Chairperson, I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Are there any objections?
Yes, there is an objection.
I didn't hear you.
I said, yes, there is an objection.
The IFP has an objection.
Will you kindly ...
Would you like to make a declaration?
No, we just want you to note our objection. Oh, the hon Oriani-Ambrosini wants to make a declaration. [Interjections.]
Declarations of vote:
Come, this is something serious! Please bear with me. Madam Chairperson, this Parliament has not yet snapped out of the Westminster system. Just apply your minds to this Report for a couple of minutes. This report does not contain anything but an interim arrangement on private member's Bills, and at the end it says, "To be considered".
The Constitution tells us that this Parliament must operate in terms of Rules adopted by this Parliament. These are the Rules. Can any of you tell me what it is that we are doing? Are we adopting a Rule? Rule 4 speaks of a "convention or a Rule of practice". What is this interim arrangement? We cannot continue to legislate our proceedings the way the Westminster parliament used to do and as we have done up to now. We are again going straight into the type of trouble which was highlighted in the case brought by President Lekota. It is ... [Interjections.] Well, give him time! [Laughter.] The hon Lekota is the president of Cope. We cannot support this because it is a procedural aberration. If we want to make a Rule, let's make a Rule. If we want to make a temporary Rule, let's make a temporary Rule. Until somebody tells me what it is that we are doing, we cannot support it.
Then we have to "consider" it! What does it mean to consider an interim arrangement? It is only we as the National Assembly who can make Rules, and not the Rules Committee. Are we approving it? That's not what it says. It says we will "consider" it. Are we noting it? Are these going to become the Rules under which we operate? This is not how a Parliament can operate. This is fuzzy logic, fuzzy legalities.
On the merits, what this interim arrangement tells us, and we opposed it in the Rules Committee, is that there cannot be a First Reading debate on a private member's Bill, where there can be a First Reading debate on a Minister's Bill. Our point is: Don't tie your hands! There might be a very meritorious private member's Bill, which is worth discussing in a First Reading debate. Leave the discretion to the Programming Committee.
Why do we have a second-rate category for private members' Bills, as opposed to Ministers' Bills when the Constitutional Court tells us that they are on the same footing and they must be treated on the same basis? This really leaves the feeling that while this Parliament has defined the Constitutional Court, as soon as the Constitutional Court decides on something, we backtrack and go around it. We create a nice little interim arrangement to detract from the very nature of what the Constitutional Court has given us. This is wrong.
I know that this is not the right time - it is the last session of Parliament - to apply one's mind to technical issues but, please, do try. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, after having considered the input of the hon Oriani-Ambrosini, I believe we do have a problem. I would like to ask if we cannot refer this matter back to the Rules Committee for further scrutiny and deliberation. Would you be prepared to ask the hon Acting Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party if they would be willing to consider this? If not, we would like to make a declaration. Thank you.
House Chair, let me first clarify issues. Yes, this is an interim arrangement following the court decision. While we cannot rush through developing Rules that will deal with this matter specifically, it was noted that there was a need to have some mechanism to allow for members to be able to introduce private members' legislation in the House. Hence we have this.
Are we noting this? Are we doing this? That is what the hon Ambrosini was asking. What we are doing is adopting. That is why I stood up and said that we were adopting this, as a mechanism to be able to allow members to introduce legislation currently, and directly in the House. We do not have anything that allows members to introduce legislation. If we don't, we will still be standing with the proposals that were referred to the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions.
Hence it is important for us to move now, while we still have an opportunity and while we are still developing the Rules that are going to be extensively consulted upon, in order to be able even to cover the matters that the court has raised. We cannot rush to get there because the court's decision was quite extensive and we have to go through it and understand what we are required to do.
In the meantime, we cannot fold our arms and not allow members to introduce Bills in this House. Hence, we have to move and adopt. That is why we brought this Report to the House for adoption so that the mechanisms can be put in place.
Madam House Chair, on a point of order: I am sorry, but what has been said is plainly untrue. I have already introduced a Bill in this House and the Constitutional Court judgment is self- fulfilling. There is no legal need to adopt anything. This is misleading the House. It is plainly untrue.
Dr Oriani-Ambrosini, you rose on a point of order and that is certainly not a point of order. You had already mentioned what you have said now. Are there any other declarations or objections?
Yes, Madam. The DA also finds the term "interim" problematic. There is already a decision by the Constitutional Court and I think the term "interim" is a way of getting around the true interpretation of what the court is ordering.
The DA also does not agree that the Bill, upon introduction, will be deemed to have been read a first time. We would clearly like to see the option of a First Reading debate specifically reflected in the Report.
Hon Ambrosini asked why it is that there are separate Rules for a First Reading debate when the executive introduce a Bill, as opposed to when a private member does it. On this basis we object to this report.
I think what we will have to do is to put the question.
Hon Chair, will you then give me an opportunity to make a declaration thereafter?
Yes, all right - let's hear your declaration now.
Hon House Chair, having considered a part of the judgment that was before the court today, in which several aspects of the ruling in regard to Oriani-Ambrosini, MP v Sisulu, MP Speaker of the National Assembly were, in fact, highlighted, it is important for us to note that he vigorously emphasised that there was no difference in the right of a member to introduce a Bill, just as there is no difference in a motion being introduced by an individual member, and especially one from a minority party.
He also emphasised the fact that we live in a multiparty democracy where the voices of other opposition parties must be heard, and that we are not in a parliamentary majoritarian Parliament. Therefore, it is critically important for us to consider this.
Now, in the Rules Committee meeting that was held we considered the interim arrangement but, something which hon Ambrosini raised today, it is setting a dangerous precedent. Consequently, on behalf of my party, Cope, I have to raise our objections and ask that this matter be dealt with in such a manner that we are really treating all pieces of legislation and all other matters that are brought before the House on an equal footing.
For that reason we would like to propose again that we refer it back to the committee. If the majority wants to take a decision today, we would like to record our objection in the strongest terms. Thank you.
I would like to second that proposal, Madam.
I am making a declaration of vote on behalf of the ANC.
Hon House Chairperson, I am not sure if everybody has read the judgment. I know hon Dr Oriani-Ambrosini has, but he would obviously like to refer to it in the form and give it the spin that he wants. One of the things that Dr Oriani-Ambrosini asked was that his Bill on trade and industry be treated the same way as a Minister's Bill would be, and that the court should order that the Bill be treated in the same way. The court said it wasn't going to do that, and stated that it was up to the National Assembly and Parliament in general to decide how they would deal with private members' Bills.
The key requirement is that private members' Bills need to be introduced, they need to be reflected in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, and they need to be referred to a committee and deliberated on.
As the Acting Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party said, this is an interim measure and it is for us to see how things go, because at the moment, Dr Oriani-Ambrosini, our Rules don't actually provide specifically for the introduction of a private member's Bill. You say you have introduced a Bill, but I haven't seen any reference to it or seen it on the Order Paper or anything. Maybe it is there, but I don't know.
What is most surprising is that this document that we are debating now in these declarations was put to the Rules Committee. Everybody was there. Dr Oriani-Ambrosini came late, because he said he hadn't been notified, but everybody else came and everybody else supported it. I remember the hon Kilian saying that she accepted it for now. Now she has changed her mind. Hon Kalyan from the DA supported it. [Interjections.]
Madam House Chairperson, on a point of order: I suggest that hon Jeffery is actually misleading the House. I raised that exact objection in that committee.
One would need to check who is actually misleading the House, because at the end everybody, with the exception of Dr Oriani- Ambrosini, accepted it. That is a fact. All right? The Rules Committee agreed that this would be tabled. Now suddenly we have this strange grouping - maybe it is because of the alliance or whatever - all now deciding that they are going against it. This document went to the Rules Committee and it was agreed upon.
We therefore propose its adoption by the House as an interim measure to deal with the introduction of private members' Bills. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr Oriani-Ambrosini, hon Kilian and hon Kalyan, do you want to say anything further before I go to the voting. Nothing? [Interjections.]
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
Division demanded.
The House divided.
AYES - 149: Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bikani, F C; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Chikunga, S; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Ditshetelo, I C; Dlakude, D E; Dlamini, B O; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Dube, M C; Dudley, C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Fubbs, J L; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; Gina, N; Gololo, C L; Gumede, D M; Huang, S - B; Jeffery, J H; Kekane, C D; Kenye, T E; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kubayi, M T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magubane, E; Makasi, X C; Makhubele, Z S; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manganye, J; Mangena, M S; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Mathebe, P M; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mdaka, M N; Mdakane, M R; Mfeketo, N C; Mfulo, A; Mjobo, L N; Mkhulusi, N N P; Mlangeni, A; Mnisi, N A; Mocumi, P A; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Motimele, M S; Motsepe, R M; Mthethwa, E M; Mtshali, E; Mushwana, F F; Nchabeleng, M E; Nel, A C; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngubeni- Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya-Mabila, P C; Njikelana, S J; Nkwinti, G E; November, N T; Ntapane, S Z; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, Z C; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Oliphant, G G; Petersen-Maduna, P; Phaahia, M J; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Radebe, G S; Radebe, B A; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; September, C C; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sithole, S C N; Skosana, J J; Snell, G T; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Suka, L; Thibedi, J D; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tseke, G K; Tshabalala, J; Tsotetsi, D R; Twala, N M; van Rooyen, D D; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Williams, A J; Xaba, P P; Xasa, T; Xingwana, L M; Zulu, B