Electoral Commission Amendment Bill: adoption

Home Affairs

10 June 2004
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS AD HOC COMMITTEE
11 June 2004
ELECTORAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL: ADOPTION


Chairperson: Mr HP Chauke (ANC)

Relevant Documents:
Electoral Commission Amendment Bill [B7—2004]

SUMMARY
The Committee adopted the Electoral Commission Amendment Bill without any changes. The amendment authorised the President to extend the term of office of the current Electoral Commission commissioners whose terms were expiring on the 30 June 2004. There were concerns around the lack of a specified timeframe for the extension. It was explained that a specified time period would be decided through a resolution of the House rather than stipulated in the Act to prevent continual changing of this Act when crises occurred.

MINUTES
Mr Chauke noted that the members had received the Electoral Commission Amendment Bill that day. The Committee was very aware of the time constraints as they had deal with the legislation quickly. The Chair had consulted with Parliament's programme committee to establish if it were possible to finish the Bill today as it was only a one liner and thus have it ready to be passed in the National Assembly on 15 June. If members believed that they had not had enough consultation time they would not be able to finalise the amendment today. If they did not finalise the amendment today, it would not be able to go to the House on the 15th as the three day rule had to apply.

Electoral Commission Amendment Bill: briefing
Adv. S Mogotsi (Legal Advisor: Home Affairs) explained that it was a small amendment. The Bill sought to authorise the President of the Republic to extend the term of office of any member of the Electoral Commission. The amendment was necessary because the term of office of the current members of the commission expired on 30 June 2004. That made the amendment crucial for the committee to deal with. The Bill amended Section 7 the principal Act, which was the Electoral Commission Act of 1996. The amendment was as follows: The term of office of a member of the Commission is seven years unless "the President, on the recommendations of the National Assembly, extends the member's term of office for a specified period."

Discussion
In reply to Mr M Swart (DA) asking if it was the seven years that was expiring at the end of June, Adv Smuts (State Law Advisor) said that it was.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) referred to the Memorandum and pointed out the typographical error in the phrase "nomination process referred to in section 3". He said it should read section 6.

Adv Smuts agreed that it was a typing error and that would be rectified in the next version.

Ms I Mars (IFP) asked if they were talking about any board member or of particular individuals.

Adv Smuts explained that the term was merely to fit in with the current wording. It started with the phrase 'a member' and it referred to the a member's term of office. He did not know if he had answered the question.

Mr I Mfundisi (UCDP) was concerned about the lack of a specified time period for the extension. He proposed that the Committee come up with a specified period.

Ms S Kaylan (DA) agreed. The Committee had to deal with the issue. Being vague was not the way to go. She asked if the Chair would ask for proposals for a specified time or if there should be more debate on the issue. She pointed out that there were four persons whose term of office was expiring. Was there an evaluation system in place? Were there any amendments envisioned to dismiss members who had not been performing?


Mr Chauke explained that they were dealing with the extension of term of office for commissioners and not their performance or non performance. It was obvious that the principal Act dealt with issues of performance and there were mechanisms in place.

In reply to Mr Mfundisi's concern, he said that a resolution of the House would decide this. There would be an arrangement through the Chief Whip's forum where all the parties would agree on the resolution. The Chief Whip would read the resolution and the House would pass the motion It was not the role of the Committee to deal with the time period because the resolution would stipulate the timeframe. He reminded members that there was a dual process. The process to elect new commissioners was going ahead. Adverts had gone out and a committee had been established. This process was moving to ensure that there was always a commission in place. Every month there were about by-elections. If there were a vacuum, the system would collapse. From this Committee the Bill would go to the NCOP, which was working with the same type of arrangement in order to pass it by 22 June so the Bill was enacted by the end of the month.

Ms L Mabe (ANC) asked if they would legislate the period in the Chief Whip's Forum as it could not be left the way it was.

Mr Chauke explained that the Chief Whip would deal with the resolution because this amendment referred to a "recommendation of the National Assembly". The consultation of parties would be done through that forum. He had tried to get a copy of the draft resolution for this meeting but assured members that they would receive it as soon as it was available.

Mr M Swart was concerned about the Chief Whip and Whips discussing the time period. The Committee would find themselves in Parliament not knowing what they were discussing nor having made any recommendations. It was important to put a time period into the amendment.

Mr Chauke stated that the purpose of the meeting was to empower the President to extend term of office. The period specified would be determined by Parliament. When dealing with resolutions, the majority party could not just go to the House and say that they were putting in a proposal and they wanted all the parties to support it. A resolution of this nature by the House meant all parties agreed to the specified period, bearing in mind that there was another process taking place. This would not undermine the process of the nomination of current and other commissioners. This was an emergency arrangement that would not go on for a year. In fact he could not see it going on for even six months. If the other process was not taking place, then there would be cause for concern. He added that the Act stated how many times a commissioner could serve in the Commission.

Mr Mfundisi felt that it was in the interests of the country to make sure that what is done is within the framework of a time period. That was not an unreasonable request. Everybody should be bound by a certain period that could not be exceeded. The Committee was aware that another process was in place but this had to be there for future times. They had to be careful that it did not happen again. A time ceiling needed to be place. Leaving it as is was a problem.

Mr Chauke asked if the member wanted the Committee to legislate the period instead of via a resolution of the House. The President was mandated by a resolution of the House rather than the Committee. Legislation would mean living with the amendment for the next thirty to one hundred years. Through a resolution of the House it could be a shorter period for the issue that was being dealt with.

Ms Kaylan asked for guidance from the Legal Advisors.

Mr Chauke stated that the recommendation from the legal advisors was that the House determine the specified time. There was a problem with members wanting to specify a period. He did not understand the fears and concerns of certain members. Once a time frame was put into the Act, they would have to return to amend that the Act whenever there was a crisis. If it were a House resolution, it would be a once-off. All the parties were going to participate in determining the specified time.

Mr S Swart asked for clarity on reappointments. Commissioners could be reappointed for one further term. Would the reappointment include an extended period? That is 7 years and then perhaps an extension for 2 years then a reappointment for a term of office. He suggested putting a time ceiling in. What did the reappointment mean in 7(3)(c). Did it assume that this included the extended period of office too?

Adv Smuts said that (7)(3)(c) referred to a complete term of office. So any extension proposed would be an addition.

Ms Mabe agreed that to specify a period would tie the Committee to making amendments on amendments in the future which would be a futile exercise. If it were left as a resolution of the National Assembly, it would cover the issue. In future if any changes were needed, it would require a change of the resolution and not the Act itself.

Ms Kaylan asked to see the resolution and also said that she thought that parties had agreed to waive the three-day rule so that they could pass this Bill quickly.

Mr Skhosana (ANC) wondered why the Bill used the phrase "on the recommendation of the National Assembly" instead of "by resolution of the National Assembly".

Mr Swart proposed that the wording be left as is but there be an addition that "the period will not extend six months after the local government elections".

Mr Chauke said that if that were done, the Committee would find itself putting in timeframes. Mr Mogotsi had stated that the House would decide. It was not for the Committee to decide. If they brought fears and politics in, they would never be able to deal with the amendment. He proposed that the Committee adopt the amendment bill and that by 15 June it would go to the House.

Voting on Bill
The Committee adopted the Bill without amendment. The Democratic Alliance representatives abstained in order to consult with their party.

Meeting adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: