(SubCommittee) Matters referred by the Rules Committee and Members’ Submissions

Rules of the National Assembly

21 October 2022
Chairperson: Ms D Dlakude (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Subcommittee met on a virtual platform to consider matters referred by the Rules Committee and two submissions from members.

The Subcommittee was established as a space to table issues and for Members to get deeper into issues because the Rules Committee processed decisions.
 
The first matter under consideration was the proposal concerning the bringing of objects into the House and also displaying placards in the House. The matter was raised by the Chairperson of Committees as, earlier in the year, a Member had brought a placard into the House. An amendment to the rules was proposed that would prohibit Members from bringing any placards into the House as well as other objects, except with the prior permission of the Speaker. A further matter was the background displayed on screen during a virtual meeting. The proposal was that Members should use the parliamentary buildings, a blank background or blurry background, or a static picture of the Member without party symbols or statements. Members were informed that the Executive agreed with the proposal except that the President and Deputy President used the South African flag or the African Union flag as the background on their screens.

The meeting discussed proposals on the number of questions put to a Minister in the House in a Question session. Currently, ten questions could be put to a single Minister but, because Question sessions were held in clusters, some Ministers were not asked a single question while others had the full quota of ten questions to address. It was proposed that the number of questions per Minister be reduced to four or five so that other Ministers were given an opportunity to share with the House, and the public, what transpired in their ministries.

Members considered a proposal to issue a draft set of nine guidelines which suggested keeping the current ten-day period and improving the management of time by Ministers but that Ministers should not have to answer in respect of questions that related directly to another sphere of government unless the Minister was directly responsible and that generally, questions should not go back more than 30 years.

The Subcommittee addressed a submission by the Chief Whip of the DA to re-introduce interpellations as an added mechanism for holding the Executive to account. She argued that interpellations allowed for an in-depth discussion and would go a long way in strengthening the institution’s and addressing the Zondo Commission recommendations.  Members could not reach a consensus on the proposal and agreed that political parties would take the item to their respective caucus.

There was a proposed rule amendment emanating from the Report into allegations of Sexual Harassment by the Parliamentary Protection Services when removing Members from the House on the orders of the presiding officer. Members agreed with the proposal that only female staff could remove female Members and only male staff could remove male Members.

The Chief Whip of the IFP made a submission that there was a need for an oversight Committee on Vote One, the presidency as per the Constitution that decreed that the National Assembly must provide for mechanisms to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government were held accountable to it and to maintain oversight of the exercise of national Executive Authority. He pointed out that Parliament had oversight over portions of the Vote One budget but not over the entire budget and in a comprehensive manner. Members were divided on the matter. It was agreed that the Administration could help the Subcommittee by using the Parliamentary Budget Office to analyse the budget of Vote One, and show where the gap in accountability of the presidency is.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson noted that there were sufficient Members to commence the meeting and presented the agenda for approval.

Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of 13 May 2022 were adopted without amendment or objection. Matters arising were included in the agenda for the meeting.

Proposals concerning the bringing of objects and displaying placards into the House
Mr Perran Hahndiek, Procedural Advisor, NA Table Staff, explained that earlier in the year, a Member brought a placard into the House. It was not, in fact, the first time that Members had done that, but on that occasion, the House Chairperson, Mr C Frolick asked that the Rules Committee look into the rules about what Members could bring or not bring to the Chamber.

At present National Assembly Rule 64 (e) states that –
“Members … not to bring weapons of any kind nor dangerous or threatening articles or objects nor replicas of any such articles or objects into the Chamber, excluding cultural objects with the prior approval of the Speaker.”

The Secretariat proposed an amendment to the rules:
 to prohibit Members from bringing any placards into the House as well as other objects, except with the prior permission of the Speaker. This could include a prohibition on any “articles” or, alternatively, only “dangerous or threatening articles,” as per the existing provision.

Alternatively, members could consider adopting those sentiments in a guideline in support of the application of National Assembly Rule 64.

Guidelines for Members’ Backgrounds on the Virtual Platform
The Procedural Advisor stated that at the last subcommittee meeting there was a discussion on the background that Members should use during virtual meetings. It was agreed that Members should use the parliamentary buildings, a blank background or blurry background, or a static picture of the Member without party symbols or statements. It was agreed that the Executive be asked to provide inputs.
 
If Members agreed with the position, it could be presented to the Rules Committee as follows:

With regard to members’ backgrounds on the virtual platform, the Subcommittee resolved that members must use the current parliamentary background, or a blank background, or a blurred background, or a static picture of a member without party symbols or statements.
Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) supported option one as it was very firm, but with flexibility that allowed for circumstances where there was a need, for whatever reason, to bring something into the House, the Speaker could approve. It had been discussed at length at the previous meeting.

On the issue of the backgrounds, Mr Dyantyi supported the three backgrounds proposed.  As he spoke, he had a blank background with just his name or a static picture of himself. It should not be a picture of his girlfriend or wife or husband as members of the public were trying to connect with who was speaking as a Member of Parliament. He agreed with those three options of a blank background or a static picture or a background of the House. The hybrid rules stated that a Member could switch off their camera. That would be an inconsistency and that had to be attended to.

The Chairperson agreed that Members had discussed the matter at length the last time.

Mr N Singh (IFP) noted that the text of what was being said was similar in both instances for the rules,
 and the guideline. He pointed out that it was a question of whether it should be in the rules or in a guideline and that was what the discussion should focus on. He did not have a firm position but he did not know if the matter had been referred to the Executive at the subcommittee stage, or whether it would be done before the Rules Committee met.

On the second proposition, about the background, the first option was the camera on but sometimes that was not possible because of the network and that was something they needed to apply their minds to as well.

Mr A Papo (ANC) informed the meeting that there had been an engagement with the Executive Members, and it was agreed that the same rules would apply to them. Flexibility was required for the President and the Deputy President because they normally appeared with the flag of the country, or it could be the African Union flag. But all the Members of the Executive should either have their photo if the camera is off or a black/blurred background, with the third option being the background with the parliamentary buildings. That applied to the Hybrid Rules. Some of them had started to do it, but some have slipped up, and then one would have books and things like that as the background. The Parliamentary Communication Services was to send the parliamentary background to all the Members, Ministers, and Deputy Ministers and that would be facilitated by the Office of the Leader of Government Business. There was no resistance to the proposal.

The Chairperson appreciated the update.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) was covered but said it was safe to say that it would be a problem to say one needed to have the discretion of the Presiding Officer on a matter that impacted negatively on the decorum of the House. The rules were there to ensure that there was consistency in terms of its application and that the application was known. However, she took note of the difficulty of showing one’s face considering the instability of the network. That was another issue. But moving forward, the rules were there so that no one second-guessed the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer had to use his or her own discretion then after that there was a concern about inconsistency in terms of the penalty or the decision or judgment of the Presiding Officer, but other than that, she was covered.

Mr Dyantyi responded to Mr Singh about whether they should leave it as a guideline or amend the rules. He suggested that it was best to stick to the rules because once it becomes a guideline, it was open to abuse. When it was a rule, Parliament was able to stand by the rule, even in the courts. Because when one said a Presiding Officer could use his discretion, it was better to have rules, and not guidelines. So he wanted the Subcommittee to agree on rules, not guidelines. Otherwise, it would be all over the place.

On the second issue of showing one’s face, it was a practical issue that he had noted in many plenary sessions that he happened to be presiding over. The Subcommittee agreed that any of the three backgrounds was acceptable, a blank with your name, or static picture, or a background of Parliament. Where it became confusing was with the Hybrid Rules that Presiding officers had to read upfront at the start of a session: “When you speak, you must switch off your video camera.” That might need to be amended if they agreed on those three backgrounds. He was sure that inconsistency could be attended to.

Mr Papo thought the three options needed to be factored into the guide that the presiding officer read at the beginning of a session because that guide was intended to strengthen the hybrid rules so that if a Member was having a network problem, that Member’s photo would appear on the virtual platform. It was not necessary to amend those rules; the point about the background should just be factored in the guide. The issue had to be in the Hybrid Rules because Parliament was currently operating on those rules, that is the House rules which were augmented by the hybrid rules that had been adopted.

Mr Papo then addressed the question of the objects. For example, if it were 16 days of activism and all political parties agreed, Members might actually come with labels and whatever paraphernalia the National Assembly organised for Members.  T-shirts might be donated and things like that, so that was why permission could be granted. That was the understanding of that proposal so that a Member did not just bring a poster that nobody knew about as nobody had been consulted; that created a problem. Members should raise their issues in the debate. It had to be option one, i.e. in the rules, because if it were in the guidelines, as Members said, it might be abused. It did not say that newspaper cuttings and things like that were not allowed, but on the issue of posters, it was clear that, for example, if a Member brought a poster in support of Palestine, and another Member brought a poster in support of Israel, that would create a problem. Option one prevented a situation where the focus of the public was attracted by other things; the public should hear Members debating. Option one was not a blanket rule; it allowed for some form of interaction and consultation.

Mr Papo noted that the rules already prohibited logos and slogans on a Member’s clothing; a Member could wear a colour, but should not put logos and slogans on the clothes. Option one was very firm, and they did not want to allow that situation because clothes were like moving advertisements if they had logos and slogans and things like that.

The Chairperson believed that the view of the Subcommittee was that the points should be included in the rules. Those points should be factored into the rules so that even if Parliament was taken to court, the rules would stand the test of time to protect the decisions of the House. She would take it to the Rules Committee for a decision.

Mr Hahndiek asked for clarity. It was not actually a rule amendment; it was just proposing the principle be inserted into the rule.  The other element was the issue of articles. It could say placards in the House as well as other objects or articles, except with the prior permission of the Speaker, so that the issue of placards and articles be inserted in the general principle.

The next items in the agenda would be re-arranged in the following order: Update and pending proposals on the number of questions; Reply from a Minister; Interpellations

Update and pending proposals on the number of questions put to a Minister
Mr Michael Plaatjies, NA Table Procedural Advisor: Questions, explained that the issue was about the concentration of questions to a particular Minister. In terms of National Rule 138(1) an attempt was made to obtain a fair spread of questions among Ministers by introducing a clustered system of government portfolios. Currently, Rule 138(7) provided for ten questions per Minister per Question session, which led to a concentration of questions for one Minister. One of the proposals was a consideration to reduce the number of questions per Minister to provide opportunities for all Ministers to reply.

The old questions rule said that not more than four questions for auto reply should be put to any one government department, which was interpreted as one Minister.  The old rule was four questions per government party (Minister). That would give other Ministers an opportunity to engage with Members and so that was the change that he was proposing.

He noted that, ultimately, it really depended on the questions parties put forward and prioritised for the Ministers.

Mr Singh considered it a very valid proposal. When the House had questions sessions, some Ministers, were not asked any questions, even though they were sitting there as part of the cluster. Restricting questions to four would be good. He added another point: Mr Plaatjies would know with his experience that there were times when questions were unanswered because of the time lapsing after three hours and from his own participation in Parliament over a number of years, he knew that the parliamentary liaison officers for the Ministers always had written answers to all questions that were on the Order Paper. Could the Committee not reintroduce the rule that answers must be tabled for all questions on the Order Paper. The answer could be given to the Member right there and then, as used to happen in the past. Indeed, even when a Minister tabled an answer, surely Members needed to also receive a written copy of that answer.

Ms S Gwarube (DA) thought that the proposal that had been put forward was something that the Subcommittee could definitely consider. But she also picked up on Mr Plaatjies statement that, in fact, how and which Minister's answered on the day actually depended on the prioritisation of the political parties. It was important to recognise that political parties needed to prioritise questions, so they should not necessarily just throw the baby out with the bathwater. There might be advantages to reducing the number of questions per day so that most Ministers in a cluster had an opportunity to answer questions, but the issue was less about the questions per Minister than about which questions were prioritised. To create a fairer spread, they could reduce the numbers as per the recommendation. They had more to gain than to lose in that effect and, obviously, they wanted to make sure that Members of Parliament had even more of an opportunity to hold the Executive to account. She thought that the proposal could be taken to the Rules Committee.

Mr Dyantyi said that the proposals made sense. Most of the time there was skilled participation of Ministers per cluster in answering the questions, but certain questions were more popular or certain Ministries were more popular, given the nature of the work they did. But it was not helpful that some Ministers did not once have a question because the House was not able to spread the participation. It was important to make them accountable, but it was also important that, across the board, Ministers could share their experiences of the kind of work that they did with the House and so with members of the public. So, he supported the proposal, but just did not know why the proposal took it from ten right down to four. Why not make it five questions, instead of four, unless there was a reason why it could be five? If there was a reason, he supported four questions.

Mr Papo supported Mr Dyantyi because the nation needed to have a sense of what was going on in all ministries. All Ministers had to have a chance to respond to some of those questions. The Subcommittee should urge the Rules Committee, and through the Chief Whips’ Forum, ensure the various political parties did that because it served the nation better if the public had a sense of what was going on in all areas of government. The aim should be for Members to gather responses and constituents of Members should also be able to get responses to their questions, but responses should generally be spread across all the clusters and ministries.

The Chairperson appreciated the input and agreed that Members had observed that some Ministers would come to the House and the House would be adjourned without them having to answer a single question. She proposed that it be put to the Rules Committee that questions for Ministers be reduced to four or five so that questions were spread across the cluster.

Ms Lesoma agreed with the Chairperson’s summary, having listened to the engagement, but noted that it also impacted those who were presiding officers and were obliged to follow the presiding officers’ guidelines. It should also be that the question put before the House must be completed and not that it was completed at the discretion of the presiding officer because of the time factor. There had to be an understanding that the question would be completed. At one stage while she was presiding, she was not sure what to do and had cut the question in the middle while there had been some follow-up required to complete that question.

Mr Papo agreed that follow-up questions should not be cut off as that was clumsy. If the question had already started, the other three ought to be completed in that session but it would be the last one for the session. The other thing was the number of questions targeted for the day. Responses to the other questions intended for that session but not reached should be provided in writing.

Ms Gwarube noted that Members were in agreement about the reduction of the questions to allow a fairer spread and she agreed that there needed to be consistency from presiding officers because if the issue around the cutting of questions mid-question were left to the discretion of each presiding officer, then there would not be any consistency. Once a question had been started, it had to be finished. While they were discussing questions, it would be good to formalise that point.

Mr Singh agreed with the proposal that a Minister should not be cut off once he had begun to answer a question. He asked that the secretariat check the current rules about the time slot.

Mr Dyantyi commented on the importance of not cutting questions in the middle, but said it was not a matter of an amendment of any rule. What needed to happen was a certain level of discipline from the presiding officer. Each question was allocated a specific amount of time. The only reason why some questions spilled over was that a presiding officer had not exercised discipline in terms of the time allocation for a response from the Minister. If a Minister went overboard on one question, then he ate into the time of the other questions. So it was not a rule amendment issue; it was an enforcement issue by the presiding officer to stay within the allocated time limit. The session was only three hours, so presiding officers needed to be very focused and disciplined around time management.

The Chairperson agreed that a precise time was given to each question and part thereof. She agreed that presiding officers had to be strict on time. It should be emphasised in the Chief Whips’ Forum that Members had two minutes to ask the first supplementary question and one minute for the second one. She wrapped up the item noting that Members agreed that questions had to be spread across clusters; the number of questions per Minister should be reduced to four or five. The presiding officers had to manage time so that the session did not exceed three hours.

Delayed Replies to Questions by Cabinet Members
Mr Hahndiek explained that the Rules Committee wanted to issue guidelines relating to delayed replies or replies in general. The intention was that the Subcommittee should look at the draft guidelines, in particular, to see whether they were appropriate.

Mr Plaatjies presented Rule 145 (5) (a) which stated: “A question for written reply must be replied to within 10 working days, provided that the responsible Minister may in writing request the Speaker for an extension not exceeding a further 10 working days on good cause shown.”

Ministers provided several reasons for delayed replies, despite Rule 145: The technical nature of some questions, and challenges in gathering and verifying information or research; certain questions related to provinces, local government, or entities over which Ministers had no, or limited, control; and challenges arising from changing departmental management.

Mr Plaatjies explained why parliamentary question time was an essential tool for Members to oversee and hold the Executive to account. He suggested that the Committee consider the reasons provided by Ministers for delayed replies and develop guidelines in that regard. He presented a draft set of nine guidelines (Annexure C attached) which suggested keeping the ten-day period and improving the management of time by Ministers but that Ministers should not have to answer in respect of questions that related directly to another sphere of government unless the Minister was directly responsible and that generally, questions should not go back more than 30 years.

Mr Singh suggested that some of the reasons provided by Ministers might be acceptable, but it was common courtesy to present holding replies to indicate to the Table that the Minister was awaiting technical information from a province. However, some Ministers were repeat offenders and that information was available. The Office of the Leader of Government Business had to do something about that. Rules were in place and there was a mechanism that the Speaker had to apply. To what extent was that being put into practice? And what kind of responses was the Speaker receiving, other than the general reasons provided by Ministers? Written responses were very important to Members because questions were asked on behalf of constituents. He mentioned that a few months earlier, he had received the answer from the province weeks before the national Minister responded. It took them weeks to process responses. Maybe the time period should be increased to 15 days.

Ms Lesoma stated that the purpose of engaging on the matter was to ensure questions were being responded to. The intention was not to detect how the Ministers responded but to remember that their responses empowered Members as well as the population of the country, the citizens, or the voters. However, she suggested that it was not necessary to respond to issues, or even statistics, prior to the democratic disposition because Ministers could not account for apartheid’s misfortunes, which meant no further back than 28 years.

She added that Ministers were given ample time to answer. Perhaps the challenge lay in the date of the submission of questions as they might be submitted towards the end of the deadline and that did not provide time for the Minister to do his or her investigation. Ministers could not dictate to departments, municipalities, or provincial governments, demanding information. She did not think that the rules should dictate the format of how Ministers had to respond as long as it was useful to a member of the electorate.

Ms Gwarube was inclined to agree with the point on not seeking information dating back prior to 1994 but rules should stand the test of time and so it was not about the number of years but about the lifespan of that Parliament. On recommendations four and five, she noted the importance of the change.  She was getting several complaints, particularly from Members who are very involved in constituency matters, and used written questions as a way to ask Ministers about constituency matters. She understood that no Minister could respond on behalf of another sphere of government, but instead of simply saying that they could not respond to the question, they should explain where their responsibilities lay, provide a response within that scope and explain who the relevant authority was. Ministers needed to be sensitised to the fact that it was not good enough for a Minister to simply say that he or she was not going to answer a question.  The Executive had to be sensitised to numbers four and five of the proposed guidelines.

Mr Papo agreed that the issue related to the management of questions and engagement with the Members by the Ministry was very, very important. If the Questions Office saw questions that were not linked to the mandate of a Department, that office should re-route the question to the relevant Minister. That was part of the whole tightening of the system. Such mistakes should be corrected in the first day or two after questions arrived. Then it was also about strengthening the overall management of the work of the ministry with both Parliament and other levels of government. Some departments had concurrent powers and in others whether a Minister could answer or not depended on the situation. The entire process had to be tightened and there had to be a general understanding that Parliament was an important platform. However, Ministers could not spend their entire time in Parliament as they also did outreach work in communities. But Parliament could not have silence and the passing of deadlines.

The Chairperson appreciated the work done by the office of the Leader of Government Business.

Mr Plaatjies said that the rule stated questions must relate to matters for which a Cabinet Minister was officially responsible. And, that rule was based on a section of the Constitution. If Members could ask Ministers constituency questions on matters that did not fall within the purview of the Minister, replies would continue to be late. The request to the Subcommittee was simply to consider the extent to which Ministers were able to answer. He gave an example of a case in which incorrect information was supplied to a Minister by a province ruled by the Opposition and the Minister was accused of misleading Parliament. As more and more provinces and municipalities were being run by the opposition, so there might be greater difficulties in respect of cooperation with the Minister. Ministers did not control the information within those municipalities; they made national legislation.

Concerning Mr Singh’s proposal to extend the period from 10 to 15 days, he pointed to international best practice that had reduced the reply period to seven days in Denmark, in India, it was 10 days and in other constituencies, like the UK Parliament, it was three to five working days.  SA would be looking outside international best practice if the response time were extended and the reason would be that Ministers would be responsible for methods they did not control, even though the Constitution was clear.

Mr Papo said he was covered by Mr Plaatjies. He asked why some questions could not be asked by the Member of the provincial Legislature, especially when a party had a representative in the legislature. He added that it was not only where there were opposition parties; concurrent governance was very difficult and Ministers could not force anyone to provide the information he or she needed.

However, Mr Papo saw a bigger problem in the stipulation that Ministers had to answer all questions in point form. Sometimes they could but other times the question was about political issues and a Minister could summarise four points into a policy response principle, but then they were told that they had not answered subsection b, subsection c, etc. So how were they going to deal with that? Ministers had to respond according to the policies of the party, but then there were complaints about subsections not being answered. Sometimes a Member engaged politically but Members had to accept that the governing party could not implement the policies of the opposition; it had to implement what was in the strategic plan of the government. However, when a Minister said he/she was not responding to that policy, he or she was accused of dodging a response.

The Chairperson agreed that some questions could be referred to provinces.

Ms Lesoma noted what was being raised about the Constitution and also about intergovernmental relations. That needed to be flagged and referred to the relevant committee, the Constitutional Review Committee, so that they could consider the material conditions of different parties and the coalitions that were not stable and so on. The Committee could assist the Executive when they responded to questions by looking at the law and considering whether it needed to be reviewed. That point could be looked at separately from the workings of the Rules Committee because the point raised some legal issues, which needed attention in preparation for the incoming Administration.

Mr Plaatjies agreed with Ms Lesoma: matters that were concurrent and resided within provinces needed to be reconsidered. The National Minister should not become a post office.

The Chairperson said that Members would need to make use of what was before them and those parties with representation in the legislatures should make use of that avenue so that there was not an over-reliance on Ministers, who had to do their work as per the Constitution. The Subcommittee endorsed the principles articulated in the guidelines but further work was needed to perfect the guidelines.

Interpellations and Opportunities for Ministers to Reply: Submission by the Chief Whip of Opposition
Ms Gwarube spoke to her submission, stating that the Rules Subcommittee, and the Rules Committee in general, had very important work to do, especially, looking at how the rules of Parliament had become deficient insofar as holding the Executive to account and allowing Parliament to do its work. Members would have seen a lot being said about how Parliament was not doing its work in the Zondo Commission, for example. The Committee had to start thinking about how it could strengthen oversight and so one of the things that she had looked at was the use of interpellations for exercising oversight over the Executive. Interpellations were previously part of the rules, but they were simply suspended temporarily back in 2000, and when the new rules were drafted, interpellations were done away with.

She explained why interpellations were important. The Subcommittee had just had a very important discussion on both oral and written questions and the importance of the questions as well as the importance of the responses from the Ministers. In her view interpellations would add depth to the interactions between Members and Ministers. One of the big issues, and sometimes a point of contention in the House, was that Members would say that a Minister had not answered the question and a presiding officer was unable to dictate to the Ministers how they should answer the questions. Ultimately, a Minister could stand up, make some sounds and, insofar as what the rules provided for, the Minister had responded to the question. Interpellations were essentially many interactions between Members of Parliament and Members of the Executive, where there was an in-depth discussion, back and forth, on a particular issue. The view of her party was that it would deepen the oversight mechanism and entrench and deepen the idea of Executive oversight and take forward what oral questions were able to achieve.

She proposed that interpellations be reintroduced in the National Assembly Rules, especially as there was not a substantive reason why they were done away with. And what did Parliament have to lose, except to entrench accountability further? It also sent a strong message that Parliament was introspecting and learning from some of the findings made against the institution about not doing oversight. Her submission was that it was an international best practice for accountability in the House.

Mr Plaatjies explained that the main difference between interpellations and the current question session was that the questioner could come back to the Minister and the Minister would respond. Interpellation had a time period of 15 minutes divided into segments for questions and answers. Several reasons were offered as to why interpellations were no longer effective and, most importantly, they were taking up too much time. It was up to the Subcommittee to determine whether it wanted to go back to interpellations. In the debate on 26 August 2002 when the current question system was finally agreed to, some parties held out the option of interpellation although they agreed that abolishing the system would allow more participation within the questions process, especially for minority parties.

Mr Masibulele Xaso, Secretary to the National Assembly, stated that the Administration did not favour either one of the systems, but there were some issues that the Subcommittee would have to grapple with. The current question session was three hours as the intention had been to create space for more questions and so more opportunities for parties to participate. It should be borne in mind that there was a proposal for a reduction of the number of questions that were asked of a Minister so that there was an opportunity for more portfolios to be interacted with during a question session.

The Chairperson wondered why interpellations were discontinued if it was such a very effective method to deal with question sessions. But she did agree that Parliament was a multiparty institution. Did interpellations allow all Members of Parliament to interact with Ministers or was it limited to one party or two parties only? In discussions, Members should consider those issues.  Did interpellations promote a multiparty democracy system and multiparty parliamentary participation?

Mr Singh stated that interpellations could only enhance accountability. Parliament had a constitutional mandate to hold Ministers accountable for what happened or did not happen, in their departments. Now, whilst one may argue that Members had the question session, he believed that interpellations were a livelier way of engaging with the Minister and it was not only an opportunity for the opposition, but it was also an opportunity for the Minister to have more time to respond to issues that were raised in the interpellation. So it was not a one-way; it was a two-way thing. Insofar as it would be monopolised by certain parties, he suggested that the system currently in operation gave parties various slots that could be used. It was possible to reduce the current question session from three hours to two and a half hours and set aside 30 minutes for two interpellations on a roster basis, although it could be increased to three and a half hours. It had worked in the past and it currently worked in provinces.

Mr Papo was not convinced as he had participated in interpellations; they had been cancelled in the Gauteng legislature. Why not talk about mini-plenaries? The Subcommittee should not just change things but make things better. Parliament did not have mini-plenaries when interpellations were part of the process. Interpellations would only encourage banter between Ministers and MPs. It was not always good to change things. He suggested that the mini-plenaries should be strengthened, especially the question sessions, and Ministers should ensure that their responses were based on the plans of government.

Ms Lesoma said that sometimes one thought it was a new idea, whereas it was not. She was mindful that there were now more political parties in the House that had been voted into Parliament by the choice of the electorate, and they could not be suppressed. She pointed out that some of the rules had been abandoned in terms of strict application because the ANC was not dogmatic by nature. It wanted to give more small parties a chance to debate at any given time of the calendar year. The previous week some political parties had urged the ANC to make more time available for plenary sessions so that they could have time to engage on matters and make the Executive account directly or indirectly in terms of engagement. The earlier agenda item called for more time for Members to engage with the Executive in the form of questions and now that point was brought in. They could not ship Members of the Executive into Parliament and still expect them to deliver and lead their departments. In any case, interpellations sounded like organised chaos where the Members of the Executive would be told that they had not responded to questions, even when they had or they had no control over information coming from a local municipality or provisional cabinet. For now, it would not necessarily work, considering all the other concessions that her party had made. She also did not want to undermine proportional representation. She was not in support of introducing interpellations for now.  They did not need to reflect on what was done in the Third and Fourth Administrations.

Ms Gwarube said that no matter what party one represented, everyone had to accept the fact that Parliament had been found wanting on more than one occasion in terms of being able to conduct accountability over the Executive. That was an objective fact that they all knew it. She agreed that there were systems in place that worked, but they wanted to strengthen them to make the institution work better. Secondly, Ms Lesoma spoke about organised chaos and the like. The reality was that the function of Parliament was not to keep some kind of order and some kind of formulaic list of what had been done and that if the three hours were over, one had to leave. Members had to ask themselves about the impact of those things, and so accountability was not going to be a neat box thing, where Members of Parliament came in, got into the questions, and then left. If Members of Parliament were of the view that certain questions were not being answered to a satisfactory level, they had to have recourse to ask a follow-up question. Thirdly, her plea to the Subcommittee was not to view it as a matter of one or the other; she was asking for the introduction of a hybrid system because questions and interpolations served two different functions that allowed for in-depth accountability in a way that oral questions could not necessarily achieve.

Ms Gwarube added that the purpose of mini-plenaries was to allow more political parties to bring motions of discussion to the House and where decisions are required those issues went to the National Assembly. She emphasised that it was about enhancing the way that Parliament worked and that Parliament was seen as an institution that knew how to introspect, especially when it had been found wanting.

Mr Singh suggested that they should desist from using the term “small” and “other” parties because today a party could be big and tomorrow it could be small. Everybody had a right to representation in Parliament. Secondly, they should not be looking at rules for political parties, whether they were parties with one Member or a party of 200; they should be looking at rules that would enhance the way Parliament functioned as an institution, and one of the ways of accountability was the issue of interpellations. He urged that if they could not agree, Members should take it to their caucuses and come back with a position where they would be able to find each other because the ruling party of today could be in opposition tomorrow. He was not saying that was going to happen with the current ruling party, but that was how the cycle went. So whatever they did, it had to be relevant in the future because they might want to hold somebody else accountable and would need the mechanisms to do so.

Mr Dyantyi had been covered by his colleagues but it was important to understand why there was a Subcommittee on rules. It was created for Members to get deeper into issues because the Rules Committee processed decisions. The Subcommittee was a space to table issues and engage with each other on those issues; its focus was on robustly dealing with technical issues, almost with one’s cap off in terms of which party one represented.  The theme running through was that in the past, with less time, Parliament was able to get through many questions and a lot more things. Currently, they did not have that kind of balance. Issues should not be introduced for the sake of doing so; the Subcommittee had to assess the effectiveness of what they had. He had seen both sides of interpellation as a member of the legislature in the Western Cape, from the point of being in opposition, but also as an Executive in the governing party and he had enjoyed it both ways as a form of mini-debate.

Mr Dyantyi raised the issue of mini-plenaries in the National Assembly for the various clusters. Now that engagements were virtual, mini-plenaries could happen at the same time, with different topics and different issues. He asked if a mini-plenary could be seen as an upgraded interpellation because in mini-plenaries the Member who introduced the topic had an opportunity to come back at the end. They just needed to understand where the gap was, and what needed attention. He was sure everyone agreed that accountability was multi-fold. The Executive was held accountable through the Committees where there were various mechanisms. In fact, there was a plethora of mechanisms for holding the Executive accountable. There was limited space to interface with the Executive and maybe they should test the systems they were going to introduce before introducing new measures.

He had no problem if the Chairperson decided there was room for more discussion, but the absence of interpellation certainly did not mean that the Executive was not held accountable That idea should be debunked. He had enjoyed interpellation, but it was an exclusive form and was limited in that it did not include everybody.

The Chairperson stated that, unfortunately, some had never experienced the interpellations which had been held in the past but were discontinued. The rules provided many platforms for holding the Executive accountable and they allowed for multi-party participation. Currently, a Member could attend any Committee meeting (except for two) or mini-plenary held.  She suggested Subcommittee Members encourage their party Members to take advantage of all the opportunities that there were in Parliament to engage with the Executive.  Members could take the issue to their caucuses. As a Subcommittee of the Rules Committee, Members did not take decisions and if there were differing views, they should step off the item.

Proposed Rule Amendments arising from the Report into allegations of Sexual Harassment
Mr Hahndiek provided a brief background. Members would be aware of the incidences in June, where allegations were raised in the House that certain staff members from Parliament's Protection Services had sexually harassed Members when they were being removed from the House. Legal counsel had investigated and a report from counsel was tabled at the Rules Committee on 6 September 2022 where it was agreed that the Subcommittee should consider the relevant rules in light of the findings of the report.

The report made two observations. The first was that in the case of Parliament's Protection Services (PPS) removing Members from the House, those of one gender should not touch Members of Parliament from another gender. And that principle would also apply to Members. The second observation related to the need for Members to comply with the rules and rulings of presiding officers in general. The Rules Committee effectively endorsed the recommendations, although it left it to the Subcommittee to determine exactly how they should be implemented. Rule 73 (13) currently related to the removal of Members from the house. Rule 73 allowed the House to make standard operating procedures to regulate how Members could be removed. The proposal was that Rule 73 (13) be amended to replace standard operating procedures with guidelines because the rules, should, as a matter of principle, relate more to Members than staff. The initial amendment would be to Rule 73 (13) and the substantive amendment to the guidelines. He explained the current procedure under which security personnel might enter the chamber. It had to be borne in mind that the House could get quite chaotic and it was hard to provide for different possible scenarios.

Mr Hahndiek presented the proposed guidelines for the security staff and a change to the mandate for the Subcommittee on the Physical Removal of a member from the Chamber (Rule 203). [See Annexure D]

Mr Xaso asked that Members of the Subcommittee be aware of points 4(a) and (b): (a)Parliamentary Protection Services personnel of one gender may not touch a member of another gender; and
(b)Members of one gender may not touch a Parliamentary Protection officer of another gender.

Most unfortunately, there were instances of total chaos, and female staff members could be overpowered by female Members of the House and there was a need for enforcement. In such a case, a male staff member could be required to assist. Every effort would be made to comply with the same gender principle but he warned that there might be instances where it was not possible. For that reason, points 4 (a) and (b) used the word “may”. He thought that “may” would be permissive enough to allow for those instances mentioned above.

Mr Papo stated that an instance where the presiding officer requested the PPS to remove a Member had to be a last resort when a Member was defying a ruling to leave the House. It was a sad state of affairs when a Member refused to obey a ruling of a presiding officer to leave the House and then caused drama, leading to the involvement of the Sergeant-at-Arms. They should just leave when that point had been reached. Parties should explain to their Members that they should not reach a stage where the PPS had to be called. Mr Xaso was right and even the police used both gender in an event where the police officers of a particular gender were being attacked. Under those circumstances, it would have to involve all members of the PPS, but under normal circumstances, female Members would be moved by a female PPS member, and likewise males. It was the resistance that created the problem. He could not understand why a Member resisted after defying a presiding officer.

Ms Lesoma supported the proposal put by the Administration and agreed with the sentiments expressed by Mr Papo. Unfortunately, one could not control the behaviour of other political party members.

She asked what happened to a Member if she or he were removed from the House. Was the Member taken outside the parliamentary precinct or just removed from the House? Did the docking of salary apply? Was there any rule about that? What if the person were a serial offender, so to speak?

The Chairperson asked for a response from the Administration.

Mr Xaso explained that docking of salaries did not obtain under those rules; that was obtained in respect of sanctions. Members had expressed a view that the NA Rules needed to get into the matter of docking salaries, but that had not happened as yet. Secondly, the rules said that Members had to be removed from the precincts of Parliament. That was what the rule provided for, but there were sometimes capacity issues to do that. Automatic suspension of Members no longer applied following a court ruling that stated that suspension could only follow an appropriate process. So that rule no longer applied.

The Chairperson noted that the Subcommittee was in agreement with the proposed changes. Physical removal of Members should be according to the rights of individuals, which meant that a female Member should be removed by a female member of the PPS, and also a male Member should be removed by a male member of the PPS.

Mr Papo lamented the ridiculing of the PPS. They were often called “bouncers”. Was that derogatory? When he had raised the matter, he was told that it was normal to call the PPS “bouncers”. Bouncers normally worked in nightclubs and dealt with drunk patrons and applied physical force. He found it odd that some Members found it normal to call PPS “ bouncers”.

Mr Xaso said any derogatory term was unacceptable but the staff was not covered under the parliamentary rules. Members could be urged not to use any derogatory terms towards staff.

Ms Gwarube pointed out that at some point the issue around gender would be challenged as there would be gender non-conforming Members. She was just flagging it for the Committee that at some point, the issue around gender will be challenged. It might not be a problem in the current Parliament, but eventually, there would be Members who were gender non-conforming. It was not necessary to consider that point in the current rule nor could they make rules for all future eventualities. She asked if there were an equal number of male and female PPS members.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the rules were continuously being reviewed or amended, so they need not worry about the future. The presiding officers had to enforce the rules to ensure that the House ran smoothly and without any distractions or disruptions by Members of Parliament. So if parties were unable to contain their members, then the PPS were there. Members of Parliament were supposed to be role models to some young people out there. If people adhered to the rules, then none of that would happen. She also condemned the name-calling.

Sub-committee on the Presidency – IFP proposal
Mr Singh stated that he had proposed to the Rules Committee that the National Assembly establish an oversight Committee on the presidency. The Rules Committee referred the matter to the Rules Subcommittee.

He said that the whole issue of an oversight Committee over the President was similar to the oversight Committee of any Member of the Executive. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was quite clear: section 42(3)(b)and section 55(2)(a) and (b), section 56 and section 57(2) (a) and (b) said that in exercising legislative power, the National Assembly must provide for mechanisms to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government were held accountable to it and to maintain oversight of the exercise of national Executive Authority.

Mr Singh said that Vote One, which was one of the 41 Budget Votes, belonged to an executive organ of the state; it fell under the President. Vote One should not be looking at the President as a person, but the Department which the President managed. Even the parliamentary Rules stipulated the requirement for oversight. It was not some luxury that Members of Parliament could decide what they needed or did not need. It was mandatory in terms of the Constitution, which they had all proudly adopted. He added that while there was a Minister in the presidency and other Ministers who accounted for portions of the budget, if one looked at Vote one, the President had several organisations and bodies such as climate change, anti-corruption, energy, etc. and there was no accountability on the spending of those funds.

He did not know why Parliament had delayed the implementation of oversight over Vote One but if one referred to the Zondo Commission that particular matter was raised there. The Zondo Report recommended that Parliament should consider whether it was appropriate to establish a Committee whose function was, or included, oversight over acts of omission by the President and presidency. The Subcommittee had to determine the details of the establishment of such a Committee. He reiterated that the intention was not to question the President; they would be questioning the Director-General in the presidency on spending patterns. During the debate on Vote One, which took two days, Members of all parties placed issues before the President as a person, which he might not be aware of, while those issues could well have been answered during Portfolio Committee questions to the Director-General.

Mr Hahndiek stated that the Administration had no views on the matter.

Ms Gwarube said that Mr Singh had a compelling case, particularly thinking of the point she made earlier about the fact that it was the Members' collective responsibility to reform the public persona, or the reputation, of Parliament. Over the years Parliament had been seen as no more than a rubber-stamping institution that did not take accountability seriously. If there were opportunities to deepen accountability, they ought to take the opportunities. And not only for accountability sake, but also to garner the trust of the public, who would see Members learning from what was seen to be previous mistakes. And the Zondo Commission made it quite clear that there were gaps in Parliament’s accountability mechanism. Making legislation or rules was not done with a particular person in mind, but on a matter of principle. Whether the President was the current President or somebody else in the next term, a decision about the rules was made based on principle. Increasingly, Members had seen more bodies and task teams that reported to the presidency.

She declared that there was a definite lacuna in the rules where they had no overview of the entire presidency nor the spending patterns of the budget. The debate that happened around the President's budget Vote just degenerated into a political debate. There were no substantive questions about budget spending, priorities, or targets that were met or not met. No one was answering those questions on behalf of the presidency in its entirety. They had nothing to lose but everything to gain by instituting a Vote One Portfolio Committee. She urged the Subcommittee to take the matter to the Rules Committee for consideration.

Ms Lesoma said that as a Subcommittee there were issues to be addressed. The previous two speakers had made interesting points but she underscored that the Zondo Commission Report did not appreciate that the President was not a Member of Parliament. He presented broader government policies that were implemented by various departments. There were relevant Committees that had oversight of the expenditure of Vote One and they could consider if there were any other issues that needed to be accounted for. She also appreciated that they had certain Committees doing oversight over some Ministers in the Presidency.

She said it should be an ongoing discussion, and maybe at the end of the current Administration, the incoming Administration might look at it. It was not a simple thing of just establishing a committee; there were also legal imperatives that had to be considered and unintended consequences could be created by just agreeing. What Parliament currently had worked, unless she could be convinced otherwise. Members had to make a better effort towards holding both the Executive and the President accountable through the various platforms available.

Mr Papo asked how they were using the Zondo Reports. It appeared to be a bit of a piecemeal approach. He thought there was an understanding that all the issues relating to the Zondo Reports would be consolidated and formally determined for Parliament. Could the Subcommittee Members pick and choose which one they wanted? He was a bit worried if Members were going to use the Zondo Commission recommendations like that when Parliament had agreed in principle there would be a specific plan. They had one issue and another one would pop up and so on. It was not the best way of dealing with that Report. They were waiting for the President to submit a plan.

Mr Singh responded by taking the Zondo Report off the table. It had just been a way of saying what people outside of Parliament were saying. He brought the meeting back to the Constitution and what the National Assembly needed to do in terms of section 55: the National Assembly must provide for mechanisms to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government are accountable to it. The President was no longer a Member of Parliament, but the Constitution referred to national executive organs and he was the Head of the Executive. There were 41 Executives but only 40 of them were accountable because they left out the Head of the Executive. What Parliament was doing was unconstitutional. He believed that the Administration could help the Subcommittee by using the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) to analyse the budget of Vote One, and Members would find that there were hundreds of millions of Rand allocated from the fiscus to Vote One where there was no accountability whatsoever. The Ministers that resided within the presidency were accountable only for certain portions of the budget.

Ms Gwarube underscored two points she had made. It was important to separate the President from the presidency as the President had a department called the presidency. And so while other departments had oversight committees, the presidency did not. The use of the Zondo Commission Report in a piecemeal fashion was beside the point. The matter had been raised over and over again in Parliament and was an oversight in respect of Parliament’s rules. Whether or not they had started the work of implementing some of the recommendations of the Zondo Commission Report was beside the point. There was an oversight lacuna in the rules, and they had to address it. The notion that it could be considered at a later stage, was quite frankly, wild. Why would they kick for touch and say that another Parliament could deal with it? They formed a Subcommittee that dealt with the rules and it was clear that there were sections of government that did not have an oversight body as required by the Constitution. So they should fix what was broken there and then. One could not say that it worked; it did not work.

Mr Dyantyi had a hanging question: where was the gap in accountability of the presidency? It would assist the Subcommittee if the gaps in terms of the budget were placed in front of it. He supported that approach so that they could have a focused, specific discussion on those particular gaps rather than just being all over the place and making assertions about the areas that were not covered. When they were able to pinpoint and confront those areas, they might find convergence on certain points.

Mr Papo said that the ANC did not agree with the proposal. But, with the inputs which were made, the point should be kept on the agenda of the Subcommittee for further consultation. For the moment, there was no agreement, but it must be kept on the agenda. It was not yet agreed to take it to the Rules Committee.

Ms Lesoma said she was covered by Mr Papo.

Mr Singh thanked the Subcommittee Members for their positive engagement, particularly Mr Dyantyi. It had taken 28 years to get there; another 28 days or 56 days was not going to be a train smash.

Mr Singh asked Mr Xaso and the Administration whether they could assist by liaising with the PBO to provide such an analysis. If they could present to the Committee what amount in Vote One was not accounted for by anybody through the normal process of a Portfolio Committee, that would assist Members of the Subcommittee. He asked if Mr Xaso could put some timeframes on that request so that those facts and figures could serve before Members at the next Subcommittee meeting.

The Chairperson stated that Members should not assume there was no accounting of the presidency as there were three Committees overseeing the presidency. What needed to be done was to identify those steps, as Mr Singh mentioned, and to come back and discuss it further. The item would not go to the Rules Committee as it was still a work in progress. It would remain on the agenda of the Subcommittee.

Mr Xaso asked if anything had to be done by the Administration.

The Chairperson asked him to liaise with the PBO and obtain the information as suggested by Members.

Closing Remarks
The Chairperson thanked Members and officials for a fruitful meeting. Disagreements were normal, but the work of Parliament continued.

The meeting was adjourned.

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.

Share this page: