Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am acting on behalf of the chairperson, who cannot be here today.
In keeping with the constitutional imperative that the Joint Constitutional Review Committee must review the Constitution at least annually, the committee invited the public earlier this year to make submissions. The public was specifically encouraged to make submissions on the equality clause in the Bill of Rights and on the institutions supporting constitutional democracy. Eleven submissions were received from the public, and we would like to thank members of the public for their contribution to strengthening our constitutional democracy. We also received submissions from the National Assembly Rules Committee and the Free State legislature.
In dealing with these submissions, the committee realised once again that our Constitution and the values underpinning it may and should be the focus of continued public discussion and debate. In this way, all South Africans will be able to make the contents of the Constitution their own, turning it into a living document with real meaning for everyone. It is only when all South Africans accept ownership of the Constitution that they will come to protect and defend it even when it may not necessarily suit them.
As has become the norm under the able chairmanship of the hon Manie Schoeman, this year's review exercise was comprehensive and thorough. We were also once again fortunate to have had the excellent legal assistance of people like Advocates Adhikari, Vassen and Jenkins and Mr Hendricks, enabling us to really apply our minds to all the submissions.
The submissions once again included the so-called hardy animals such as the request for a referendum on the death penalty. As usual, a number of submissions did not deal with proposed constitutional amendments, and it should therefore be emphasised once more that while we want to encourage submissions, we cannot entertain those that have no bearing on the Constitution or require amendments to ordinary legislation instead of amendments to the Constitution. The Rules Committee requested us to consider the appropriateness of the recognition by the Constitution of the leader of the largest opposition party in the National Assembly as the Leader of the Opposition. This matter originated from the view of opposition parties other than the DA that "the use of the title `Leader of the Opposition' creates the impression with the electorate that this person makes statements and takes a stand on issues on behalf of all opposition parties".
Counterarguments were advanced on behalf the DA, inter alia, that the title of the Leader of the Opposition has been maintained in a country like Britain even though a new reality of three strong parties instead of the traditional two has emerged there in recent years, and that this title has been included in the Constitution to give special recognition to the opposition.
The committee acknowledged that the particular title has given rise to dissatisfaction amongst smaller opposition parties. We said that amendments to the Constitution should be done after proper deliberation and with due circumspection, and we suggested that all political parties internally debate the matter with a view to finding consensus. This decision was communicated to the Joint Rules Committee for further consideration.
The Free State legislature submitted that the Constitution be amended so as to increase the size of the respective legislatures to, inter alia, allow them to conduct more efficient oversight and ensure public participation.
We felt that all provinces should be involved to advise us, and we have therefore written to the provincial legislatures, inviting them to express their views at a meeting to be convened in the first term of 2007.
While all of the submissions pertaining to institutions supporting constitutional democracy did not propose amendments to the Constitution, a number of these submissions did make important recommendations with regard to the functioning of these institutions. For example, it was submitted that these institutions should be more accessible to the public, especially to the uneducated and the poor.
We were of the view that while there was merit in these submissions, they could be more comprehensively dealt with by the recently established Ad Hoc Committee on the Review of State Institutions Supporting Constitutional Democracy under the able chairmanship of the hon Kader Asmal.
There were also certain misconceptions with regard to these institutions. One member of the public has so much confidence in the Public Protector that he suggested that the Public Protector be empowered to review court decisions. For obvious reasons, the committee opted to protect the notion of the separation of powers implied in our Constitution and the impartiality of our courts.
In another submission, the role of the SA Human Rights Commission and that of our courts were confused as it was submitted that the commission should impose heavier sentences on convicted offenders.
The floor-crossing matter also crossed our table. The committee is aware that this matter is currently receiving the attention of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions. We refrained from engaging in a parallel process while being mindful that we may have to deal with the matter at a later stage.
Then there was also an apparent attempt to influence the presidential succession matter. It was submitted that the Constitution be amended so that President could be directly elected by the people rather than the National Assembly. I don't know; it seems the people don't have that much confidence in us.
The committee diplomatically decided that the desirability of amending the electoral system was a far-reaching policy consideration that would require more research and discussion before the committee could consider the matter.
All in all, we had a most interesting and rewarding constitutional review exercise this year. Once again, it was a privilege to engage in matters dealing with our internationally acclaimed and respected Constitution. We should never stop educating one another on the values enshrined in this larger-than-life contract of and between our people, the contract of a people who believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
It is indeed an honour to support the 2006 report of the Joint Constitutional Review Committee as tabled. Thank you. [Applause.]