Before we proceed to Notices of Motion, I wish to make an announcement. Hon members, yesterday the hon Kalyan raised the matter of the inclusion of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill in the proceedings of Thursday.
I thought that I should clarify the issue. As she has stated, her request stemmed from what transpired at the meeting of the Programming Committee last Thursday, when there was insufficient time to fully consider the programme for this week, as well as the fact that the Portfolio Committee on Transport still had to finalise its consideration of and report on the Bill.
On the programme that was sent to members of the Programming Committee on Friday afternoon, the Transport Laws and Related Matters Bill had been added for consideration on Thursday 22 November. This item was added, following a formal request from the Leader of Government Business, hon Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe. In a letter, dated 13 November 2012, he requested the fast-tracking of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill, and provided sufficient reasons for the request, as required by Joint Rule 216.
Parliament is the legislative authority in the national sphere of government and therefore we always attempt to assist the executive if it asks for legislation to be dealt with urgently. Such a request will, of course, always be acceded to with the understanding that it will not require us to compromise on the processes designed to ensure that we produce quality legislation.
To fast-track a Bill means that any step in the legislative process may be shortened and Rules that could impede the prompt passage of a Bill may be suspended, subject to the approval of the Houses.
After consultation, it was felt that it would not be necessary formally to fast-track the Bill. This was because the committee could complete its work on the Bill in time for its Second Reading in the National Assembly and for its consideration by the National Council of Provinces. The Bill was thus prioritised.
As for the placing of the Bill on the programme for debate tomorrow, I have to point out that members of the Programming Committee, which includes the hon Kalyan, were alerted as early as 18 October 2012 that they could expect a number of Bills before the House in the last week of sittings. In the Programming Committee, specific mention was made of the Transport Bill and the Transport Committee, which has to prioritise the programme.
They were also advised in the meeting that, where applicable, the three-day Rule would have to be suspended to allow for the Bills to be passed on the last sitting day. There was no objection to this in the meeting. The House has an obligation to consider legislation finalised by its committees as promptly as possible. This would also show consideration for our colleagues in the National Council of Provinces, if a Bill still has to go to that House for concurrence. For the reasons outlined above, including the tacit agreement of the Programming Committee, the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was placed on the programme last week, and is, therefore, being included in tomorrow's order of business.
Hon Chairperson, on this matter, may I point out to you that it was also concluded at that very same meeting last week that the Programming Committee must have consensus when agreeing on anything.
The programmes are presented to the Chief Whips Forum and the Programming Committee in advance, but it is a standing agreement that the programme for next week is only finalised at the meeting of the preceding Thursday. That programme was not agreed to.
Therefore, I put it to you that the matter on the programme has not been agreed to, there has not been consensus by the Programming Committee. In fact, at the end of the meeting, when the programming Whip asked, "What about the programme, can we have it noted?" I loudly said, "No, I do not agree." So, hon Chair, we cannot go ahead with that debate. It has not been agreed to and consensus has not been noted by the Programming Committee.
Hon member, is it on the same point?
Chairperson, yes, it is on the same point.
Do you wish to bring another dimension to the point of order that was mentioned by the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition, or will it be a repeat of what has been mentioned?
No Chair, I just want to elaborate further with details, regarding the Programming Committee ... [Interjections.] The programme was presented on 8 November 2012. I also want to reiterate that it was not listed as part of the programme.
We have had similar instances in the past where it was argued that the programme was presented at every meeting and, thereafter, it was approved. And, consequently, because that was the last programme that was approved - in fact, I have a copy of the minutes of last week's meeting of the 15th - both hon Watson and I raised an objection to the programme.
Consequently, the programme of the 15th, in which the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was introduced, was not approved.
Since we do not have consensus - and that was also part of the basis of the court argument signed by the Speaker, that the Programming Committee operates by way of consensus - unfortunately, we cannot proceed with that tomorrow.
I will not repeat what has already been said. I don't repeat. This is just an additional point with regard to the three-day Rule.
You talked about suspending it, and it has been agreed to suspend it. Only this House can suspend the Rule. Until the Rule is suspended, it is in force. The Rule can be suspended only by virtue of a motion.
The motion must be on notice, and that notice must be given today to suspend it tomorrow. I don't see any other way in which the Rule can be suspended and the three-day Rule avoided in this case.
Hon Chairperson, I would suggest that we have a problem, in the sense that last week during the Programming Committee meeting, a specific Ruling was made by Mr Speaker that the programme can only be agreed upon by consensus.
What is quite clear now is that the programme of Parliament was not agreed to last Thursday. This specific Bill that you are referring to was not on the programme last week. We cannot now come and say that, three weeks ago, it was suggested that some pieces of legislation may be debated, and now this legislation is ready to be debated. These things are the reason for a court case at this very moment.
I would really like to call on the House not to get us into further trouble. The fact of the matter is that this has not been agreed upon by the Programming Committee.
There is no way in which we can construe this in a way that creates an impression that we agreed upon it. This was not agreed upon, and we oppose it.
House Chair, firstly, let me just highlight that, yes, last week on the 15th the Programming Committee did not agree on a programme and it was noted. It was not hon Schneemann who had done that. There was an adjournment before the programme was agreed upon.
However, in the previous meeting, although the matter of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill was not on the list, hon John Jeffery raised it and said there is a Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill that is coming through.
I would urge members to consult their minutes regarding this, because it was highlighted, as he normally does. He said these are the Bills that are coming up and he urged us to deal with them when they come to the House. That was the first one. It was not only the transport Bill, it was even on the matters of appointments that ... [Interjections.]
Hon members, let us give the member an opportunity to complete her input.
I would appeal to the hon members to listen so that they can understand. [Interjections.] That is why I am explaining that in the meeting hon John Jeffery specifically highlighted that there are Bills which are coming from the executive and they need to be dealt with by the House. Therefore, they need to be considered. There was a consensus in that meeting.
Regarding the Bills that were to follow, we even highlighted it that members should note all the Bills that are coming through. We had even requested the Committee Section to develop and table matters that will be ready for consideration in advance, so that even if committees have not concluded the process, we would schedule them - because we are anticipating that it is the last week of the sitting - as per precedence in other terms and other years.
I do not understand why members are now saying that there was no consensus. There was consensus that any Bill that is ready will be processed. [Interjections.] They must go and check the minutes.
Chair, yes, I confirm what hon Kubayi has said. Also, with regard to hon Ambrosini's point, suspensions of the three-day Rule have, in the past, often taken place on the same day that the Bill has been debated.
He may have forgotten that or he may just have been absent when the House was considering that. However, I would really appeal to the members of the opposition that there is work to be done and instead of playing games, let's do it. [Interjections.]
Order! Hon members, the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition will make the last input before we proceed.
Hon Chair, I have a very brief point that I want to make: Highlighting is not approving a programme.
Hon members, the announcement was made to clarify the situation of the appearance of the relevant Bill on the programme. We will deal with the matter. In the mean time, let us proceed with Notices of Motion. We now come to Notices of Motion. Does any member wish to give notice of a motion? [Interjections.]
Sorry, Chairperson, before you proceed would you provide clarity on what is meant by "We will deal with the matter"? Exactly who are the "we" you are referring to?
Presiding Officers made an announcement, so, we have heard different views from different political parties. It refers to minutes of meetings that are not currently available to us. We will peruse those minutes and look at the matter. In the mean time, let us proceed with the business of the House.
Chairperson, will the lack of consensus today, expressed by all the parties, also be considered?
All inputs made by the members who spoke at length on this item will be considered. The announcement has been made. We come to Notices of Motion.