SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
20 September 2007
MANDATING PROCEDURES OF PROVINCES BILL [B8-2007]: PROCEDURAL DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Mandating Procedures of Provinces Bill [B8-2007]

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY

The Committee discussed the final mandates on the Mandating Procedures of Provinces Bill, as it had appeared at the last meeting that two of the provinces had reservations about the Bills and their mandates were not clear. It became clear in the course of discussions that not all Provinces had been sent the correct documentation. The Committee Secretary and Procedural Advisor would ensure that the correct version of the Minutes, Bill and summary of submissions, was sent to all provinces to ensure that the final mandates could be submitted shortly. 

A committee member gave a preliminary report on the research he had untaken upon which African countries might be suitable for a visit by the Committee. It was agreed that he should research Tunisia more thoroughly and that Members should make suggestions as to other suitable countries.

MINUTES

Fraternal Parliamentary Visits to other African countries.

At the request of the Chair, Dr F van Heerden (FF+) enlightened the Members concerning his research into the various options for a fraternal Parliamentary visit to other African countries. He warned Members that he had not expected to be asked to give his recommendations at this meeting, and so would be speaking without his notes.

Dr van Heerden said that Africa was viewed by Africans, and by many others,  as having been colonised by the United Kingdom, but this was a  misperception,  for Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium and Italy had colonized vast areas of Africa. Whilst he conceded that England was largely influential the other countries had also exercised influence upon Africa. Perhaps consideration could be given to visiting any country ruled by one of these former colonial powers to determine their heritage. He was of the opinion that perhaps it would be best for the Committee to investigate a North African country, for the purposes of a comparative study with South African conditions. This had the additional advantage in that the geographical location was close to Europe,  and if necessary a mother country could be studied after a North African country without incurring too much additional expense.

Of the North African countries, he felt that Morocco, parts of which had been colonised by both France and Spain before unification, was interesting. It was a Moslem country and an exporter of mineral and agricultural products. Algeria too was  Moslem and an exporter of minerals, but was currently undergoing civil strife and might be too dangerous too visit. Tunisia also was an exporter of minerals, which was especially interesting for although it was controlled by France, the control was looser than comparative countries, and the Tunisian people themselves and their original institutions had been retained as a basis for future development. Tunisia had, after independence, maintained close ties with France.  Among the Francophone territories Senegal was yet another possibility, although it occupies a different geographic area and a very different French political legacy, as it had been almost a Department of France, had sent delegates to the two French Parliamentary houses, and French had been the language of the Senegalese elite, politicians, and business and the culture of Senegal had been essentially French. In his opinion the French colonies had benefited from the French political beliefs of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and this ethos had pervaded into the French Colonies, even if practiced less than preached.

He commented that the current French President, Mr Sarkozy, had been making interesting speeches of late, even if such speeches did not amount to an actual declared policy change by France. President Mbeki had responded favourably to such speeches.

Dr van Heerden expressed the opinion that for the Committee to visit a former French colony, rather than a former English colony, would be both more beneficial and more politic. If the Committee was interested in any one of these countries he could then do further research on whichever is selected .

Discussion

Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) expressed scepticism that Morocco was not very friendly towards women. He considered that Nigeria was over-visited. He was not certain about Tunisia, but had no adverse feelings about it. He added that Senegal had previously had internal friction between various competing units, but had solved such friction, and as such might be ideal to visit for study purposes.

The Chairperson asked Dr van Heerden to do more and further research, especially about Tunisia.

A Member expressed that he had listened carefully to Dr van Heerden but felt that clear objectives were needed before a final decision is made.

The Chairperson then stated that he wanted the Committee to consider which African country might be suitable for a comparable exploratory visit. He thanked Dr van Heerden for the work thus done.

Mandating Procedures of Provinces Bill B8-2007: Mandates of provinces
The Chairperson noted that the final mandates of two provinces had been indecisive and it was therefore resolved to consider those mandates of North West and Northern Province again at this meeting. However, KwaZulu Natal (KZN) had since suggested, via the KZN Whip, that the Province was likely to reject the Bill, then an indication was given that it had in fact only qualified the Bill, and it was unclear what the position currently was.  

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC: KZN) confirmed that not only had KZN found difficulties with the Bill, but he believed other provinces also had raised queries. He sought clarity on the issue and stated that KZN had not been aware that amendments to the Bill were proposed by the Committee as a result of the mandates from the provinces. He hoped that KZN would respond to the final form of the documentary Bill.

The Chairperson said that all Provinces had received minutes of the recorded discussions, and in fact the current meeting was also being recorded. It seemed that the Provinces had not been fully advised of the processes.

A Member said that he had been mandated to vote against the Bill as his Province had received a version that did not incorporate the proposals and discussion that had taken place at the previous meetings,  and he had not foreseen that the Bill as now worded would have been submitted to the Province. He proposed that the Bill be considered and voted upon, in the light of the mandates given to delegates. 

The Chairperson thanked the Member for raising this point and stated that he was not aware that the Provinces had received a one-page document purporting to be the Bill to accept or reject.

Adv B Momoti, Senior Procedural Adviser, National Council of Provinces, intervened and said that a document, to which was annexed all the proposals and views raised by the delegate Members, had been submitted to the Provinces. He considered that all that was left to the Provinces was to debate matters of style. The definitions provided meant that there was no reason to change anything of substance and it was merely a matter of formal debating and acceptance. However, it seemed that this was not the case, and that there were major issues not relating only to style or semantics

Mr J le Roux (DA, Eastern Cape) reminded Adv Momoti that it was not necessary to recall the full Provincial Council to get their mandate, as comment had been made upon the draft Bill. What the Provinces had received for comment and debate was an attenuated Bill, and this was the first time the Provinces had seen the Bill in this form.

The Chairperson intervened to say the Gauteng had been well represented and that Gauteng and KZN had considered the Bill.

Adv Momoti suggested that reference be made to the Minutes of the former meeting and the members could see exactly what had transpired. Those Minutes were a true reflection of what had taken, place, and who had said what.

Mr Mzizi noted that he had not been present in Mbizana but had merely been presented with a Schedule and told that this should be signed. He reminded Members that the Bill had been advanced and deliberated. KZN had expressed reservations, and an attempt was made at reaching consensus, by noting that any delegate was permitted to vote against the Bill at a later stage. He could not see from the document what he should be voting for or against.

Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) agreed. He wished to see the Minutes of the previous meetings to see what had been decided, if anything.

Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) stated that the Bill before the Committee was marked B8B –2007, but he could not see that there was much difference between the two versions. He referred to Chapter 2, which empowered the Speaker of a Provincial legislature or someone delegated by the Speaker to vote on the Bill as mandated. He expressed reservations and wondered if anyone knew exactly what was being voted for.

Mr Ntuli wanted to clarify what Mr Mzizi had said. He noted that the KZN legislature had been presented with an “old’ copy of the Bill.

The Chairperson then said that it seemed that two documents were in existence and no one really knew what had transpired, or which document had been before which Province.

Dr van Heerden suggested that the way to resolve the predicament was to produce the Bill, and append to it the comments made and suggestions received, so that the Provincial Legislatures could see what had happened to their submissions and comments. He felt that with nine provinces agreement might be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. However, there needed to be some consensus to achieve progress.

Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) seconded the proposal by Dr van Heerden and said that the Minutes, with annexures, should be produced to track progress.  He could not attend the last meeting, but was of the opinion that certain documentation as missing. He would like to see the Provincial reports appended to the Bill.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC, Mpumulanga) noted that there was also confusion arising over the section 8 and subsection 8.

The Chairperson stated that a one-page summary had been dispatched.

Mr J le Roux  said that he had not received it and it seemed that others had not received it either.

Adv Momoti said that all the submissions were summarized in a one page document that had been sent to the provinces. It seemed that not all provinces had received the same version.

Mr Manyosi illustrated some differences in the versions received.

The Chairperson conceded that there had been a problem with the production and dissemination of documentation. The correct version of what should have been disseminated was stored on the laptop of the Committee Secretary, but due to her absence from office during the Mbizana trip, the incorrect version may have been sent out. The correct version would be printed and made available.

Adv Momoti undertook to liaise with the Secretary and ensure that the correct version, together with annexures, was circulated.

Mr Ntuli agreed with Dr van Heerden that the whole process could not be held up and that KZN should attend to resolving the matter speedily.

The meeting was adjourned