DA: Statement by Ian Davidson, Democratic Alliance Chief Whip, on Outcome of the meeting with the speaker (15/10/2009)

URL: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za

Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information

This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media

Polity

Published: 15 Oct 2009

DA: Statement by Ian Davidson, Democratic Alliance Chief Whip, on Outcome of the meeting with the speaker (15/10/2009)

This past Tuesday I, together with DA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip, met with the Speaker of Parliament, Max Sisulu. The meeting was a result of a letter sent on 10 September, in which I requested a discussion on the following two issues in particular and the Speaker's role in Parliament in general:
• The conduct of the chair of the portfolio committee on Labour, Ms Lumka Yengeni and the manner in which public participation was exercised by that committee; and
• The decision by the chair of the portfolio committee on Defence and Military Veterans, Mr Mnyami Booi, to seek legal advice on the conduct of DA MP David Maynier and his decision to "call in" the NIA to investigate Mr Maynier's exposé of South Africa's dodgy arms deals.
The purpose of the meeting, in broad terms, was to emphasise the DA's concern at the ANC's attitude to Parliament and the attitude of the Speaker himself. We believe, increasingly, certain committees and their chairpersons are acting to marginalise Parliament and they have the space to do this because the Speaker is not properly engaged with the business of Parliament and the events that take place in it. There is a perception that he is running Parliament by ‘remote control'. Against this background, the meeting was a welcome development and the Speaker's position on a number of the key issues we put before him was encouraging and, we believe, bodes well for Parliament more generally. The following issues were covered: 1. The conduct of Lumka Yengeni We put it to the Speaker that Ms Yengeni's conduct - she had reportedly made several comments during a committee meeting on labour brokering which revealed a powerful bias on her part - was unacceptable and to the detriment of the Parliamentary process. The Speaker agreed that the chairperson of any committee should be neutral and act in a manner that is both objective and fair. He said he was looking into the matter and, should such an incident occur again, reminded the DA that in terms of the regulations any public representative can lay a formal complaint against a committee chair with the Speaker. The DA has taken this under advisement. 2. The nature of public hearings We reminded the Speaker that the Constitutional Court, in the matter of Matatiele Municipality and others v. The President of the Republic, had found that there was a need for legislation to create the proper conditions necessary for full public participation in the law-making process. We argued that the conduct of the Labour committee on labour brokering, where there was little control or effort to properly seek the public's input, amounted to a violation of the existing process and underlined the need for this legislation. The consequence of this is that the integrity of Parliament was compromised and the credibility of Parliament as the highest law-making body in the country, undermined. The Speaker agreed with us. He said he was investigating the matter and had called for video evidence of what occurred during the public hearings on this issue. He said Parliament was aware of the Court's judgment and was in the early stages of complying with it. 3. The David Maynier matter I argued that the Speaker had failed in certain respects on this issue. It is the DA's firm belief the Speaker should act, first and foremost, to protect the interests of those Members who serve in Parliament. He is Parliament's custodian and, as such, should have acted to protect David Maynier and fight for the ideals of accountability and transparency, which he was trying to uphold in exposing the facts he did. Further, we believe the committee chair acted outside of his mandate in seeking legal advice on Mr Maynier's actions and, even more blatantly, in calling for the NIA to investigate the matter. No committee chair has that authority. The Speaker agreed. He said a committee chair does have the ability to call for a legal opinion where it concerns legislation and the nature thereof. But not in any other regard. Quite clearly then Mr Booi was operating outside his mandate. The Speaker agreed too that the chair was wrong and without the authority to call in the NIA. On almost every issue, the DA and the Speaker were in agreement. But, on the facts of any given matter, this is often the case. The real test for the Speaker and those ANC public representatives who hold senior positions in Parliament is the action that accompanies their various undertakings. For it is one thing to recognise, after the fact, that a violation of protocol or procedure has taken place, it is quite another to instill a culture of best democratic practice whereby these kinds of transgressions do not occur in the first place. Thus, it is our hope that the Speaker will intervene on these issues in a manner that necessitates the right outcome for the South African public.