Election of Chairpersons; Committee Mandate; Medical Aid Scheme Act: Content Advisor/Reseacher input

Meeting report

Mr N Singh (IFP) pointed out that there were 20 Members of the Committee, and 11 were needed for a quorum. They were only nine, so two more Members were needed.

 

Ms L Maseko (ANC) suggested that they should call other Members to attend in order to have a quorum. She tried to reach them via the phone.

 

Mr Singh suggested that questions should be asked so that the Principal Officer of the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme (Parmed) would be able to answer them.

 

Dr S Thembekwayo (EFF) suggested that questions should be sent via email so that they could be responded to at the next meeting.

 

 

Election of Chairperson and Co-Chairperson

Ms Zola Vice, Committee Secretary, said the Committee was comprised of 20 members, and read out their names. She added that since the meeting had started an hour late, there would be only one item on agenda and that was the election of the Chairperson and Co-Chairperson. There were Members from the National Assembly (NA) and from the National Council of Province (NCOP). She invited the Members to nominate candidates, starting from the NA and then the NCOP.

Ms S Kalyan (DA) nominated Ms Maseko.

Mr Singh seconded.

Ms Vice asked whether there were any other nominations. When there was no other nomination, she said that the NCOP Members should provide their nomination.

Mr M Mlambo (ANC, Gauteng) nominated Mr J Parkies (ANC, Free State).

Mr M Khawula (IFP) seconded.

Mr Parkies, as Chairperson, said that they accepted the nomination and thanked Members for confidence they had in them. They had been nominated to facilitate the processes of the Ad Hoc Committee, and to deal with issues affecting Members in terms of medical aid schemes. He had been advised that the Committee should submit a report of its work to Parliament by the end of May. It might be impossible to meet the deadline if they wanted to deliver a quality job. In their work, what would be prioritised were the interests of Members, so the time frame should be extended in order to deliver a quality job.

All Members knew what they would be discussing and what the Committee was expected to do. People would be called in to make oral presentations. There were two items on agenda, and one was an oral presentation from Ms Dawn Davis, Principal Officer at Parmed Medical Aid Scheme. As there was no quorum, and Ms Davis was allowed to leave. Members needed to narrow down the issues so that it was clear what the presenters would be dealing with. The subject matter was Parmed.

Ms Maseko, as Co-Chairperson, thanked Members for confidence showed in them, and said the Committee was not a caucus. Members should deal with the issues affecting them with a common spirit. The Committee had to decide whether they continued with Parmed or not. It would not be easy for Members to work in accordance with the Committee’s programme. There were legal experts in the House who would be advising the Committee.

For reference purposes, it had been indicated that the NA and NCOP should review the medical aid scheme legislation. The main problem was that the scheme was compulsory for Members of the NA and the NCOP, including the Deputy President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, administrator of the provinces and judges of the Constitutional Court. Members should therefore identify what they needed and what they could to do to ensure justice was done for all.  Extension of the deadline might have an impact on the financial budget. All concerned stakeholders should be invited to come and brief the Committee on their concerns, and flight arrangements for them must be organised.

Of concern was that members of Parmed were paying high tariffs. There was a need to enquire into the statutory requirement regarding compulsory membership for Members of Parliament, and subject to the concurrence of the NCOP, this had led to the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee. This had been mandated to enquire into and make recommendations on:

• the tariffs of members of Parmed;
• the need for, and possible options with regard to Parmed and other competitive medical aids for Members of Parliament;
• the necessity of introducing amending legislation; and
• the impact on retired members of Parmed.   

Mr S Marais (DA) remarked that there was no way they could finalise their mandate by the end of May. The Committee should request the timeframe to be extended to the end of June. In order to meet the deadline, each member should submit their concerns or questions via email. The due date for submitting these questions should be specified. This was important, because the views of some Members might be totally different from others.

Mr Singh supported the approach regarding the invitation to concerned stakeholders. The stakeholders included judges. He suggested that the Chairperson should write to the Chief Justice to provide a representative to sit in the Committee meetings. All provinces should send their representatives. The others were service providers in the market. Invitations should be sent to all of these stakeholders to determine what the costs would be. Members should consider what the medical aid scheme packages should be. They might approve remaining under the Parmed package. Other people who should be invited to make oral presentations were former Members of Parliament. He agreed that the extension of the time frame should be supported, but they should not rush into extending the deadline. Members should rather do their best to meet the deadline, and depending on how the Committee work was progressing, an extension could be requested. This could be done at the end of May, because by then the Committee would be able to determine the exact time needed.

Mr A Tleane (ANC) seconded this proposal, and said the Committee should have one or two meetings. These would provide Members with sufficient information so that they would know what the timeframe should be. He encouraged Members to attend the meetings because the issues for discussion were so important.

The Co-Chairperson said that there were a lot to be done. For that reason, Members should expect that meetings might be taking place in evenings until late. The question of transport would be looked into. She commented that magistrates had shown an interest in Parmed, and that the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) should be invited to indicate whether provincial officials would be interested in this scheme.

The Chairperson remarked that the fundamental reason for the establishment of the Committee was to deal with enquiring into Parmed. However, there were four main issues that were needed to be considered in the presentations, and these should be made clear in order to guide those who would be making oral presentations. There should be a sequence of presentations. These issues should be researched by Committee researchers, because Members were not experts in these matters. There should be permanent researchers for the Ad Hoc Committee.

Dr Thembekwayo expressed her concerns over attendance at the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee. All Members of the Ad Hoc Committee were also Members of other committees whose meetings might clash. She supported the Chairperson’s comments on the need for permanent researchers, and added that legal advisors were also needed. She appreciated that the Committee had a content advisor, and said that a lot of work would be done.

Mr Tleane said the Ad Hoc Committee should be meeting in the evenings in order to accommodate Members.

Mr Singh said that the budget should be discussed, because people who might come to present might need travel and hotel arrangements. There was a judgment on the subject matter and the judgment should be considered. Judges should play a role, so a letter should be sent to the Chief Justice to inform him that the Ad Hoc Committee had been established, and who was chairing it.

The Chairperson said that the priority was to define the Ad Hoc Committee programme and related discussions, as well as the timeline. He suggested that Monday should be set as a day of presentations.

Ms G Nobanda (ANC) said that the judges should decide for themselves what they needed. There was no need for them to attend the Ad Hoc Committee meetings.

The Chairperson said that the second priority was to identify the stakeholders who would come to make oral presentations. The third priority was the consideration of the budget, which included food, travelling and hotel arrangements. When Members met again, they should be conscious of what they wanted to submit as their concerns.

Mr Tleane said that the first presenter would come from Parmed, and Members would as usual engaging with presentations.

Dr C Mulder (FF+) said that they were hurrying issues. The Ad Hoc Committee should bear in mind that membership of Parmed was not limited to Members of Parliament and the NCOP. There were non-Parliamentarian members who were also beneficiaries of Parmed. For that reason, the Ad Hoc Committee should issue a communiqué inviting the public to comment on the existing legislation. Those who were interested would comment. The Ad Hoc Committee should avoid the situation where an amendment could be made and end up leading to legal challenges in a court of law.  Members should look at the rules of Parliament and see what would be required to repeal or amend the medical aid scheme legislation. The due processes should be followed.

The Chairperson said that the matter should be approached strategically. After presentations, Members would have a broader understanding, or have a big picture of the problem and what should be done to address it. SALGA could be invited to make a presentation. The question was in what capacity SALGA would be invited.

The co-Chairperson said that SALGA should be invited as a stakeholder. There was a long list of stakeholders.

Mr Tleane said that Dr Mulder was correct. The mindset should not be on the deadline, because the matter could not be completed quickly, as there were many stakeholders who should be heard. The public should be given a chance to present. The key thing was to start and get into the issues so that a clear picture could be painted of what the Ad Hoc Committee was specifically dealing with.

The co-Chairperson remarked that the KwaZulu-Natal members had suggested that they wanted to get out of Parmed.  

Ms Kalyan said that they should not rush into presentations, because the presentations were about getting in and engaging with the matters of substance. Members should first discuss the subject matter in their caucuses and report back, and this should be followed by the content advisor’s presentation. After this process, presentations could follow.

Dr Barbara Loots, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that the issues concerning Parmed went back to 2015. These would be alluded to, as the legal team would assist the Ad Hoc Committee to identify what the relevant issues were and their sequence. The question was not the constitutionality of Parmed -- the main concern was rather the matter of compulsory membership. In the judgment of the court, the question of who should join the Parmed had arisen. The court had ruled that whoever was interested in Parmed should join it. Accordingly, individuals should be given an opportunity to state what changes they were interested in. The Ad Hoc Committee should take the judgment into account when dealing with the enquiry into Parmed.

The Chairperson said that Members should be equipped with medical aid information, as this was important. Oral submissions should be moved to Tuesday so that Members could have an opportunity to consult their parties on Monday. The SALGA should then be invited.

Mr Singh objected. He said that there should be a full day, or two full days, for presentations. All presenters ought to be identified and squeezed into two full days.

The Chairperson said that a quality job was needed and therefore Members should not have the impression that the Committee was rushing matters. He agreed with Mr Singh. He apologised for the meeting being delayed for one hour due to waiting for Members who were attending other meetings. It was important that a meeting should take place.

The meeting was adjourned.