of Motions without Notice were very objective. It must be highlighted that any Motion without Notice that had been rejected could not be written by a Speaker. It was disappointing to see that the EFF had turned the conveyance of condolences in the House into a political agenda.  

Members agreed with the clarification.

Rule 98
Nothing had been changed.

Rule 102
Nothing had been changed. 

Rule 102A
The Chairperson reiterated that the option of a secret ballot would once again be referred to the Rules Committee to make further deliberations.

Chapter 8: Discussion of urgent matters
Rules 103, 105
Nothing had been changed.

Chapter 9: Members’ statements and Executive statements
Rule 105
The Chairperson said that the option was that the old Rule 105(11) should be retained and the Rules Committee would take a decision on the matter.

Chapter 10: Questions
Rule 110
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee was proposing that the questions to the Deputy President should be done once a month, but it was noted that this might be difficult because of the sittings. 

Mr Hahndiek stated that the clarity related to the meaning of once a month – and read out the new wording for the questions to the Deputy President, and this concern had been addressed in Rule 110(a) and (b).  The Programme Committee would determine the months in which it was to be asked.

Members agreed with the clarification.

Rule 113
The Chairperson said that the proposal that had been made was that the time to be allocated for questions to the President or Deputy President should be discretionary, but should not exceed three hours. Effectively s/he would be unlimited in terms of the current rules. Some Members of the Executive would find it convenient to be stopped.

The Chairperson said that sometimes there was a problem when the political parties felt that their questions were not answered adequately.

Members agreed with the proposal.

Chapter 12: Committee system
Rule 121
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee had decided to delete all the committees that no longer existed.

Rule 194A
Ms Kalyan also supported the proposal for the establishment of a Disciplinary Committee under Rule 194A as there were matters that were sent to the Ethics Committee but did not belong there.

Mr Matiase mentioned that he had sought a legal option on the current overlap between the Committees in terms of the Code of Conduct, and Powers and Privileges. Members needed to be given clarity on where the Disciplinary Committee would be located.

Ms Dlakude said that there was an agreement in the previous engagement that there should be a Disciplinary Committee established to deal with urgent matters and it would operate as a corrective measure. The understanding was that the Committee set up to deal with matters under the Powers and Privileges Act often took considerable time to resolve urgent matters.

Ms Ayesha Johaar, Deputy Chief State Law Adviser, said that the Disciplinary Committee must investigate anything that the Speaker says it must investigate, except contempt of Parliament in terms of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, or a breach in terms of the ethics.    

Mr Hahndiek stated that rule 194D (a) (i) already highlighted that the Disciplinary Committee would not deal with matters that were dealt with by the Powers and Privileges Committee. It would be advisable that to be able to refer matters to relevant committees. 

Members agreed with the explanation.

Rule 129
Nothing has been changed.

Rule 134
The Chairperson said that the Committee had proposed that a committee at all times required at least one third of its Members to be present for it to conduct any business. There was an option that there should be no quorum in committee meetings, but this was also to be left to the Rules Committee to make a decision on the matter. 

Rule 159
The Chairperson mentioned that the Committee had proposed to reduce the number of Members in the Rules Committee from 50 to 15 Members, and the composition should be similar to the political representation in the portfolio committees.

Members agreed with the proposal.

Rule 163A
Nothing had been changed.

Rule 164
Nothing had been changed.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Hahndiek would be working on the every area where there were options that had been included by Members, in order to be considered by the Rules Committee.

Mr Hahndiek said that the guidelines for the removal of the President had not been developed but he promised that these guidelines would be developed by the time of the next meeting, so that Members could make a proposal on the matter to the Rules Committee. 

The Chairperson thanked everyone present in the meeting and stated that the minutes of 05 and 06 October 2015 would be adopted in the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.