Committee minutes

Meeting report

Committee programme

Ms M Mohlala (EFF) asked why the meeting was at 15h00 in the afternoon instead of earlier in the day.

The Chairperson answered that the reason was because there were people who were going to the Eastern Cape (EC) and Polokwane, and their flights were in the morning.

Ms Mohlala replied that the Committee could not work on pre-empting. She wanted to know who those people were, and whether they were Members of the Portfolio Committee.

The Chairperson confirmed that they were Members, and provided names that included Ms N Mvana (ANC) from the EC, and Ms R Semenya (ANC) from Polokwane.

Ms Semenya suggested that Ms Mohlala’s concern be noted, but the Committee had to meet at the time which had been set by Parliament.

Ms S Mokgotho (EFF) wanted to find out if the Committee, starting from Tuesday the following week, was going to be holding its meetings physically in Parliament, or if it was going to continue to hold them virtually.

Ms Semenya answered that the system that was going to be used was a hybrid – there were going to be both physical and virtual meetings. Those who were in Parliament would attend Committee meetings in person, and those who could not do that would do so virtually. She added that it might not necessarily be on a Tuesday, but on a day that Parliament saw fit, so that those who were there could be in a venue that had a system to support it.

The Chairperson confirmed Ms Semenya’s answer by stating the Committee would continue to have virtual meetings.

Ms E Powell (DA) said she was getting a distinct feeling that she was wasting her time by being in this meeting, because the Committee needed to be called to order. This was because Members of the Committee were talking over one another.

She asked her question about the Committee’s programme. It was stated there that there were two meetings on Tuesday 17 November, one of which was scheduled from 09h00 to 12h00, and the other from 15h00 to 18h00. However, according to the Parliamentary programme, there was a plenary in the House that afternoon. She asked how there could be a Committee meeting scheduled at the same time as the plenary.

Ms Semenya replied that if one was to look at the Parliamentary programme, from 17 to 19 November was meant for the Budget Review and Recommendations Reports (BRRR). This date had been placed because the programme of Parliament said there should be a focus on the BRRR. The Department would table its report on 16 November, and got 17 to 19 November to deal with the BRRR. That was the reason for these dates.

Ms Powell responded by asking which version of the programme she was looking at, because in the last version that came out on 15 October there was nothing that mentioned the BRRR. What she saw in the programme for 17 and 19 November was the plenary and the Committee report respectively.

Ms Semenya replied that in the programme that was given to Committee Chairpersons, on those days the committees needed to finalise their BRRRs. This was for committees that were going to table their reports in terms of the extensions that had been given by National Treasury. The Departments that did not need that would continue to use the old programme.

Ms Powell wanted to clarify whether Committee Chairpersons were given a different programme to that of Members of Parliament (MPs), because the programme was usually given on a Friday night. She asked if the Committee could be furnished with the programme that Ms Semenya was talking about.

Ms Semenya said Ms Kholiswa Pasiya-Mndende, the Committee secretary, had the programme and would distribute it to the rest of the Committee.

Ms Powell commented that she found it strange that the Chairpersons would be given a different programme to that of the rest of Parliament.

Ms Semenya replied that unfortunately Ms Powell did not want to understand what she was saying.

The Chairperson intervened, and stopped the exchange between Ms Powell and Ms Semenya. He said Ms Powell had been answered. The rest of the Committee was going to be sent the updated programme by the Committee secretary. He asked for a mover and seconder for the programme.

Ms Mohlala said on Fridays there were no Parliamentary sittings. Why were the three people who had flights that day not travelling in the morning so that the meeting could start between 11h00 and 12h00? Why so late at 15h00?

The Chairperson replied that flights on that day departed only around 10h00 and arrived around 13h00. There was only one time slot, and that was around 10h00.

Ms Powell commented that the Democratic Alliance would not accept the programme until it got the updated version and received some clarity on it.

The Chairperson instructed the Committee secretary not to forget to send the updated to programme to the rest of the Committee.

Ms Mvana moved adoption of the programme, and Ms Mokgotho seconded.

Ms Semenya asked for permission to raise a point of order. The Chairperson allowed it.

She wanted to remind Members of the Committee that there were rules that governed the manner in which virtual meetings were held. Members who had not been recognised by the Chairperson should have their microphones switched off. If they did not follow these rules, they would have to be removed from the meeting. They had to speak through the Chairperson.

Adoption of Committee minutes

Minutes of 7 June

The Chairperson thanked Ms Semenya, and moved to the meetings of 7 June, and asked for movers and seconders.

Ms Powell asked the Chairperson to go through the minutes because the meeting was three hours long, so there was time. She did not think that everyone in the Committee had gone through the minutes. She also asked that the Committee secretary confirm that the Committee had been sent the minutes of 27 August. Although she was happy to be overruled, every time that the Committee had been given presentations before meetings, the Committee had gone through them. She once again asked for confirmation on whether the Committee had been sent the minutes of 27 August, because there had been some very important objections raised by the Committee.

The Chairperson said once the Committee got to meetings of August, that would be done.

He again asked for a mover and a seconder of the minutes of the 7 June meeting. Ms Mvana seconded, and the minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 19 June

The Chairperson asked for a mover and seconder for adoption of the minutes the meeting on 19 June.

Ms Mohlala asked why the meeting had been set for three hours if there was not going to be a reading of the minutes. The presentations had been sent a day before, and the secretary read the minutes before the Members in the meeting. What was the problem now, because when the Committee could still have physical meetings, the minutes would be read at the meeting? Why were the minutes not being read now that there was a virtual meeting?

Ms G Tseke (ANC) replied that the Committee did not normally read the minutes.

The Chairperson said they should not consider normality.

Ms Mohlala argued that the minutes were not being read because things were being done incorrectly. The African National Congress (ANC) was like that -- it did not follow procedure. Minutes were usually read! There was something that was being hidden. There was no reason why the minutes should not be read.

The Chairperson interjected, and said that Members must remember the rules of the meetings.

Ms Mokgotho also interjected, and said the Committee must go through the meeting just as procedure required.

The Chairperson once again cautioned that if Members spoke without being noted, he would ask that they be removed from the meeting.

Ms Mohlala then asked to be recognised, which the Chairperson allowed. She said she wanted to know what the problem was with reading the minutes, when the meeting was set to last for three hours. Not reading the minutes was not normal and incorrect -- but that was fine, because the ANC was the majority and they could do whatever they wanted. The procedure was that the minutes must be read.

Mr M Tseki (ANC) asked for the meeting to proceed, because the procedure by which it should operate had been agreed on.

Ms Semenya commented that Members had been given the minutes and should have read them before the meeting. If they had not read the minutes and wanted them to be read at the meeting so that they could understand what was going on, they must say so. However, they should not blame that on procedure. She said that the Committee itself had agreed that if the minutes were sent to Members in time, there would be no need for them to be read at the meeting.

Ms Mohlala wanted to reply to Ms Semenya, but the Chairperson stopped her. The Chairperson said the meeting had been moving with a flow, and that had to continue. He told Ms Mohlala that if she had an objection to what was happening, it would be notedThe meeting could not be held to ransom by Ms Mohlala just because she wanted to speak out of turn.

He asked for a mover and a seconder for the minutes.

The Chairperson then directed the Committee secretary to remove Ms Mohlala from the meeting if she continued to speak out of turn.

Ms Mohlala responded that Ms Semenya was correct about the agreement of it not being necessary for minutes to be read at the meeting, but the day on which that was agreed there had been time constraints. The Committee had agreed that there was not sufficient time, and they had all agreed that since everyone had already read the minutes, there was no need to read them at that particular meeting. It was not to say that they should never be read at a meeting. Today there was time. It was not that Members had not read the minutes it -- they must be read by the Committee altogether.

Ms Mvana moved the adoption of the minutes of 19 June.

Ms Powell said she had looked at the minutes and with due respect, she had compared them to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) report of the meeting. The minutes presented in the meeting were lacking in detail.

The Chairperson asked what PMG was.

Ms Powell replied that there was a Parliamentary monitor that sat in on every one of the meetings that were held.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee should not be subject to comparisons.

Ms Powell replied that her point was that the minutes that had been presented before the Committee were lacking specific details with regard to concerns, objections etc. She therefore wanted there to be a note of the objections of the DA to this set of minutes, and to those of 7 June as well.

Ms Mohlala wanted the Chairperson to note that the EFF also had objections to this set of minutes.

The Chairperson said that was fine, and announced that the minutes had been adopted.

Minutes of 28 July

The Chairperson asked the Committee to consider and adopt the minutes of 28 July.

Ms Tseke moved the adoption, and Ms Mvana seconded.

Ms Powell asked for there to be a note of the DA’s objection to the minutes.

When asked why by the Chairperson, she said these minutes formed the record of Parliament’s proceedings. With due respect to the minute takers, the manner in which the minutes were taken did not reflect the concerns that had been raised by the DA. The minutes showed consensus from the Committee when there was not one. She went on to say that in this Committee, there was hardly any consensus on party lines, and she felt that the minutes should also reflect that. Given the fact that they did, not she would like to object.

Minutes of 18 August

The Chairperson took note of the DA’s position, and presented the minutes for the meeting of 18 August.

He told Ms Powell that if she had something she objected to, it must be stated in the meeting so that it could be recorded.

Ms Powell responded that that was why the Committee had to go through the minutes, so that Members could go through what had been recorded.

The Chairperson disagreed, and said one did not want to be reminded by someone who read the minutes at the meeting. One should have already ready read them prior to the meeting.

Ms Powell said she took meticulous notes at every meeting she attended. She would take six to seven pages of notes. If the Chairperson wanted it, she could go through her notes and have her notes of the meeting included and waste everybody’s time, given that the Committee was not going through them on a one by one basis. Up until 27 August she would not be recording any input, but the Chairperson could note the objections of the DA.

Ms Mvana moved the adoption of the minutes, and Ms Tseke seconded.

Ms Semenya said that when Members were noting objections, they should not be allowed to make speeches on why they were objecting. The Chairperson should just note the objection and move on.

Ms Powell replied that she was a Member of the Committee, and she was free to speak when she had been recognised by the Chairperson. If Ms Semenya did not like that, then she could raise an objection with the Chairperson, but she would not be silenced,

Minutes of 27 August

The Chairperson presented the minutes of 27 August.

Ms Tseke moved the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mohlala asked the Chairperson to note that the EFF was very concerned at the manner in which the meeting was being handled. The EFF had on several occasions raised the point that after every meeting there must be a set of minutes. For example, there were minutes that were being adopted after seven months, and that was a concern. This was something that had been done several times by the Committee, but it seemed like it was failing to improve on that.

The other matter that she wanted to raise was that the Committee could not be silenced by other Members, particularly by those of the ANC. To object, one must emphasise the reason why they were objecting. She thought Ms Semenya was out of order by suggesting that there should be no justification for an objection.

The Chairperson replied that when minutes were sent back to be reworked, they piled up to the point where there were many to go through. However, he took note of what she was saying.

Ms Mvana seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The Chairperson asked the Committee secretary about the minutes of 27 August arising from Ms Powell’s question earlier.

Ms Semenya attributed the discrepancy in the minutes of 27 August to provincial reports. She wanted to respond to this further, but appeared to be having technical troubles. She was disconnecting.

Ms Powell responded by describing the Committee as “a joke.”

The Chairperson replied, and asked how it could be a joke when someone did not understand technology very well?

Ms Powell responded that those of the Committee who actually understood technology could see that Ms Semenya was muting herself because she was in traffic. She also pointed out that there had been no provincial reports on that day, and asked for clarity on the matter.

Ms Semenya said she realised that someone had muted her, and that she was speaking alone. She said there were minutes where the Committee had spoken to the provinces, and there had been a request to content advisors to consolidate the report. It had been said that the minutes would come with that report, as they still needed to reflect the questions that had been asked by Members at that meeting. The minutes were in the system, if Members wanted them without the report, they could be given access to them.

Ms Mohlala asked the Chairperson why the minutes presented in the meeting were so different from the PMG minutes. The two versions were widely different. The minutes presented were just summarising, but the PMG ones had depth on the questions that had been asked.

The Chairperson wanted that question to be answered by the parliamentary monitor present at this meeting, but Ms Mohlala wanted a response from the Chairperson.

She asked if the minutes were being modified. She was not going to speak to PMG, because they were doing wonderful work as it was.

Ms Powell said on 27 August, the title of that meeting had been “Report on Covid 19 by the Department of Human Settlements.” Ms Semenya had said there needed to be a consolidation from the provinces on the report. There was no provincial report. In fact, Members would recall it was the evening where the national Department of Human Settlements had been embarrassed by an anonymous call that demonstrated the whitewash that the Department had presented to the Committee. Members had been notified by the Chairperson of the Committee that there would be a proper presentation, with substantive information by which Members could conduct oversight as Parliamentarians by no later than 7 September. If the Chairperson wanted her to read her notes from that day, she was willing to do so. She said she would like to see the minutes that reflected the actual turn of events on 27 August.

Ms Semenya said that those minutes did not go to the management committee (MANCO) yesterday. Once they were back, they would be made available to the Committee. At the next meeting they would be ready for the Committee to consider them. Minutes were meant to be a summary of what had happened in the meeting, not exactly what was said by everyone.

The Chairperson summarised by saying the minutes of 27 August were not presented because they had not yet been consolidated. They would be available at the next Committee meeting for consideration. He added that the minutes were for highlighting what happened in a meeting, not everything that happened there.

Ms Semenya also said if Members wanted a verbatim record of meetings, they could have that, as Parliament had a record of them.

Ms Mohlala wanted to ask a question about matter. The Chairperson ruled her out of order. She wanted to continue talking, because she had already been recognised by the Chairperson. She asked why she was out of order, because she had not said anything.

At this stage, the Chairperson instructed the Committee secretary to remove Ms Mohlala from the meeting. Ms Mohlala was removed from the meeting.

Ms Powell questioned Ms Semenya’s reference to the MANCO, asking who sat on this Committee and whether ANC researchers and Committee Members sit on it as well, or if it was only parliamentary staff and the Chairperson.  She said that if it was made up of Members of the Committee who modified the minutes before their approval by the Committee, then that was something that needed to be referred to the Speaker.

The Chairperson replied that it was he and Ms Semenya who sat on that committee from this Committee, and that it included people who were researchers.

Ms Powell wanted the Chairperson to note her blanket objection to all further minutes.

The Chairperson accepted her decision, and explained that she would no longer have a say on minutes at the meeting.

Ms Powell agreed, and said she also wanted to the Chairperson to note that she would be taking this issue to the Chief whip’s Forum and to the Speaker of the House.

Minutes of 6 October

The Chairperson presented the minutes for the meeting on 6 October.

Ms Tseke moved their adoption and Ms Semenya seconded.

The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 15 July

The Chairperson presented the minutes of 15 July.

Ms Semenya moved their adoption, and Ms Tseke seconded.

Minutes of 17 July

The Chairperson presented the minutes of 17 July.

Ms Mvana moved their adoption, and Ms Tseke seconded.

Meeting review

The Chairperson said the reason for the meeting had been to adopt minutes. However, the objections that had been raised by Members need to be taken to consideration. The reason why Members were given the minutes 48 hours before the meeting was for them to read them on their own so that they did not have to be read at the meeting.

Ms Semenya agreed with the Chairperson. When minutes were given 48 hours before a meeting, they must be read ahead of time. She also said Members must not act according to whims -- the Committee should not decide to do one thing at a meeting and then decide to do another at a different meeting. The principle that was agreed on must be firm. It should also be noted that minutes were not amended -- it was the Chairperson in the Committee meeting that amended minutes.

Ms Powell wanted ask, in the name of fairness and transparency, that if the ANC whip was invited to sit on the MANCO whether the Chairperson would consider inviting other Members of the Committee from the different political parties to sit in that meeting as well, in order to contribute to a robust management of the Portfolio Committee’s issues. She added that she recognised that it was only the Chairperson who amended the minutes of the Committee.

The Chairperson said what he thought Ms Powell was asking, was that the MANCO be a multi-party committee, and if there were different parties there then it would be no longer be a management committee. However, it would be looked into to see how it might be done.

Ms Powell asked when the Committee could best expect an answer on that.

The Chairperson promised that there would be an answer to that question at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.