DRAFT MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

14 June 2006 (E216) 10:10

 

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:

 

  1. A lacuna in the Constitution regarding the attendance of, and the participation in, of Joint Sittings by the South African Local Government Association (Salga). The Constitution refers only to their participation in the NCOP. However, a practice has developed for Salga members to attend Joint Sittings, eg the President’s state-of- the-nation address. A legal opinion on the matter has been requested.

 

  1. Potential problem areas have been identified, eg with regard to presiding officers wishing to rule on a point of order after consulting Hansard, ie after the Joint Sitting. This is particularly a concern in a situation where the presiding officer considering the point of order is from a different House to the member in regard to whom the point of order was raised. These problem areas require further examination and discussion.

 

  1. In order to avoid unnecessary delays, however, the Joint Subcommittee has instructed that the proposed new Joint Rules be drafted in Rules format to enable it better to ensure their accuracy and consistency.

 

  1. There is a need to ensure that the Rules of both Houses and the proposed new Joint Rules are compatible. The relevant staff have been requested to prepare a document in this regard.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Adv T M Masutha, MP                                                  Kgoshi M L Mokoena, MP

Co-chairperson: NA                                                                    Co-chairperson: NCOP