Draft Mandating Procedure of Provinces Bill: briefing on submissions
SECURITY
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
31 January 2007
DRAFT MANDATING PROCEDURES OF PROVINCES BILL: BRIEFING ON SUBMISSIONS
Chairperson: Mr L
Mokoena
Documents handed out:
Mandating
Procedures of Provinces Bill
Memorandum on the
objects of the Mandating Procedures of Provinces Bill
South African Human
Rights Commission (SAHRC) submission
Western Cape
Provincial Government submission
SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed on submissions received on the Mandating
Procedures of Provinces Bill. The SAHRC had proposed the introduction of an
additional sub clause to clause 8 but the Committee decided that the proposed
clause was already covered within the existing clause. The Committee
nevertheless extended an open invitation to the SAHRC to make a presentation to
the Committee if they wished to do so. The Committee also discussed its
committee programme.
MINUTES
Adv Bafo Momoti (Senior Procedural Advisor: National Council of Provinces)
briefed the committee on the submissions received on the Bill. To date only two
submissions had been received: One by the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)
and the other by the Legislation Department of the Premier of Western Cape
Provincial Government. Adv Momoti highlighted those comments that affected the
substantive nature of the Bill. SAHRC felt that clause 8 (2) was unclear and
they proposed that an additional clause 8 (3) be added to the Bill. The SAHRC
also questioned the omission of clause 7 but Adv Momoti explained that it had
been an oversight on the drafter’s part. The omitted clause 7 was to be found
in the Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill
Discussion
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) believed that the proposal by the SAHRC of an
additional clause was ambiguous and that the clause as it stood did cover what
was being proposed.
The Chairperson, Mr Mokoena shared the same sentiment. Adv Momoti was in total
agreement with them. He felt that the drafter of the SAHRC proposal was not
informed on the internal procedures within provinces.
Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) found it problematic that people were uninformed
about the internal procedures of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). He
suggested that the SAHRC be asked to present and explain its proposal to the
committee. Mr Moseki said that clarity on the reasoning behind the proposal was
needed.
Mr J Le Roux (DA, EC) agreed that it was the safest route to take.
It however turned out that a representative from the SAHRC was present at the
meeting. The individual had been mandated only to observe proceedings and not
to make comment.
The Committee appreciated the limited mandate of the representative. The Chair
commented to the SAHRC representative that it would be helpful if the SAHRC
could be informed that the Committee was of the opinion that the proposal made
had been overkill and that the intended purpose of the suggested sub-clause was
already covered.
Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) asked whether a final mandate needed to be passed
by a full sitting of the provincial legislature.
Adv Momoti referred to the judgement in the case of the United Democratic
Movement versus the President of the Republic of South Africa & Others. In
this case it was submitted on behalf of the African Christian Democratic Party,
that the provincial legislature could not delegate its voting power on
legislation from the NCOP to lower committees. The court, however, did not
pronounce itself on the legality of the House delegating to a lower committee
to confer authority to vote on its delegation. [Note: The Eastern Cape
provincial legislature had delegated its powers to a 'business committee' when
the legislature was not sitting].
Adv Momoti said that as long as there was representativity in the provincial
legislature a final mandate could be passed. He noted that the Bill was a means
to ensure uniformity on procedures.
The Chair was confident that the Bill set out exactly what it was supposed to.
He felt that it was unambiguous and that the concerns of the SAHRC had in fact
been covered within the Bill.
Mr Mokoena did however make it clear that if the SAHRC was still dissatisfied
with the Bill it could raise its concerns with the Committee.
The Committee agreed.
Adv Momoti continued with an explanation of the process that the Bill had
undergone to date. The process up until now was as a draft Bill prior to its
formal introduction into Parliament. The second phase would commence once it
was introduced. Once the Bill has been published and introduced it would be
open for comment and stakeholders would be invited to participate in public
hearings. Adv Momoti noted that the Bill had to be classified either as a S75
or S76 Bill prior to its introduction. He believed the Bill to be classified as
a S76(2) Bill.
Mr Moseki remained concerned about the comments received from the SAHRC and
felt it best that they address the Committee.
Mr Mzizi reacted that Chapter 9 institutions never made submissions to the
NCOP. It was felt that the NCOP was always overlooked and that submissions were
only made to the National Assembly (NA). He asked whether Chapter 9
institutions ascribed to Parliament as a whole or whether they only ascribed to
the NA. Mr Mzizi said that Chapter 9 institutions should be aware that the
Committee was always willing to listen to comments from them.
Adv Momoti reiterated that the Bill was yet to be introduced and that the
committee was free to consider the submissions received and to invite the SAHRC
to explain its comments.
The Chair nevertheless felt that the Bill should for now stay as it is and that
after its introduction, stakeholders would be allowed to make comments and to
address the committee if they so wished.
Adv Momoti emphasised the importance of passing the Bill.
The Chair asked Adv Momoti to try to expedite the process on the Bill. Mr
Mokoena commented that the Committee was the first to introduce a Bill.
Committee Programme
The Committee continued with a discussion of items on its committee programme.
Amongst the items discussed was an invitation from the Minister of Defence to
visit the navy. A delegation from Norway also wished to meet the committee
later in the year. The Committee was supposed to have dealt with its Committee
Report on the North West but due to administrative delays it was decided to
consider it in the Committee’s next meeting. A decision was taken to delay
oversight visits to the KwaZulu Natal in February as it clashed with the
opening of provincial parliaments.
The Chair stated that the committee budget would be submitted to members in the
next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
