Munasur Special Petition: consideration

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson announced that the change in membership of the Committee was ATC’d on 11 April 2011. The DA had replaced Ms A Dreyer with Ms J Terblanche. In addition, he indicated that Adv Gary Rhoda had replaced Adv Mukesh Vassen as the Committee’s Legal Advisor. The latter had been appointed to the Office of the Speaker.

The Committee had one item on the agenda-consideration of the Munasur petition. This matter had been given priority and the Committee’s programme was adjusted in order not to fail Parliament in assisting a citizen as the applicant had been diagnosed with cancer. In a previous meeting it was resolved that the Chairperson should meet with the Speaker and the House Chair relating to the inaccurate reporting in the Mail and Guardian. That meeting had since taken place and both the Speaker and the House Chair agreed that a letter to correct the misreporting should be written. It had been agreed that a letter should also be sent to IDASA on the matter. That had been done with the assistance of the Parliamentary Legal Unit. The Committee Secretary would circulate copies of the letters to Members.

In the first term of the parliamentary year the Committee had finalised four legislative proposals, and the House Chairperson had commented that he was pleased with the work of the Committee. Furthermore, there were also instructions from the House Chairperson covering such issues as how to use the budget, how to use ICT, and generally how to improve the performance of committees across Parliament. That included ensuring that every set of minutes after adoption be put on Parliament’s website in the spirit of transparency.

Munasur Petition
The Chairperson briefly summarised the petition by Mr Munasur. The applicant’s wife was formerly employed in the public service. The Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) had realised that a pension scheme had been discriminatory and had passed a resolution allowing those still employed in the public service, as at 2 September 1998, to claim arrear pensions. Mr Munasur’s wife was not still employed at this time, and had died in 1989, but he had lodged a petition that he be assisted in claiming arrear pension for the estate.

The Chairperson noted that this issue had been discussed previously and the Committee should move towards closure. At that time the Committee had determined that Mr Munasur had not explored all avenues.

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) agreed with the view that the petitioner had not explored all avenues available, as was a requirement before approaching Parliament.

Mr P Pretorius (DA) asked for clarity, the petition was related to the PSBC but it had indicated that it did not fall under its auspices and it was referred to the Department of Public Administration, and their response was negative. What were the other avenues available to Mr Munasur, could he approach the court?

Adv Rhoda replied that the Rules mentioned referring to the judiciary and the Executive and the Public Service Bargaining Council and the Department of Public Administration, so Mr Munasur needed to have gone through the courts as well.

The Chairperson noted the agreement that the petitioner had not exhausted all avenues. A resolution would be prepared for adoption and submission to the Speaker.

Other Matters
The other items on the agenda were for adoption and required a quorum; unfortunately there were not enough Members to form a quorum.

The next meeting would be a joint meeting with the portfolio Committee on Public Service Administration.

The meeting was adjourned.