I now recognise the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party. I was told that the chairperson of the committee would introduce the report, but ... I see the Deputy Chief Whip who is out of order. Chairperson, come and introduce the report. [Interjections.]
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am acting on behalf of the chairperson, who cannot be here today.
In keeping with the constitutional imperative that the Joint Constitutional Review Committee must review the Constitution at least annually, the committee invited the public earlier this year to make submissions. The public was specifically encouraged to make submissions on the equality clause in the Bill of Rights and on the institutions supporting constitutional democracy. Eleven submissions were received from the public, and we would like to thank members of the public for their contribution to strengthening our constitutional democracy. We also received submissions from the National Assembly Rules Committee and the Free State legislature.
In dealing with these submissions, the committee realised once again that our Constitution and the values underpinning it may and should be the focus of continued public discussion and debate. In this way, all South Africans will be able to make the contents of the Constitution their own, turning it into a living document with real meaning for everyone. It is only when all South Africans accept ownership of the Constitution that they will come to protect and defend it even when it may not necessarily suit them.
As has become the norm under the able chairmanship of the hon Manie Schoeman, this year's review exercise was comprehensive and thorough. We were also once again fortunate to have had the excellent legal assistance of people like Advocates Adhikari, Vassen and Jenkins and Mr Hendricks, enabling us to really apply our minds to all the submissions.
The submissions once again included the so-called hardy animals such as the request for a referendum on the death penalty. As usual, a number of submissions did not deal with proposed constitutional amendments, and it should therefore be emphasised once more that while we want to encourage submissions, we cannot entertain those that have no bearing on the Constitution or require amendments to ordinary legislation instead of amendments to the Constitution. The Rules Committee requested us to consider the appropriateness of the recognition by the Constitution of the leader of the largest opposition party in the National Assembly as the Leader of the Opposition. This matter originated from the view of opposition parties other than the DA that "the use of the title `Leader of the Opposition' creates the impression with the electorate that this person makes statements and takes a stand on issues on behalf of all opposition parties".
Counterarguments were advanced on behalf the DA, inter alia, that the title of the Leader of the Opposition has been maintained in a country like Britain even though a new reality of three strong parties instead of the traditional two has emerged there in recent years, and that this title has been included in the Constitution to give special recognition to the opposition.
The committee acknowledged that the particular title has given rise to dissatisfaction amongst smaller opposition parties. We said that amendments to the Constitution should be done after proper deliberation and with due circumspection, and we suggested that all political parties internally debate the matter with a view to finding consensus. This decision was communicated to the Joint Rules Committee for further consideration.
The Free State legislature submitted that the Constitution be amended so as to increase the size of the respective legislatures to, inter alia, allow them to conduct more efficient oversight and ensure public participation.
We felt that all provinces should be involved to advise us, and we have therefore written to the provincial legislatures, inviting them to express their views at a meeting to be convened in the first term of 2007.
While all of the submissions pertaining to institutions supporting constitutional democracy did not propose amendments to the Constitution, a number of these submissions did make important recommendations with regard to the functioning of these institutions. For example, it was submitted that these institutions should be more accessible to the public, especially to the uneducated and the poor.
We were of the view that while there was merit in these submissions, they could be more comprehensively dealt with by the recently established Ad Hoc Committee on the Review of State Institutions Supporting Constitutional Democracy under the able chairmanship of the hon Kader Asmal.
There were also certain misconceptions with regard to these institutions. One member of the public has so much confidence in the Public Protector that he suggested that the Public Protector be empowered to review court decisions. For obvious reasons, the committee opted to protect the notion of the separation of powers implied in our Constitution and the impartiality of our courts.
In another submission, the role of the SA Human Rights Commission and that of our courts were confused as it was submitted that the commission should impose heavier sentences on convicted offenders.
The floor-crossing matter also crossed our table. The committee is aware that this matter is currently receiving the attention of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions. We refrained from engaging in a parallel process while being mindful that we may have to deal with the matter at a later stage.
Then there was also an apparent attempt to influence the presidential succession matter. It was submitted that the Constitution be amended so that President could be directly elected by the people rather than the National Assembly. I don't know; it seems the people don't have that much confidence in us.
The committee diplomatically decided that the desirability of amending the electoral system was a far-reaching policy consideration that would require more research and discussion before the committee could consider the matter.
All in all, we had a most interesting and rewarding constitutional review exercise this year. Once again, it was a privilege to engage in matters dealing with our internationally acclaimed and respected Constitution. We should never stop educating one another on the values enshrined in this larger-than-life contract of and between our people, the contract of a people who believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
It is indeed an honour to support the 2006 report of the Joint Constitutional Review Committee as tabled. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The report was presented as if the committee was unanimous on all aspects. It is quite clear to the hon colleague and everyone present that, on that issue, the words or the phrase in the title ``Leader of the Opposition'' creates confusion.
I made it quite clear that the DA was against that phrase and doesn't agree and, in fact, I said that the only confusion that can be could be amongst people who do not understand English properly.
Hon member, obviously that is not a point of order; it is a matter for debate. Hon Gumede, the House still has a lot of business to deal with, but if the hon members need a convenient break, I am sure we might consider that.
I now recognise the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party.
Deputy Speaker, we move that the report be adopted.
The motion is that the report be adopted. Are there any objections?
Yes, it is a pity that we have to stand up on this particular point because my colleague, the hon ...
The question is just on whether there are any objections. I think based on what he said earlier on, it is OK that you object.
Well, I would like to object to that particular point, but the rest of the report we will support.
I beg your pardon?
I want to have the objection of the DA noted on the one particular point that my colleague has raised, but we don't have any problem with the rest of the report. I mean if the hon Gaum had just put the matter properly in the first instance, we wouldn't be in this difficult situation now.
OK. I just wanted to say that what we are looking at now is the motion that the report be adopted, and you say that you have objections. Because there are objections, we have to follow what we usually follow when we have objections. You have to put the question. Do you want to object or do you want to be recorded in Hansard or what do you want?
I certainly don't intend calling for a division, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like our objection to be noted.
That's fine.
We still have a lot of business. We will now record it properly that Mr Ellis is not objecting to the report, so the report is not objected to. [Interjections.] What is the problem now?
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I see it, we have no option but to object to the report. If we can't object to one aspect of it, then we have to object to the report as a whole.
So you object to the report?
Yes.
All right. Now I really have to put the question if you are objecting to the report.
Deputy Speaker, Mr Delport rose and he took umbrage at the way Mr Gaum phrased his introduction to the report. I didn't hear the hon member Delport object to anything in the report itself and maybe he can clarify that, but certainly it will be quite distinct what is in the report and what any member might have said about the report. In any case, I mean Mr Gaum assured us that perhaps Mr Delport didn't hear him quite correctly. But, in any case, be that as it may, the matter before the House is what is in the report, not what anyone said here about that report.
What are you actually saying? [Laughter.]
I am saying that Dr Delport should tell us what exactly he is objecting to - whether he is objecting to what Mr Gaum said or whether he is objecting to anything that is in the report.
But the DA says they object. Of course, it is the DA's democratic right to object. So, I wanted to put the question, but I am told that there is no need. Your objection will be noted.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the hon Deputy Chief Whip of the ANC wants us to call a division, we will do so with pleasure.
Yes, Chairperson. It seems to me that the report is correct because, while we are noting things, I think we should also note that on this matter that deals with the opposition, there is only one party that has a problem with it. [Applause.]
I think I have always been taught that the right thing to do is to do things correctly, and I think we need to put the question. Those in favour say ``Aye''.
HON MEMBERS: Aye.
Those against, say ``No''.
HON MEMBERS: No.
I think the Ayes have it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA would like its objection to be recorded. Thank you.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted. Consideration of request for approval by Parliament in terms section 231(2) of the constitution - Free trade AGREEMENT (FTA) BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN