Chairperson, the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions received a legislative proposal from hon Davidson on the prohibition of contracting between organs of state in the national sphere of governance and companies whose directors or shareholders are party-political office-bearers or public representatives of political parties.
The committee allowed hon Davidson to elaborate and explain why the proposal had to be considered. In the presentation we agreed that there was indeed a very fine line between the constitutional aspect and the proposal as it was.
We re-emphasised the criteria that should guide the committee when it did its work. If I may remind hon members, the criteria are the following six points: Does the legislative proposal go against the spirit and object of the Constitution? Does it seek to initiate legislation beyond the legislative competence of the National Assembly? Does it duplicate legislation awaiting consideration by the NA or the NCOP? Does it pre-empt similar legislation soon to be introduced by the national executive? Will it result in a money Bill? Will it result in frivolous legislation?
Working through this particular proposal, we had to invite the stakeholders because the matter of prohibiting contracting is not in the domain of only one portfolio. We invited the following stakeholders: the Presidency, the ethics committee, those who deal with the powers and privileges of members and Constitutional Development. Unfortunately, none of the above attended and we had to proceed without their input.
In our own determination, we were then advised by the Legal Services Unit that the proposed legislation would disadvantage the smaller parties of the NA, because in some parties you would find that their political office- bearers or their leaders were the only members available. As such, if we came up with this kind of law, we would be depriving them of doing business anywhere in the Republic, as long as it was state-related. We therefore came to the conclusion that, without tampering with the constitutional rights of individuals and Members of Parliament to do business, we need not recommend this particular proposal to go forward. We are therefore recommending that it should not be given the opportunity to go forward.
There was no debate.
Chair, I move -
That the Report be adopted.
Declarations of vote:
Chair, quite obviously, we reject the decision of the committee. This was an honest attempt by this side of the House to combat corruption, which has become endemic at all levels of government, not just at the senior level of government. What the legislation provided for was to prohibit party-political office bearers, public representatives and political parties from entering into business contracts with the state. That, we have seen, is the root of corruption throughout South Africa, at all levels of government. Incidentally, it is at all levels of government, not just at national government level.
The response of the committee was that they refused to allow Parliament even to deliberate on this issue. As the chairperson indicated, the committee is confined to looking at the proposed legislation through the prism of six principles. If we look at those principles, the proposed legislation infringes none of them whatsoever. Why are we then not allowed to debate it in this House?
What the committee did mention was potential infringement or implications as far as the Constitution was concerned. It was not unconstitutional! The legal department did not say it was unconstitutional. It had implications as far as the Constitution was concerned - but all legislation has implications as far as the Constitution is concerned! No outside legal opinion was sought. In any event, I submit to you that what the proposed legislation did was imbued with the very spirit of Constitution, meaning that it did not go against the spirit, or purport or object of the Constitution, because what the Constitution tries to do is to promote clean and open government.
On the question of the infringement of the rights of smaller parties, that is a total red herring. This legislation is designed to look at the parties that are in government - and those are the major parties, like the ANC and DA. What was interesting was that the chairperson said they sought opinion from various committees and the Presidency, who did not even bother to respond.
There is a section in the Constitution - section 56 - which you can invoke to force people to come to your committee and give evidence, but you would not even do that! You sat on your hands. That, perhaps, sums up exactly what this committee does do: it sits on its hands. In that process it reveals exactly what this committee is: a total charade. [Applause.]
Hon House Chair, I would like to add the serious concern of Cope regarding the deliberations of the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions. The reason is that we have to assess legislative proposals on set criteria and send them through to the relevant portfolio committee for the evaluation of the detail.
We basically consider principle and then we analyse it according to the set criteria. From there on, it is within the realm responsibility of the portfolio committees to go into the detail. Issues of constitutionality could certainly be evaluated once it reached portfolio committees.
The concern that Cope is placing on the table is this: Do we really have a commitment from the governing party to stamp out corruption? This when we had the tabling of the report of the Special Investigating Unit on 26 July, indicating that R5 billion is currently being scrutinised. This is based on corrupt deals between government officials, through politicians in high places.
The issue is: Is this government serious about the eradication of corruption? We are concerned that this is not the case. The issue here before us is that the constitutional right of every member of this House to table legislative proposals is systematically being eroded.
If we look at the history of legislation proposed by members since 2000, the statistic is actually shocking. All together, 73 legislative proposals were submitted. Of those, only 5 made it, and that was in the year 2008 - that was since 2000. Between 2000 and 2007, we had 32 legislative proposals, none of which succeeded beyond this committee, which is why we call this committee the ``guillotine committee''.
It seems the ANC is absolutely set on frustrating members of the opposition who identify weaknesses in legislation, whose proposals could result in better government for the people, the improved provision of housing, money not disappearing into the pockets of housing officials, etc.
The question remains: What purpose did the guillotining - once again - of this legislative proposal serve? It certainly cannot be judged on the basis of its being unconstitutional, because that is the work of the portfolio committee.
Chairperson, the ACDP would like to echo the previous speakers. Clearly, we in Parliament are very concerned about the level of corruption in our country, as has been indicated by the Special Investigating Unit and by all of us. This proposal would have gone a long way towards addressing the scourge of corruption in our society.
It is regrettable that Parliament wasn't given the opportunity to debate on these proposals within the relevant portfolio committees. Today, in the Constitutional Court, this very issue is being argued by Dr Ambrosini, who wants to know whether it is constitutional or not to block private petitions in the way that this is happening. We trust that the Constitutional Court will give us clear guidance on this issue.
In conclusion, we need every weapon in the armoury to fight corruption. The ACDP believes this proposal would have gone a long way. Therefore, we cannot support this report. [Applause.]
Chairperson, as a member of the IFP, I just want to place on record that as we debate this matter of the right of members to table private members' proposals, it is also being debated in court. Therefore, one is restrained by the sub judice principle not to go further than what is being debated in court over this matter.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Congress of the People, African Christian Democratic Party and Independent Democrats dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted.