Modulasetulo, Komiti ya Private Members Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions e hlomilwe go ya ka Melao ya Ngwako wa Boset?haba, gagolo karolwana ya bo209. E t?eya maatla a yona go t?wa go karolo ya bo211. Yona bjalo ka komiti, e dira mmereko ka morago ga ge Ofisi ya Spikara e tla ba e re romet?e dimemorantamo t?a go t?wa go Maloko a Palamente.
Go ya ka tshepedi?o ya komiti, re ile ra kgetha go fedi?a Molao wa bo 138(e) wo o re filego maatla a gore re dire kutu t?a melaotlhahlo t?eo di tlago hlahla komiti go fihlelela go dira mmereko wa yona ntle le mathata. Seo sa re dira gore re t?welet?e karolwana ya bo235(a) yeo e set?ego e amoget?we ke komiti ya ka fase ya Melao ya Ngwako wa Boset?haba. Ka mo gare ga wona Molawana wo, re t?weledit?e dintlha t?e di latelago t?eo e lego kutu t?a melaotlhahlo t?a komiti: ... (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)
[Mr S G THOBEJANE: Chairperson, the Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions committee was established according to the National Assembly Rules, especially Rule 209. This Rule is linked to Rule 211. The committee members do their job after the office of the Speaker shall have sent them a memorandum from the Members of Parliament.
We repealed Rule 138 (e), which gave us the power to make the guidelines that will help the committee to do their job effectively. We then came up with Rule 235 (a), which has already been accepted by Parliament's Rules Committee. We included in the National Assembly Rules the following points which are the basis of the guidelines for the committee. [Interjections.]
We guard against, firstly, going against the spirit, purport and object of the Constitution; secondly, seeking to initiate legislation beyond the legislative competency of the Assembly; thirdly, duplicating existing legislation or legislation awaiting consideration by the Assembly or the Council; fourthly, pre-empting similar legislation soon to be introduced by the national executive that will result in a money Bill; and lastly, such particular proposal should not be frivolous or facetious.
In the light of the above, the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions unanimously resolved that hon I O Davidson should not be allowed to proceed with the proposed legislation to correct the anomalies in the Executive Members' Ethics Act, Act No 82 of 1998.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was given an opportunity to make a presentation to us. The committee realised after the presentation that it was very clear that the department's intention was to make sure that the legislation should soon be introduced to close that particular challenge that was identified by the hon Davidson. We then utilised principle D, to avoid pre-empting similar legislation soon to be introduced by the national executive. We then resolved that Mr Davidson should not be given an opportunity to proceed with the legislative proposal.
Re kgopela gore Ntlo ye e amogele pego ye gomme e t?eiwe bjale ka ge e bolela. Ke a leboga. [We request that the House accept the report as it is. Thank you.]
Hon members, requests for declarations of vote have been received. I will now allow up to three minutes to one member of each political party wishing to make a declaration to do so.
Declarations of vote:
Mr Chairman, I gladly follow the hon Thobejane. He takes his role as chairperson very seriously and I commend him for that.
The DA will support this report but need to point out why we do so with some reservation. This proposal by Mr Davidson was prompted by the President's late declaration of his interests last year and the Public Protector's finding in that regard.
The Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions considers proposals in terms of six criteria, as the chairperson has mentioned. One of these criteria is to consider whether the executive would soon bring similar legislation. This private member's proposal was referred to the committee on 4 May 2010 and on 25 August 2010 the sponsor briefed the committee on its content. A process of consultation and deliberation then followed.
Key in this consultation process was information supplied to the committee by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on the executive's own legislative plans in the months ahead. The committee was informed by the department on 16 March 2011 that the government was indeed going to bring similar legislation. The committee heard that Cabinet had already approved the principle underlying the Executive Members' Ethics Act in November 2010 and, further, that government's own executive members' ethics Bill would in all probability be submitted for Cabinet's approval in the same month, March 2011, and to Parliament for consideration in April 2011.
This submission that sets out government's timeframes formed the basis for the committee's resolution to recommend that the proposal of Mr Davidson should not proceed since it pre-empted similar legislation soon to be introduced by the executive.
We are now in mid-August, four months later, and sadly there is still no sign of the promised legislation before Parliament. This is clearly unsatisfactory and we need an explanation for the delay. For the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions to be able to do its work properly and be taken seriously, it needs the support and co- operation of the executive.
I want to urge the Leader of Government Business to look into this matter and ensure that the legislation reaches Parliament urgently. Our committee also recently took a resolution in respect of the proposal to repeal the South African Boxing Act. The deadline provided for the introduction of that Bill is drawing closer and we will closely watch government's action or inaction in that regard.
Finally, we will nevertheless support this report before the House but urge the executive to take this committee and Parliament seriously. [Applause.]
Chair, the ACDP welcomes the opportunity to comment on private members' legislative proposals in this House. This is a rare occurrence. The proposals themselves, of course, did not make it to the National Assembly, which is unfortunate even if simply because it is the fate of almost all other proposals. Most Members of Parliament, if they were honest with themselves, believe that the committee that sits to consider proposals is just for show and a complete waste of members' time, as no proposal ever sees the light of day.
The proposal to regulate private funding of political parties, by hon Greyling, is one that the ACDP supports. This issue is important if we value multiparty democracy but sadly to date the majority have not taken it seriously. We are disappointed, although not surprised, that the proposal has been stopped in its tracks.
The proposal by the DA speaks to a statement by the Public Protector in a recent report into the President's breach of the ethics code which urges Parliament to consider an amendment to the Executive Members' Ethics Act to address all uncertainties or anomalies. In principle, the ACDP would have no problem considering a proposal of this nature. However, the recommendation of the committee is that the proposal is not feasible and should not proceed. Although this is a standard response, the committee does say the proposal pre-empts legislation that is soon to be introduced by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development in the form of the Executive Members' Ethics Amendment Bill. This Bill was approved in principle by Cabinet and the final approval is expected in March, for Parliament to consider it in April. So, the ACDP accepts this explanation and will engage with proposals when the Bill gets to Parliament.
The ANC welcomes the report presented by the chairperson of the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions.
I think it's important to highlight how the committee works so that we don't end up being misguided in terms of what happens. A perception has been given by hon Dudley, for example, that what goes before the committee becomes something that does not happen properly or could not even be regarded as work being done by Members of Parliament.
I think it's important to note that the work of the committee is guided by the Rules of this House, which have been agreed upon by all parties. For example, one of the Rules that guides the committee is that we need to make sure that when we agree on a legislative proposal we are not dealing with legislation that is anticipated from the executive. This is what has happened in this case.
Though we welcome that the issue of the timeframe was raised, we think it is a challenge we will be able to deal with. When a timeframe has been put in place, we will be able to follow up in order to monitor the work that has been agreed upon. I think we agree and understand this.
However, I think hon Dudley should, for example, go to the effort of understanding the process that the deliberations have gone through because it was quite an extensive process. We don't decide on a matter in a one-day meeting. It takes several meetings, briefings and engagements by the committee itself and involving a variety of people who are relevant to the process. I think this House should understand that the committee does not sit just to dump issues or does not take the work of the committee and members seriously. That is the impression the hon Dudley is giving, and it's not correct.
While the hon Dudley is alone and not able to go to all the committees, understanding the work and processes of a particular committee is important. The public is watching and we really don't want them thinking that what we are doing is wrong because they are being misinformed. Therefore I thought it's important for us to clarify this matter and be quite clear on how we work and process matters. After all, that committee is one of the critically important committees of Parliament, because it deals with what members regard as being important enough to be introduced as legislation. If we can understand the work of this committee and the processes it follows, before we make unsuitable comments that give the wrong perception to the public, things will be fine.
Lastly, I think that part of what was presented here by the chairperson is quite important and true, and we still welcome the work that is being done by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. They have been able to introduce a lot of legislation that has worked, while dealing with the issue of members' ethics. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, I think it's a pity that we do not have many members in the House, but I do believe that this is one of those matters that we must be very, blatantly honest about. The fact is that the Constitution, as well as this House's Rules, makes provision for any person in this House to introduce a legislative proposal. [Interjections.]
Order, please!
With regard to what is happening at present, yes, it is true that there are certain criteria on the basis of which new legislative proposals are evaluated. Then we try, as a committee, to come to a common agreement of whether we should proceed or not, based on legislation that is probably in the process and is to be tabled soon. [Interjections.]
The concerns expressed here today by opposition parties must be taken to heart because, to date, there has not been any proposal from any member in the opposition ranks that has ever been successful. [Interjections.]
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
We believe it's time that we make that public and say it is evident that there is an attempt by the ANC to absolutely push aside any constructive proposal from the opposition.
This instance relates to the executive and the ethics of how they present themselves to this House and to the public of South Africa. There are other, similar proposals. I don't think we should just brush over this. We should take this to heart and say: Is it necessary for this committee to exist?
Chair, on a point of order: I am not sure if the hon member is debating or raising a point of order. If she is debating, she must be given the opportunity to stand there and address the House. This is not a point of order, it's not anything - she is debating from the floor. I think that is out of order. [Interjections.]
Hon member, the hon member was making a declaration and she can make it from where she was. She is allowed to do that. However, she is already seated.
Chairperson, thank you for that. I think the hon member needs to study the Rules because I have the right in terms of the Rules to make a declaration from here. [Applause.]
Chair, on a point of order: One of the members on the other side of the House made a gesture and I would like to find out from you whether it's parliamentary. While Mrs Kilian was speaking, hon September made this gesture. Now, I am not sure what it means, but I thought perhaps you could guide us. [Laughter.]
Hon member, I know that we are not allowed to make obscene gestures. However, since you don't even know what that one means, how am I going to rule? [Laughter.] How am I going to rule if you don't know? Order!
Chaiarperson, I move:
That the report be adopted.
Agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.