Hon members, whilst the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development is coming to the front, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Regional Secretary of the Autonomous Region of Madeira, Dr Brazo de Castro. You are welcome, sir. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, Acting President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Members of Parliament, comrades and friends, I rise on behalf of the ANC in support of Parliament's Budget Vote. In doing so, I would like to address the important matter of the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
We believe that the maxim, "Working together we can do more", applies also to the relationship between the legislature and the executive. The relationship between the legislature and the executive should be a complementary and mutually reinforcing working relationship that contributes in a dynamic way to the realisation of the needs and aspirations of all South Africans - in short, an activist Parliament in a developmental state.
Every constitution arises from and should be understood in a particular historical context. When we transpose constitutional discourses from one context to another, we must do so with care. Much can get lost in the translation. Carelessly transplanting a healthy and beneficial plant from one soil type to another can result either in the death of the plant or its metamorphosis into an invasive weed that displaces and kills indigenous plants.
In the same way, doctrines such as that of the separation of powers must be dug up with caution out of the soil of the struggles against absolute monarchy and must be carefully planted in the soil of a constitutional garden nourished by the struggle against colonialism and apartheid in which millions are waiting to harvest the fruits of unity, nonracialism, nonsexism, democracy and prosperity.
As in other constitutional democracies, entrenched in the Constitution of our Republic is the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. However, the Constitution does not completely separate the powers of the different components of the state. Instead, the Constitution requires all organs of state to contribute towards realising the vision and objectives of the Constitution.
In setting out a framework for co-operative governance, our Constitution describes the different spheres of government as being distinct, interdependent and interrelated. Our Constitution also enjoins all spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere to work in a co- operative manner. The Constitution requires members of Cabinet to be accountable to Parliament and to provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control.
Moreover, the Constitution also subjects the continuation of government to the will of Parliament, which embodies the will of the people. In theory and in practice, the Constitution of South Africa creates what our colleague in the Gauteng provincial legislature Firoz Cachalia refers to as a parliamentary executive which is accountable to Parliament.
In requiring all state organs, including the legislature and the executive, to advance transformation of society, the Constitution can never have intended organs of the state not to complement each other and not to engage with a view to achieving the common objective of liberating the people of South Africa and ensuring a better life for all.
While the primary function of the legislature is lawmaking, it also has two responsibilities in a democracy which are thought by some people to be contradictory. Between elections, the legislature has to hold the executive to account, while it must also sustain the executive to ensure that the governance does not collapse.
While separation of powers and checks and balances form foundations of our constitutional democracy, an antagonistic relationship between the legislature and the executive cannot be in the interests of our people, who expect both the legislature and the executive to provide much-needed services.
When the legislature focuses primarily on the mistakes of the executive, the emphasis of the executive will be more on avoiding mistakes and self- protection, instead of on adopting innovative and potentially efficient practices to advance transformation and improve service delivery.
The legislature-executive relationship in South Africa should not be understood as competing centres of power, but as inseparable partners in the business of government. While it governs in terms of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, we need to understand the executive as an appointed body responsible for governing the country, albeit on behalf of Parliament and the people.
Let us bear in mind that the basic foundation of the Constitution of the Republic is the accountability of the state to the people, "who are the real masters". And the accountability of the executive to the people at large is enforced through their elected representatives in the legislative organs of the state.
How do we give practical expression to this perspective of a complementary and mutually reinforcing relationship between the legislature and the executive?
Last week, in the Presidency Budget Vote debate, the hon Minister in the Presidency, Collins Chabane, spoke about the need consistently to assess the performance of our initiatives in all spheres of government in order to continually improve our service-delivery capacity while promoting accountability on the part of those charged with the responsibility to deliver. He went on to speak about the development of a set of 30 to 40 main outcome indicators based on policy outcomes upon which the mandate of government is based - indicators that will be used to develop simple and straightforward measures to assess whether outcomes are being achieved.
Minister Chabane made the very important point that this assessment is not only an internal measure within government, but a means to ensure transparency, accountability and public participation in the implementation of government's programme of action. It is clear that this executive is serious about transparency, accountability and public participation, and about the development of effective oversight mechanisms and inculcating a culture of performance.
Towards the end of its term, the third Parliament adopted a parliamentary oversight model. This model sets out a framework for Parliament's oversight work. It proposes mechanisms to strengthen and co-ordinate the various oversight tools at Parliament's disposal: budget hearings, questions, debates, members' statements, motions, sectoral parliaments, oversight visits, constituency work and many other tools.
How do we ensure a dynamic and mutually reinforcing relationship between this oversight model and the planning and evaluation functions in the executive? I would like to propose that the Leader of Government Business and the presiding officers in Parliament establish a mechanism to facilitate a dialogue between the executive and Parliament to ensure that the very powerful oversight tools that exist, both in Parliament and in the executive, can reinforce each other.
Moving towards concluding, I have participated in almost every debate on Parliament's budget since 2002 or 2003. Perhaps this might be an appropriate time to ask whether we are processing Parliament's budget in the most appropriate way. The one question which is being posed at a number of fora on a number of occasions is whether it is appropriate for Parliament's budget to be dealt with as a line item in the national Budget. Let us perhaps not go there today, but over and above this question, we need to ask whether the process of formulating Parliament's budget is sufficiently rigorous, inclusive and participatory.
Why do resources often not end up in areas where they are most needed, such as committees? Why are Members of Parliament always left feeling alienated from the process? Are Members of Parliament subjects or objects of the parliamentary budget? Wouldn't it, for example, be more appropriate for this debate to take place before Parliament's budget is submitted for inclusion in the national Budget?
Deputy Speaker, I am half way in concluding. I wish to thank all of those with whom I have served for many years in the Whippery and the ranks of the presiding officers for their friendship and support and for helping to instil in me an enduring commitment to a strong, effective and dynamic Parliament.
Lastly, in final conclusion, I wish to associate myself with all those who have thanked the presiding officers, the Secretary to Parliament and members of the parliamentary service and everyone who contributes to making it possible for us, as Members of Parliament, to serve those who have elected us to represent them. Working together we can do more. We support the Budget Vote of Parliament. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are all aware that the Constitution provides for a sovereign state, with a governance model based on the separation of powers between the state, Parliament, the executive and the judiciary. As the legislative authority, Parliament must, at all costs, protect its sovereignty by excelling in the way we do business. What the hon Ellis said this afternoon - about questions replied to by the executive - shows that we need to do business differently in the fourth Parliament.
We must set the example at all levels. The way we behave as Ministers, as Members of Parliament, the way we respect the institution and the way our own officials behave, are all contributing factors towards the image of Parliament.
In Programme 2 of the Budget Vote, money is being voted to ensure that we pass legislation and oversee the executive, an important role. According to the budget analysis published by Parliament in 2008, this programme does not appear to be a priority. It consumed the second smallest portion of the overall budget of Parliament in 2008. In real terms, this programme has grown by only 0,9%. Maybe there is an improvement this year.
Further, the money was shifted to the research capacity of committees, and opposition parties hardly see any of that research. Parliament should consider awarding a percentage of this research allocation to opposition parties who are, in many instances, more unbiased and in a better position to do oversight. Maybe this could be incorporated when Parliament develops effective new oversight measures. According to Parliament's own review, Parliament should now prioritise and finalise the financial administration Bills for Parliament and all other legislatures. Without these Bills, the financial administration of all parliaments is lagging behind. We must set the example. How can we be taken seriously in our oversight role if our own legislation is not in order? The matter has now been outstanding for the past four years and, hopefully, this fourth Parliament will do business.
This brings me to the catering services. Catering services are in a desperate need of a house committee to assist them on various issues. The quarterly meeting dealing with all sorts of issues is simply not enough. There is a lack of support and training in this department, and I would like to propose that we reinstate the catering services committee.
Parliament is situated in the heartlands of the wine industry. It is important that when Parliament's restaurants are serving wine to guests that we reflect this industry in a proper way. The standard of wine and the way it is being presented differ from restaurant to restaurant. We must rectify this.
Parliament is the nation's showpiece and belongs to all South Africans. We must be proud of this institution at all levels. Let's get a catering services committee to sort out our problems, and I believe it will contribute towards running catering more cost-effectively. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am indeed honoured to be able to take part in this debate this afternoon since I have worked in this institution for so many years. The Office of the Speaker and the institution of Parliament are very close to my heart.
It is essential that our Speaker be seen and recognised as the chief presiding officer. He must be different in appearance to any other presiding officer. I therefore want to appeal to our Speaker to seriously consider reintroducing the wearing of the robe.
His predecessors chose to wear ordinary clothes. There was no formal resolution in 1994 that the robe would be discontinued permanently. I know; I was there. The Speaker's robe was also never considered a remnant of the old South Africa. It is indeed part and parcel of the Commonwealth parliamentary tradition spanning centuries. The Table staff still wear robes, and our provincial Speakers wear robes, as do most Speakers in African parliaments to our north.
Mr Speaker, you need not take this matter to any policy-making body of Parliament. The Speaker's dress has always been the Speaker's prerogative alone. You can enter this Chamber tomorrow wearing a basic academic or barrister's robe, or a more elaborate one. It is your choice, but wearing a robe will certainly contribute to the dignity of this institution and set you apart from the other presiding officers. You are entitled to this symbol of authority.
Preserving the decorum and dignity in this place is one of the Speaker's prime functions, as the Speaker rightly said in his speech. And it is often difficult to judge whether or not conduct infringes the decorum of the House. As Members of this Parliament, we are collectively responsible for ensuring that our conduct never crosses that line of unacceptable behaviour.
I am a keen soccer follower and share the frenzy around the Confederations Cup and the World Cup, but I want to submit that blowing a vuvuzela in the Chamber, as happened recently, is conduct not in conformance with the dignity of Parliament. Parliament is a very special institution, the highest institution in the land. It is not a sports event; it is not a concert. It is a Parliament and nothing less.
Allowing one vuvuzela now could lead to a vuvuzela orchestra in Parliament once we reach the World Cup final. And what applies to the vuvuzela should equally apply to any other musical or noise-making instruments.
Speaker, in conclusion, you will have all the support from this side of the House in any effort to preserve and raise the dignity of this institution. Thank you. [Applause.]
Is there a point of order?
No, I wanted to ask the member a question about the vuvuzelas but he has finished.
Okay. The member is not there any more.
Hon Deputy Speaker, Acting President, Speaker, it is a known fact that committees are the engines of Parliament, as they process almost 60% of the work for consideration in the House. This includes the processing of legislation, holding public hearings, appointing officials or people to institutions supporting democracy, holding the executive accountable and conducting oversight of executive action.
They do so, however, in a constrained environment. There is a lack of committee rooms. As we already know, we only have 23 committee rooms that are shared by 60 committees from both Houses. They are limited therefore in their ability to hold meetings as often as possible to fulfil these particular mandates. To achieve their mandates, the committees of Parliament need to be adequately resourced.
At a recent meeting of the committee of chairpersons - and I see a number of them in the House here - a committee which I chair, a number of issues were raised, including legacy issues from the third Parliament that need to be engaged with and addressed, such as support for chairpersons, problems regarding chairpersons' offices, furniture, tools of the trade, and the need to improve the quality of work done by support staff. In addition, we were informed that certain posts were frozen owing to budget constraints. Some of the chairpersons are without secretaries. Chairperson Stone Sizani - I'm not sure whether he's in the House - and others are without secretaries because posts have been frozen.
Over and above this, the biggest fundamental issue that came up was the budget allocated to committees. Currently, there 59 committees, excluding the not yet established committees on the Planning Commission, on Performance Monitoring and on Administration. I'm not sure whether they are going to have just one portfolio committee in that area. The Joint Rules Committee still has to determine that particular issue.
So, we currently have 59 committees. This includes internal committees such as those on ethics, the multiparty women's caucus, the Joint Rules Committee, the joint programming committee, etc. They all get their budget allocations from the legislature and the oversight division.
Of the 59 committees, 50 have oversight functions; 38 of those committees are in the National Assembly and 12 are in the National Council of Provinces. All these committees need to share the R25 million that is available for the current financial year - all of them.
Dividing this amongst the 50 oversight committees means each will be allocated only R450 000 for the current financial year, which totals R22,5 million. The other R2,5 million is reserved for internal committees such as the Joint Rules Committee and other joint parliamentary committees.
Owing to the additional number of committees, obviously the allocation has shrunk. Committees used to get an allocation of around R700 000 to R800 000, but because the number of committees has increased that figure has shrunk to R450 000 in this current financial year. Therefore, for future budgeting purposes, we would argue strongly for an increase if committees are indeed expected to play this particular meaningful role.
What is happening currently is that there are a number of requests to attend the Minmecs. We are applying a policy of: you invite, you pay. So, Ministers are paying for that. The Ministry of Trade and Industry has invited the entire committee. The Ministry is going to be paying their fares, transport and meals. We will only be able to pay for accommodation. Therefore, the issue of the separation of powers gets blurred in that particular way.
I remember that in a debate held in another forum the issue was raised of members continually using instruments of the executive. How will they come back and then do oversight on that particular issue? I say this because a time will come when executive members will say, "But you were in the meeting when this issue was agreed to." Therefore, this is not really something that is healthy and we should not be encouraging it going forward. But because of a lack of resources, we are continually agreeing to them going because the Department of Trade and Industry has 19 institutions. The portfolio committee ought to go and engage, understand the mandates and know who is there so that by the time they effect their accountability, at least they know what the mandates are and so on.
I therefore propose the following for allocations to committees. Fortunately, I presented this to the Chief Whips' Forum as a lobbying body to see if they wouldn't support us going forward into the budget lekgotla. I have also presented this to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and other officials in the Speaker's office. I propose that all the portfolio, standing and select committees get an allocation of R1 million each as a base minimum, and that the three joint committees and the Standing Committee on the Auditor-General be allocated R500 000 each because their roles and functions are very different from those of the portfolio, standing and select committees.
I propose that such expenditure also be governed by particular regulations, and that 50% of the money that they would then be allocated ought to go towards oversight functions, which include assessing the impact of legislation for the sake of a better life, as well as doing oversight to ensure service delivery by way of responsive, proactive interventions.
Thirty percent will then be utilised for processing legislation for public hearings because you ought to have public hearings on legislation, and for the filling of vacancies in Chapter 9 institutions and for international travel. The other 15% is to be utilised for effecting accountability, scrutinising the annual reports and for budget hearings on Votes. Five percent then is to be regulated by committees because they have expenditures such as receiving guests, entertaining and so forth. That is my proposal in terms of the usage of that particular issue - money.
I propose that a further R12 million be allocated as a pool amount, in addition to the R1 million base that will go to each portfolio committee, for support services to committees, including staff development programmes aimed at improving the quality of work, and for assisting committees that may have extra work in a lifetime. That would ensure, therefore, that they are able to meet demands, and also allocate to those committees that have oversight work that goes beyond borders, that is the International Relations and Trade and Industry committees in the main and others that might be identified from time to time. They will all draw from that.
In addition, I propose that the advertisements placed when vacancies are to be filled or public hearings held no longer be paid for from a committee's budget. The money for advertising in newspapers is also deducted from the R450 000. So, if you have a pool amount of money, this will then assist and relieve the stress on the committees of having to pay even for the adverts that we see in the newspapers and for public hearings because there will be more of them, particularly oversight hearings on particular topical issues or incidences that might happen in society. We will be organising those particular oversight hearings so that they can then bring reports here and those reports can be adopted from time to time.
As we apply the budget, we also need to have control mechanisms - financial control systems - that should be beefed up in the committees section, so that financial statements for every quarter are given to the chairs of the portfolio committees on what they have spent money on. In that way, they will then begin to know that when we say no to an issue, it is because we are informed by the expenditure patterns.
Committee chairpersons are also therefore expected to develop their five- year programmes that are aligned to departmental strategic plans, and identify which programmes will be identified annually. We cannot become champions of overseeing others if our own House is not in order.
On the frozen posts, which include the posts of committee assistants, committee secretaries, secretaries to chairpersons and researchers, we should move to unfreeze them as soon as we can.
We fully agree with the Speaker that we must also cut the fat where we identify it. For example, there are certain areas I will be speaking with the chairpersons about in order to really begin to cut the fat. A meeting of 30 minutes gets a full service of food and catering, and so forth. I think that here a meeting should just get served tea and coffee; that's it. We can't have a 30-minute meeting being served a full service - food and everything - because then every meeting costs R4 000. We really need to look at the fat and cut it.
On the implementation of oversight, in the forthcoming financial year of 2010-11 we see that an allocation of R5 million is being proposed. We welcome that. A task team has already being put into place that will begin to develop an implementation framework. It met this week, and the team will be presenting the framework to the Joint Rules Committee and the Parliamentary Oversight Authority.
With regard to the scheduling of committee meetings, committees have been formed into groups owing to the shortage of venues. They will be grouped as Groups A, B, C and D, so that we can share the days and allocate them to committees. We are in consultation with the Chief Whips of the parties on that particular issue. I therefore say that we really need to look differently at this issue.
I thank all the officials, the management and staff and hope that you will do even better in providing your service, and where it is lacking, we will then indeed have money to go for skills development and ensure that we introduce a work ethic and professionalism to the service. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, Acting President, Mr Speaker, hon members, in his famous statement from the dock during the Rivonia trial, Comrade Nelson Mandela said, amongst other things, and I quote:
The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.
I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.
The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.
I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East.
These words expressed not only a personal view, but also reflected a political tradition and a value system that his movement, the ANC, had embraced and adhered to for many decades. Mandela was explaining his own actions to the people of South Africa and the world, unafraid of the consequences of stating the purposes for which he and his co-accused had decided to take up arms to overthrow the apartheid regime. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we have lived up to that aspiration.
Though Parliament is an institution that evolved specifically in a European political environment, it has numerous precedents in the history of virtually all societies. In precolonial African societies, there was the inkundla or lekgotla, a public political forum in which all adult males had the right to participate. It also served as a law court, again open to all adult males. Though gendered, the ideal here obviously was popular participation in government.
The milestones of British political institutions that Mandela recounted on that occasion were the outcome of often extremely bitter political struggles. Their importance can perhaps be better understood by a visit to the site of the British Parliament, Westminster. Permit me, therefore, to paint a brief verbal picture of what a visitor would see on such an excursion.
There are two statues in the grounds of the British Parliament: one is of Richard the Lionheart, who led the unsuccessful Third Crusade; the other is of Oliver Cromwell, a man who was dubbed "God's Englishman" by the late Master of Balliol College, Oxford, Christopher Hill. Across the street on Parliament Square are a number of other statues honouring personalities whom the British public consider great world statesmen. It is a matter of pride to us as South Africans that one of the most recent additions to these is a statue of our own Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.
In a small park abutting Parliament stands a statue of the suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst, who was amongst the most important leaders of the struggle to attain the franchise for women during the first two decades of the 20th century.
I mention these matters because these statues tell their own story and carry an important message. Cromwell and his colleagues institutionalised the supremacy of Parliament through struggle; to be precise, an armed struggle that entailed the dethroning of the king of England and his execution. Their actions signalled an end to the divine right of kings to do wrong and imprinted on the political institutions of their country the principle of government by the consent of the governed.
This principle was reinterpreted as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address.
Pankhurst too is a heroine of very militant struggles, led in the main by highly educated middle-class women. The struggle for women's suffrage entailed both civil disobedience and dramatic acts of sabotage, which included the setting ablaze of haystacks, the slashing of famous paintings in the National Arts Gallery, marches and other public manifestations.
So when we congratulate ourselves as South Africans on having attained third position amongst parliaments with a high percentage of women in the world, this is a vindication of those courageous women and their struggles. The point I'm making is that the history of this institution has important lessons for us all. The right of the ordinary citizen - man and woman - to participate directly in government through freely elected political representatives had to be fought for, very often arms in hand. Freedom, democracy, the rights of the citizen and the civil liberties we today take for granted, in virtually every country of the world were purchased at a very high price, often paid for in the blood of martyrs and of tyrants.
For the next two centuries parliaments were, however, only accessible to those who had the leisure time to attend their sessions regularly. That effectively excluded the majority of people who had to work daily to make a living. Hence, during the mid-19th century the Petitioner of Rights Mandela refers to, presented to Parliament by the Chartist Movement, demanded that salaries be paid to all parliamentarians, thus making it possible for those without an independent income also to gain access to the parliaments. The struggle to translate the principle of government by the consent of the governed into reality has consequently entailed extending the franchise to ordinary working people, to women and to the youth by lowering the voting age.
By the end of the 19th century the right to participate in government, expressed in the franchise, had become the emblem of citizenship. And, by equal measure, exclusion from the franchise designated that one was not a citizen. Citizenship, embodied in the franchise, inscribed the principle of equality before the law in all state institutions. Thus was the divine right of kings displaced by the birthright of every citizen, irrespective of parentage, race, class, faith or gender, to share equally with others in the rights and prerogatives of citizenship.
The central notions undergirding Parliament and parliamentary institutions are that the best way to ensure that the governed have a voice in who governs them is the right to elect and to be elected to public office and the right of citizens to recall such public representatives through regular elections; that it is possible for citizens who disagree with each other to disagree without being disagreeable; that differences of opinion, even radical differences, need not undermine a shared commitment to national goals; that even citizens who hold diametrically opposite views should be able to find each other through reasoned and rational debate, or arrive at mutually acceptable compromises.
Dialogue is the essence of parliamentary democracy, as is vigorous debate. Parliaments consequently are terrains where differing and conflicting ideas are tested and contested. From its birth the ANC has engaged in this battle of ideas, convinced that the achievement of its objectives is dependent on its capacity to persuade the South African electorate that these aims are not only desirable, but also sound and attainable. We consequently find it odd that much of the public discourse, even academic discourse, revolves around the fear of a powerful governing party that commands an overwhelming majority among the electorate. [Applause.] As the late Prof Archie Mafeje has written:
The truth of the matter is that in all democracies, as is known in Europe and elsewhere, different political parties seek dominance and the winner takes all. If the ANC wins the popular vote by a wide margin, why should that be held against them for idealistic reasons?
[Applause.]
The fear that South Africa may be drifting towards a one-party state would be justified if the ANC was stifling democratic competition. The chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission reports that this is far from being the case. If the dominance is seen as a threat to democracy, then the blame should be put on the myriad small parties that have not been able to organise themselves and challenge the ANC from a common platform.
[Applause.]
Perhaps the hon Shilowa and Mike Ellis might consider that and talk about it after the session. [Interjections.] What Prof Mafeje is suggesting here is that this complaint is akin to the schoolboy's excuse that the dog ate his homework. [Laughter.] Based on its founding principles and decades of political practice, the ANC welcomes the political contestation amongst different political parties. We value this as an integral dimension of democracy and have never shied away from or feared the vigorous cut and thrust thereof. But we will give as good as we get and, if, in the end, we are able to convince the overwhelming majority of voters of our viewpoint, as we have done since 1994, an obligation rests on the other parties in this House to go back to the drawing board to devise political platforms that can command the requisite support to unseat the ANC. [Applause.] This is why, unlike others, the ANC does not engage in ad hominem negative campaigning that seeks to caricature its political opponents, but prefers to focus squarely on its political platform. Let me let the opposition in on a secret: It actually works! [Applause.]
While on the subject let me deal with yet another myth that has taken root in our society. We often hear the mantra: "A strong opposition is essential for the health of democracy". While we welcome debate, and value the opportunity to test our views against those of political parties who see the world differently from ourselves, historical experience does not actually bear out this myth. Let me demonstrate: After the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's Nazi party became an extremely strong opposition to the liberal-social democratic governing coalitions in Weimar, Germany. That was not good for democracy. In our own country, in the 20th century, D F Malan's National Party was a powerful opposition to Smuts' United Party government. That too was not good for democracy.
In contrast, for close to two decades the late Helen Suzman was a solitary voice in the defunct apartheid parliament. One could not imagine a weaker opposition. Yet, that weak opposition contributed far more to democracy than the powerful Nazis and the strong National Party during Smuts' time. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
The political competition and contestation so necessary for a healthy democracy is enriched or diminished by the content of such competition, not by the competition itself.
The political contestation among divergent and diverse viewpoints is a practice we welcome. Unlike the past, no prescriptive laws suppressing the activities of any individual, political formation or opinion have been gazetted since 1994, even when we find those views highly offensive. In fact, in democratic South Africa the contestation unfolds in the committee rooms of Parliament, in this august Chamber, in the media, in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities, in the churches, in the taverns, in night clubs, in dancehalls - in fact, everywhere South Africans gather. As a people, let us continue to engage each other in a spirit of open, robust but rational debate wherever it takes place. And, as I have said, the ANC will not be found wanting in such engagement.
Parliament is one of the most important forums for public debate which is why we in the ANC vigorously support this institution so that it remains an extremely effective forum in which South African patriots, of divergent and differing viewpoints, can collectively craft our country's future in ongoing and lively debate.
We support the Budget. We've heard, and I sympathise with, the viewpoint of many of the smaller parties - that they hardly get a look-in because of the time allocations. One has great sympathy for that complaint precisely because one values the contribution that smaller parties can make to the debate in this House.
But, on the other hand, there is a need for introspection by some of the smaller parties. When Parliament takes a decision to go out into the community on outreach programmes, they are always found wanting. So, perhaps, let them look at themselves sometimes before they come and complain too much. I think the matter of the time allocations can be looked at again, and I welcome also the hon Mike Ellis's suggestion that perhaps we should go back to interpellations. We should maybe reinvigorate Question Time. It's a very important dimension of the democratic dialogue that takes place in Parliament.
I would urge and support such a move, but, at the same time, the opposition needs to be introspective itself and ask itself what role exactly it is playing here in this Parliament. We welcome critical voices; we welcome those who are questioning; we welcome those who demand that the executive be scrutinised, but let us remember what I said about the difference between Malan's National Party and a solitary Helen Suzman. The quality of Helen Suzman's opposition is what made the difference, not the fact that she was oppositional. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Acting President, hon members, I would like to start off by thanking all the parties present in the House for the support of this budget of Parliament. I would also like to express my sincere thanks for all the contributions that have been made in the House today. They have been extremely important and valuable and we have noted all of them. I agree that we do need to find structures that will process these comments, inputs and suggestions. The question is how to operationalise some of them.
The hon Magwanishe, the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party, has informed us that the ANC has developed a performance tool for its MPs in order to monitor and evaluate their performance. I think that is extremely important and very valuable. As we monitor ourselves, we also need to use Parliament as a vehicle to monitor the implementation of our policies for making life better for all South Africans.
The Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party also spoke about the need to relate budgets to programmes and not to committee structures. We certainly have to look at that. He also spoke about the need to increase funding for Whips. Having started off by talking about the need to bear in mind that we are in an economy that is in a semi-recession and we have huge budgetary obligations and a budget deficit, we need to be careful about what it is we ask for. Let me just use the following as an example: Funding for Whips and the Whippery has increased from R95 million in 2005-06 to R258 million today - clearly a huge jump. It is very difficult to justify additional funding for these kinds of things when so much money has been spent already. So we really need to go back and ask: What is it that we need to do with the limited and dwindling resources that we have?
The hon Chief Whip of the Opposition, Mr Ian Davidson, spoke about the need to make Parliament as accountable as government. We certainly agree. We might also add that we want to make Parliament as good as the people of the country are. Certainly, there is some way to go before we can say that we are happy with the progress that has been made. A lot of progress has been made since 1994, but more progress can still be made.
Around the issue of corruption, we certainly agree with hon Davidson that we should try and root it out completely in whatever form it takes. There can be no hesitation on our part to make sure that we root out corruption in whatever form it takes. We also agree with Mr Davidson about the need to involve Parliament more in some of the processes, including the disciplinary ones.
Hon Shilowa, around the timeframes for the legislative process, I think it is important not only for us as Members of Parliament, but also for the communities out there to know what is going to be discussed when and by what time. That makes sense, but that is the responsibility of the programming committee, and I suspect you are a member of the programming committee. So we will hear from you, member of the programming committee, about the programme of Parliament.
We also agree with hon Shilowa about the issues of disclosure of interests. May I remind members that this is not an optional thing, it's compulsory. You have to disclose. I am reminding those who have not done so already - I have a list of those who haven't; I won't release the list here - to do so by tomorrow. Thank you for reminding us, hon Mbhazima.
We agree with Koos van der Merwe, he has been an important pillar of strength in this Parliament. As young parliamentarians, when we joined many moons ago, he was one of those who were very helpful in terms of assisting and supporting all of us and we would like to thank him in his absence. It is often said that if you are able to see far into the future, it is more often because you are standing on the shoulders of giants, and in terms of our Parliament, Koos certainly is one of those and we would like to thank him for his contribution. [Applause.]
Hon Mike Ellis, you raised the point of questions and interpellations, and we certainly agree with you. We also agree with you on highlighting the challenges faced around the issue of Question Time and members of the executive not being present most of the time. The Leader of Government Business is present here. He is also the Deputy President of the country, and today he is also Acting President, and he has been listening to you, so this will be taken seriously. In addition to that, hon Ellis, the panel that was commissioned by Parliament to look at the role of Parliament and how to improve the work of Parliament proposed that the system through which presiding officers hold the executive to account for unanswered questions be reviewed and the necessary changes be made to increase the efficacy of these procedures. It is one of those reports in Parliament that we need to debate.
All of these are intended to improve the work of Parliament to make it more effective and more efficient. I certainly agree that the matter of unanswered questions, as well as the format of Question Time, should be looked at again, together with the mechanisms of oversight. Also, one of the legacy reports deals with an oversight model, and again we need to begin to look at the model, populate it and make sure that it is a kind of model that would make Parliament much more efficient.
Hon Dudley from the ACDP raised the issue of funding for extra languages, etc. We are in consultation with the National Treasury for additional funds and adjustments in the budget for these posts. It is an important point and we recognise that. We are in discussion with Treasury. We also agree that the Chief Whips' Forum can and should set up a task team to consider the oversight model where appropriate.
Just to add, there are many structures in Parliament, maybe too many, but we need to find a way of making them much more effective so that the end product will be as good as the inputs to that end product. This, however, can only happen if the input is good and we must make sure that the input is good so that the end product is what it is we seek to achieve.
We also agree that Parliament must be a centre for national discussions and debate and a centre that leads national issues. We also agree that it must be a centre for action and not just policy issues. People look up to Parliament to help them to improve their lot. As people have pointed out, we dare not fail them. Again, we need to just look at these models and make sure they work.
The hon Andries spoke about the need to give practical expression to the relationship between the legislature and the executive; in other words, the process must be such that all are able to participate. The hon Andries was a Member of Parliament and he was in the Whippery before he got redeployed downwards to the executive. [Laughter.] Certainly, we agree with the proposals that you have made around support for the committees. Committees are the engine of Parliament, so we want to make sure that it's the engine that works and not the engine that is in the workshop, thus we agree with the proposals that you have made, hon member.
Hon Mentor wanted to know what Parliament would do to ensure that members are able to carry out their oversight functions in matters occurring in their constituencies. I did mention in my address that one of the policy imperatives informing the 2009-10 budget included the training of members in oversight activities. We will be doing a lot of training to make sure that members are able to take on board the needs of their constituencies.
I would again like to thank all of you for your contributions. As I have said, they have been noted and we will use the structures of Parliament to make sure that we begin to operationalise all your important contributions. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.