Order! Hon Dr Oriani-Ambrosini of the IFP has, in several forums and on various occasions, put forward the argument that it is a constitutional requirement for the National Assembly to readopt its Rules and orders with or without amendments at the start of each new Parliament before it can proceed to conduct its business.
The standing Rules are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension, whether explicitly or by any order contrary to their purport. Each House has full authority over its proceedings, except insofar as such procedure is prescribed by statute. There is, however, no specific constitutional requirement that enjoins the House to readopt its Rules and orders at the start of each new Parliament. Rules which the House or its predecessor adopted, bind it, subject to its own power to suspend, amend, replace or repeal them.
In other words, the existence of a new Parliament does not invalidate the decisions and resolutions of previous Parliaments; they remain valid until such time as they are amended or rescinded by a new Parliament. The same argument applies to the Rules of the Assembly. They were adopted by the House and remain valid until amended or adjusted by a new decision of the House.
Also, should the House be required to readopt its Rules at the first sitting of each new Parliament, newly elected members who are not familiar with the complexities and details of the Rules will be at a definite disadvantage. It would, of course, amount to best practice if proposed Rule amendments were first properly discussed, debated and considered by the Rules Committee, a forum in which all parties are represented.
For the reasons stated above, I am therefore ruling that the House is not required to readopt its rules at the start of a new Parliament. Thank you. [Applause.]