Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House resolves that, notwithstanding Rule 106(5), the time allocated for party responses to executive statements for the remainder of the Fourth Parliament be as follows: ANC: 9 minutes; DA: 4 minutes; Cope: 2 minutes; IFP: 1 minute; and all other parties 1 minute each.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the IFP I rise to object and request an opportunity to motivate the objection.
The objection of the IFP has been noted. [Interjections.] Go ahead with the motivation, but only for one minute.
May I motivate, Mr Speaker?
Go ahead, but only for one minute.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We object on two grounds. Firstly, we object to the practice of replacing and amending a Rule of our National Assembly Rules for the entire term of Parliament without due process, because in that way we can very well amend all the Rules.
Secondly, the Rules give equal time to each political party and this amendment moved, is contrary to the prescription of the Constitution to protect minorities and give equitable time rather than proportional time to minorities. By reducing the three minutes which each political party has in terms of the Constitution to one minute, really eliminates the opportunity of meaningful debate on significant aspects of these proceedings. Thank you.
Thank you, Speaker. The ACDP also wishes to lodge its objection. May I also address you on this issue?
Also one minute, hon member.
Speaker, I also want to join the sentiments expressed by my colleague from the IFP, that it is ludicrous to participate in a discussion or comment on the statement made by a Minister in one minute. The Minister in this next instance will be given 20 minutes and we believe that it is also unconstitutional that parties should be given one minute to respond. Thank you.
Speaker and Deputy President, I think it will be important that we don't fabricate a new concept of due process and try to apply it to a House that already knows what due process is. In this House, we have a structure that is called the "Chief Whips' Forum" and that is where, in terms of due process that is required, we process the issues.
There was a meeting of the Chief Whips' Forum, where the parties were represented, including the IFP, which is introducing this new concept of due process, and we agreed on the time allocation that we have just proposed. So, all we are now doing is making a formal proposal that was already adopted by all the parties that were represented.
I think, hon Ambrosini, as a lawyer you will very well know that if you are absent and we are quorate we are entitled to take decisions, and we took this decision that we are putting before this House. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon members, since there has been objections, I now put the question. Those in favour will say "aye" and those agaist will say "no". The ayes have it.
Agreed to (Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).