Chairperson, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. This has been a very noisy Chamber this afternoon, so I am going to bring some quiet and sanity to the debate!
In his dissertation, The mandate of political representatives with special reference to floor-crossing: a legal historical study, Mr L K Joubert opens his discussion of floor-crossing with a quotation of the following remark made by Winston Churchill:
Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.
I think that this remark is a tremendously apposite one for the debate around floor-crossing.
Floor-crossing, of course, is not a new concept in South Africa; some make as if it was only thought of yesterday, but if you go and look at the political, legal and constitutional history of this country you will find that the issue of floor-crossing has always been part of our legal system. Even when we were drafting the Constitution it was very much one of the issues that came up for discussion at all times. But it was as recently as 2002 and 2003 that Parliament, for well-known reasons which I won't state here, passed the so-called floor-crossing legislation.
The common objective of that legislation was, firstly, to enable a member of the NA, a provincial legislature or municipal council to become a member of another political party, whilst retaining membership of the assembly, of that provincial legislature or that council; and, secondly, to enable an existing political party to merge with another political party; or to subdivide into more than one political party; or to subdivide one subdivision to merge with another political party.
Apart from the political terrain which necessitated floor-crossing having changed, a general resistance against floor-crossing has also developed among political parties. Furthermore, floor-crossing has not only been strongly criticised in the media, but also by the public in general. I am convinced that members of the council or of the public who are present here in today's debate are acquainted with the main points of criticism against floor-crossing and therefore I am not going to go into any details thereof.
Government has noted this resistance and criticism and realised that they needed a reason to abolish floor-crossing. This has led to the introduction to Parliament of the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill of 2008, the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill of 2008 and the General Laws (Loss of Membership of National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Council) Amendment Bill of 2008.
The main objects of the three Bills are to abolish floor-crossing and to provide for related matters. The three Bills must, therefore, be read in conjunction with one another; and I imagine that is also why we are having one debate.
The effect of abolishing floor-crossing would mean that we revert to the position prior to 2002 when floor-crossing was formally introduced in our law. In other words, we go back to the position that there is no floor- crossing at any level of government.
The Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill, by repealing Schedule 6A of the Constitution, abolishes floor-crossing in the NA and provincial legislatures. It also effects consequential amendments to certain sections of the Constitution. Although not related to floor-crossing, it further amends Part B of Schedule 3 of the Constitution in order to further regulate the determination of political party participation in provincial delegations to the NCOP.
The Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill, by repealing Schedule 6B of the Constitution, abolishes floor-crossing in municipal councils. It also effects consequential amendments to certain sections of the Constitution and provides for the filling of vacancies in a municipal council.
The General Laws (Loss of Membership of National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Council) Amendment Bill effects amendments that are mainly of a consequential nature and emanate from the provisions of the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment and Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill as well as several other pieces of legislation.
Those Acts include the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act of 1997, the Determination of Delegates (National Council of Provinces) Act of 1998 and the Electoral Act of 1998, as well as the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act of 1998. It further effects amendments to the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act of 1997 by making it clear that all political parties are accountable to the Independent Electoral Commission in respect of the monies allocated to them from the Represented Political Parties' Fund and to empower the electoral commission to appoint an auditor under certain circumstances, for example, to audit the books and records of account kept by a political party. Chairperson, once the three Bills have been passed by Parliament - and this is the last stretch in the NCOP - and implemented it would mean that a member of the NA, a provincial legislature or a municipal council will no longer be able to become a member of another political party whilst retaining membership of either the Assembly, legislature or council, and an existing political party will no longer be able to merge with another political party; or to subdivide into more than one political party; or subdivide and one subdivision to merge with another, whilst allowing the member of the Assembly, legislature or council affected by such changes to retain the membership either of the Assembly, legislature or that council.
The next window period for floor-crossing, if it is not abolished at a local government level, commences on 1 September 2009, and therefore it is essential that we pass this Bill before then and hopefully when we have done so now, it will be finished. So we would have made it in good time to avoid the floor-crossing of September 2009. I imagine the DA, in particular, and other parties are extremely happy, because that means they will at least keep their members now. [Interjections.]