Order! Hon members, before we start with the business of today, I would like to take this opportunity to recognise, in the gallery, a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary, led by His Excellency Mr Mandur. They are visiting as my guests and guests of this Parliament. You are most welcome here and we hope you will have a fruitful visit to our Parliament. [Applause.]
Hon members, again before we start, I would like to deal with a ruling matter from the Questions session of last week. During Question Time on Wednesday, I indicated that I would get back to the House with a ruling on the application of the sub judice rule. This was necessitated by objections by some members to an assertion by the Deputy Minister of Police that he could not give answers to a particular question on the basis that the matter was sub judice.
I was also asked to rule on whether two questions that were similar in substance should have been allowed. I had time to study the unrevised Hansard and would now like to rule as follows: Rule 67 of the Rules of the National Assembly provides that "no member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending".
To be sub judice means a matter must be awaiting adjudication or be under adjudication by a court of law. The rationale for this Rule is that Parliament should not influence, or seem to be seeking to influence, the administration of justice. The mere intention on the part of a person to lodge a case does not make the matter sub judice.
Order! To balance the application of the sub judice rule and the right of members to freedom of speech, this House had ruled in the past that if a member discussed in general terms a matter that was before the courts, the sub judice rule was not contravened, provided the member did not refer to the matter that was sub judice in a way that prejudiced the case.
It is often not possible for the Chair to ascertain immediately the relevance of the sub judice Rule on a particular matter. For that reason the Chair would caution members to observe the spirit of the Rule or ask that the matter be postponed until a determination has been made. I must also remind members that it is an established practice in this House that it is not for the Chair to ascertain the accuracy or otherwise of a statement made by a member.
Hon members, I cannot emphasise enough that Question Time is a treasured occasion for members as it presents them with the opportunity to hold members of the executive accountable for their functions, bearing in mind that it is not every day that this House has the opportunity to ask questions to the executive. It is, therefore, desirable that every effort is made to provide members with the information they seek to obtain through their questions. It must only be in exceptional cases and for good reasons that a question on the Question Paper for the day is not responded to.
Therefore, best practice dictates that should a Minister have legitimate concerns about particular questions, such questions should be brought to the attention of the House beforehand so that members are duly informed.
Had that been the case last week, the proceedings could have been different. While the Deputy Minister may have believed the matter dealt with in the question fell under the sub judice rule, information at my disposal is that the matter is currently not before a court and is therefore not covered by the Rule.
Members will recall that proceedings on the question by hon J D Kilian were effectively suspended, pending verification of the facts. In view of what I have stated above, namely that the sub judice rule does not apply to this instance, should hon Kilian still wish to obtain the information she sought through the question, she may utilise the option of a question for written reply. Alternately, she may approach the Speaker with a request for the question to be asked outside of the cluster. The same principle will apply in respect of hon T W Coetzee's question.
I would now like to reflect on the other matter which was raised by the Deputy Minister of Transport, namely whether it was correct to have questions that are substantially or exactly the same on the same Question Paper for reply. This was with reference to Questions 21 and 34. Best practice would again dictate that this is undesirable.
Care should have been taken in the editing of these questions to eliminate duplication. I am assured in this regard that measures have been put in place to prevent a recurrence of this in future. In conclusion, I wish to remind all hon members that this House operates within the context of the Constitution, Rules, convention and practice. I am very concerned at the manner in which members tend to respond to the Chair when rulings are made, especially if they happen to disagree with a ruling.
I would like to assure the House that it is never the intention of the presiding officer to stifle debate or deny members their right to freedom of speech. That's exactly what you are doing now. [Laughter.]
A ruling should, however, be queried in the proper way. A member may disagree with a ruling of the presiding officer, but must accept the word of the presiding officer and may not argue or cross-examine the Chair. Presiding officers have a duty to ensure the smooth running of proceedings, and continuous Points of Order definitely do nothing to enhance debate or the image of this House. Thank you very much, hon members, I hope you will bear that in mind. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you on this ruling?
Yes, hon member.
Thank you, Ms Deputy Speaker. What you are pointing out is exactly right. But, firstly, it is also best practice that members shouldn't repeat previous Points of Order, which is happening from time to time. Secondly, before the hon Speaker or Deputy Speaker or presiding officer makes a ruling, perhaps he or she should allow other members of the House to address the presiding officer on the Points of Order being taken before a ruling is made because, obviously, it's not always easy for the presiding officer to make an immediate ruling. Maybe it is a good thing and best practice to allow other members to address that presiding officer on the Point of Order being made before a ruling is made. After a ruling has been made, that's a different question. But before a ruling is made, it's best practice to allow members also to address the hon presiding officer. Thank you.
You are correct, hon member. I am not sure which incident you refer to, but in rulings I've made as a Chairperson, I didn't take Points of Order only when people wanted. After I had made a ruling, they wanted to disagree about that ruling. If that's what you mean, you're right. When the Chair makes a ruling - that's exactly what I was saying - in most cases when we say we are going to look at the matter and come back to make a ruling, it is because we want to be sure.
So, when the presiding officer is saying "This is what I'm ruling", you might disagree but you cannot sit there and say it is wrong. Imagine if I did that to a magistrate when I was being sentenced; if I said, "I do not agree". There would be chaos in this country if we do that. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you further on that same point? I agree with what you are saying. [Interjections.]
But ... [Interjections.]
All I'm saying, Deputy Speaker, is there are instances when the presiding officers do not refer the matter for consideration, but immediately take a Point of Order and make a decision. The point I am making is: It is best practice to allow further Points of Order to be taken before you make up your mind and give a ruling. That's something different. Thank you.
Hon member, I hear your point and I hope no presiding officer would do such a thing. Thank you.