Present:
Masutha, M T (Co-chairperson)
Jeffery, J H
Ngaleka, E
Rajbally, S
Staff in attendance:
Mr K Hahndiek (Secretary to the NA), Adv F Jenkins (Legal Services
Office), Dr N Ismail, Ms M Griebenow
and V Ngaleka (NA Table).
1. Opening and welcome
(Agenda item 1)
Adv Masutha, as chairperson, informed members 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 Kgoshi M L Mokoena
(Co-chaiperson), Mr B J Mkhalipi and Mr S N Swart.
3. Consideration of agenda (Agenda
item 3)
The agenda, as presented, was agreed upon.
4. Consideration of Joint Rules framed by Presiding Officers for debate
in Joint Sittings (Agenda item 4)
The Rules framed by
the Presiding Officers for debate in Joint Sittings, published in the ATC of 13
February 2006, were presented by Mr Hahndiek.
Mr Jeffery asked
whether Salga (SA Local Government Association) representatives were allowed to
participate in joint debates, as in terms of the Constitution they were not
actually members of the NCOP and Joint Sittings consisted of members of the NA
and members of the NCOP.
Ms Ngaleka agreed that
there may be a lacuna in the Constitution and the Rules, but pointed out that a
practice had developed for Salga members to attend Joint Sittings, for example
the President’s state-of-the-nation address.
On the proposal of the
Chairperson, it was
AGREED: That legal opinion
would be sought on Salga’s participation in Joint Sittings.
Mr Jeffery was of the
view that there could be problems with regard to rulings by presiding officers,
particularly when the presiding officer considering the point of order was from
a different House to the member in regard to whom the point of order was
raised. Ms Ngaleka argued that the presiding officers should endeavor to give
rulings on the spot. Where that was not possible, a means had to be found to
give such a ruling.
The Chairperson
pointed out that a presiding officer had to communicate a ruling to the person
who raised the point of order and the person against whom it was raised.
Presiding officers could therefore be empowered to communicate and enforce a
ruling on behalf of a presiding officer of the other House.
Mr Hahndiek asked what
would happen if the presiding officer who was required to communicate a ruling
by another presiding officer was dissatisfied with the ruling. The Chairperson
explained that that was not foreign if one considered the fact that courts do
that all the time. Administratively it should be assumed that the presiding
officers had consulted each other on the matters. The authority of the ruling
was derived from the Joint Sitting. The presiding officers had to make and
enforce rulings irrespective of whether the source of the authority was the
House or a Joint Sitting. However, the matter required further discussion.
Mr Jeffery said that
it would be easier for the Subcommittee to consider the draft Rules if they
were drafted in Rule form.
On the proposal of the
Chairperson, it was
AGREED: That the relevant staff would draft the
proposed Rules in Rule form and indicate their compatibility with the Rules of
the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces for consideration
at the next meeting.
On the proposal of the
Chairperson it was
FURTHER AGREED:
That a progress report would be presented to the Joint Rules Committee meeting
of 21 June, as follows:
On
the proposal of the Chairperson it was
AGREED: That the Joint Subcommittee would convene
early in August to consider the outstanding matters in relation to the draft
Rules framed by the presiding officers.
5. Consideration of draft minutes of meeting
held on 16 March 2006 (Agenda item 5)
On
the proposal of Ms Rajbally, seconded by Ms Ngaleka, the minutes were adopted.
6. Matters arising (Agenda item 6)
There
were no matters arising.
7. Closing
The
meeting adjourned at 12:50.
Co-chairperson: NA Co-chairperson:
NCOP