Norwegian delegation: visit
NCOP Security and Justice
01 March 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SECURITY
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
1 MARCH 2007
NORWEGIAN DELEGATION: VISIT
Chairperson: Mr L Mokoena (ANC, Limpopo)
Documents handed out:
The Storting’s Standing Committee on Scrutiny and
Constitutional Affairs 2005-2009
SUMMARY
A delegation from the Norwegian Storting met with
the Committee to discuss its work, as part of a study tour being undertaken by
that delegation to South Africa and Uganda. The Chairperson briefly outlined
the structure of Parliament and the work of the Committee. Questions from the
Norwegian delegation related to the work of the Committee, its cluster work,
and the legislative amendment procedure. The Norwegian delegation outlined the
work of its Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and outlined the
procedure for amending the Constitution, which did not often happen. They asked
if a Minister had been reprimanded, whether the Committee influenced the
budget, whether the Committee was briefed on secret service issues, and the
stance on terrorism. It concluded that South Africa was correct in seeking
reconciliation instead of revenge and that checks and balances were important
in black economic empowerment issues.
MINUTES
The Chairperson cordially welcomed the Norwegian Delegation and gave an
introduction on the structure of Parliament, describing the National Assembly
(NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). He mentioned that the two
houses received mandates from their provinces in everything they undertook to
pursue. He then opened the floor to the Norwegian Delegation.
Mr L Solholm (Chairman,
Norwegian Delegation) asked what the Select Committee on Security and
Constitutional Affairs dealt with.
The Chairperson replied that there were 54 members in the NCOP. This resulted
in clustered committees so that there could be an oversight of all the
departments. He stated that this Committee played an oversight role for five
departments, comprising the Departments of Defence,
Social Security, Justice, Correctional Services and Intelligence. He mentioned
that the oversight role in intelligence was small. No Bills
could not be sanctioned by Parliament before they had been discussed and
approved by the Committee.
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee was leaving for the Province of KwaZulu Natal on Sunday so that it could follow up on those
departments falling under the Committee’s oversight. He gave the example that
the Committee would monitor the magistrate’s courts so that they did not have a
backlog of cases. He also explained that they monitored the prosecutors to be
assured that the prosecutors were well trained. He praised the police in Cape
Town for fulfilling their duties effectively.
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) emphasized that Select Committee was so named
because it dealt in clusters with matters. This one dealt with matters in
security, justice and many other departments that fell under that cluster.
The Chairperson remarked that the main aim of the Department of Correctional
Services was to ensure that all those arrested would be rehabilitated rather
than to be punished.
The Chairperson also stated that there were numerous troops that had been sent
to monitor The Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. Therefore it was the
duty of the Committee to ensure that the army personnel received counselling in those respective countries and that they
were well looked after.
Mr Z Ntuli (ANC, Kwazulu Natal) stated that the Committee’s overriding function
was one of peace and stability.
Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) remarked that the
Committee checked that the budgets were utilised
properly by ensuring that the money was spent correctly.
Ms F Nyanda (ANC, Mpumalanga)
stated that the various departments were accountable to the Committee.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee was a multiparty one. It derived its
powers from the Constitution, which gave the Committee the power to summon
anyone to appear before the Committee in order to give clarity on any issues.
Mr Solholm asked how South
Africa dealt with changes to legislation, including to the Constitution.
The Chairperson responded that in most cases legislation started with the
National Assembly before it came to the NCOP. He stated that Parliament would
ensure the constitutional correctness of any legislation by consulting with
constitutional lawyers or experts. The Committee members would take the Bill to
their various constituencies so that the communities could give their input on
the purposes and clauses of the Bill. .
The Chairperson distinguished between Section 75 and 76 Bills. The Section 76
Bills had to go to the Provinces for approval, while the Section 75 Bills were
national competencies that did not need to go to the Provinces.
Mr C Hagen, Vice President, Storting,
Norwegian Delegation stated that the Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs
Committee in Norway controlled governmental affairs. He remarked that in terms
of constitutional affairs, the amendments had to be proposed by a member within
one of the electoral periods. This was a special procedure that required a
two-thirds majority. He stated that the Constitution could not be changed
easily.
Mr Hagen further stated that this Committee could ask
a Minister to appear for a public hearing in order to obtain clarity on certain
issues. Furthermore reports from the Auditor General were submitted to this
Committee. The Public Protector also submitted one yearly report. The Committee
was responsible for the Secret Service. Any members of the public who had
reason to believe that they were under surveillance or were subjected to
telephone tapping complained to the Committee.
Mr P Foss, The Conservative Party, Norwegian
Delegation stated that the Storting was quite
conservative about changing the Constitution. For example, the Constitution
retained the wording that the King was responsible for selecting the Cabinet
although in practice this was no longer the case.
Mr Foss asked if there were any examples of a
Minister having been reprimanded by the Committee for lack of initiative.
Mr Mzizi replied that the
Committee had not encountered serious repercussions that compelled it to
reprimand a Minister. The Committee’s oversight function did mean that the
Committee noted any shortcomings and asked the Ministers for their responses.
Mr Mack added that his duty was to ensure that in a
hearing there would be adequate questions asked of the people appearing before
the Committee.
Ms Nyanda stated that when Members received
complaints in the different Constituencies they would write to the Minister,
who could then address public hearings.
Mr Hagen asked whether any Committee was responsible
for scrutinizing Parliament.
Mr Mzizi replied that the
Committees served in different clusters and that all the Select Committees
dealt with their respective departments.
Ms M Meltveit, Centre Party, Norwegian Delegation
asked whether the Committee was able to influence the budget in any manner.
Mr Mzizi replied that the
Select Committee on Finance was responsible for the budget.
Mr Ntuli added that the
budgeting started at the local levels through the Integrated Development Programmes, and community needs would be channeled through
the municipal councilors to the various Ministries.
The Chairperson added that this year the Committees had held debates on the
issue of influencing the budget, because Parliament could not change the money
Bills. He added that budget briefings were held, when the Minister of Finance
obtained feedback from the different departments on how much they required.
Mr Hagen asked whether the Committee was briefed on
any secret service issues.
The Chairperson responded that he could not give too much detail on that as
this issue would be discussed in the intelligence Committee discussions which
the Norwegian Delegation would attend that afternoon.
Mr Hagen asked what the South African position was as
regards terrorism.
The Chairperson replied that there was an Anti -Terrorism Act and that
terrorism was strongly condemned.
Mr Ntuli asked what the
rate of unemployment was in Norway.
Mr I Ryan, First Deputy Chairperson, Norwegian
Delegation replied that unemployment was below 3%.
Mr Mack asked what the Norwegian Delegation thought
of South Africa as a country with a young democracy.
Mr Hagen replied that he thought South Africa was
headed in the right direction since it sought reconciliation instead of
revenge. He stated that he understood the reasons behind black economic
empowerment and hoped that there would be checks and balances.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.