JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF THE JOINT RULES: DRAFT MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS 16 March 2006 (E539, 14:00)

Present

Masutha, M T (Co-chairperson)

Mokoena, M L (Co-chairperson)

Jeffery, J H

Frolick, CT

Rajbally, S

Ntuli, Z C

Staff in attendance:

K Mansura (NA Table), N Ismail (NA Table), M Xaso (NA Table), V Ngaleka (NA Table), F Jenkins (Legal Services Office) and M Vassen (Legal Services Office).

1. Opening and welcome (Agenda item 1)

Adv Masutha welcomed everyone and informed them that the meeting was geared towards producing an outcome that could be presented to the Joint Rules Committee.

2. Apologies (Agenda item 2)
Apologies were tendered on behalf of Ms E Ngaleka, Adv L Matyolo (Secretary to NCOP) and Mr K Hahndiek (Secretary to NA).

3. Consideration of agenda (Agenda item 3)

Mr Jeffery pointed out that agenda item 4, "Progress report by Subcommittee on Review of the Assembly Rules: Rules pursuant to adoption of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act", was specific to the Assembly and ought to be on the agenda of the Joint Subcommittee only for noting.

Both Adv Masutha and Kgoshi Moekena agreed that the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules should address only joint matters.

Mr Jeffery raised a similar concern with regard to agenda item 5, dealing with the proposed Schedule (Fair procedures) to the Joint Rules. He asked for clarity on whether the Schedule should be an annexure to the Joint Rules or to the Rules of each House. He pointed out that section 45 of the Constitution stipulated what the Joint Rules Committee could do, which was to deal with joint matters. The envisaged section 12 committees would not be joint committees and therefore he proposed that the Schedule should be an annexure to the Rules of each House.

On the proposal of Adv Masutha, it was

AGREED: That the Schedule (Fair procedures) would be referred back to the respective House subcommittees for inclusion as an annexure to the individual Rules of each House.
On the proposal of Adv Masutha, it was

NOTED: That the meeting had thereby disposed of agenda items 4 and 5.

The agenda, as adjusted, was agreed to.

4. Discussion: Updating of references to money bills in Joint Rules (Agenda item 6)

Adv Vassen explained that the definition of "money bill" in the Joint Rules and Joint Rule 161(1)(e) were outdated as a result of a constitutional amendment. Technical amendments to the Rules had therefore been necessary to bring them into line with the provisions of the Constitution.

Mr Jeffery agreed that the Joint Rules should be adjusted to reflect the amendment. At the same time he expressed concern about the fact that the definition contained in the proposed amendment to the Joint

Rules repeated the definition given in the Constitution. He said that such repetitions were unnecessary.
Adv Masutha noted that the repetition of provisions in the Constitution and other laws also occurred in other Joint Rules. He said that such repetitions did not constitute good legal drafting. It was therefore necessary for the Rules to be revisited to address the problem.

On the proposal of Adv Masutha, it was

AGREED: To propose to the Joint Rules Committee the following:

(a) In Joint Rule 1 (1), entitled "Interpretation", to amend the definition of money bill as follows:
"money Bill" means a Bill to which section 77 of the Constitution applies;

(b) In Joint Rule 161, entitled "When Bills are out of order", to amend (1)(e) as follows:

(1)(e) section 77(2) of the Constitution.

On the proposal of Adv Masutha, it was further

AGREED: To recommend to the respective House subcommittees that they revisit their Rules to bring any references to money bills in line with the constitutional provision, as was done in the case of the Joint Rules.
The meeting adjourned at 16: 15

Adv M T Masutha, MP Co-chairperson: NA
Kgoshi M L Mokoena, MP Co-chairperson: NCOP