Chairperson, I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Declarations of vote:
Hon House Chairperson, I speak against the background that the President, President J G Zuma, did not meet the legislative deadline for making his own declarations of financial interest. He did so only after being forced to do so by the Public Protector.
Also, my experience when tabling this legislative proposal to the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions left me wondering why the ANC members were so vociferously and vehemently opposed to such a proposal. The Majority Party Whip and an ANC member in the committee behaved in a particularly offensive manner. That they apologised at the next meeting serves to mitigate the conduct of the said members and I accepted their apology without reservation. However, this did nothing to address the defensive reasoning in their unilateral rejection of this legislative proposal.
In fact, I got the impression that any private member's Bill emanating from the opposition was doomed to fail at inception. This is not the intention of the committee on private members' Bills, and if the committee is allowed to become the graveyard of private members' Bills, then we must do away with the charade of having a committee that considers private members' legislation.
In the current legislation the President is expected to be the sole and final arbiter of his and his family's declarations of interest. My proposal aims to address the fact that the President is subject to no one but himself. In this regard, all other members of the executive are expected to make their declarations to a higher office. This serves to ensure that there is independent oversight of these declarations. The office of the President should not be beyond independent oversight, which actually operates as a safeguard against the abuse of office.
My proposals are therefore intended to protect the office of the President. Though I used the example of a long and growing public list of the current President's direct family members' benefiting from lucrative state and state-linked tenders and business opportunities, my legislative proposal is aimed at protecting the President and his family members by placing their business practices above question and reproach.
Yesterday afternoon, the President asserted in this House that it was discriminatory against politicians to suggest that they should not benefit from government infrastructure contracts. It is for this very reason, hon members, that checks and balances are necessary to prevent the trading of political influence for undue financial gain. This proposal recommends a remedy that proposes that the Auditor-General certifies the compliance of the President's family members who conduct business with the state. This spares the President the ignominy of continuous public jaundice and recrimination. It is my considered contention that the ANC members of this committee in this House protested too much. If they applied their minds objectively to this legislative proposal they would see that it is, in fact, in the interest of the President and his family, regardless of whether he or she is an ANC or a DA President. Thank you. [Applause.]
House Chairperson, I think it is important that we note that the proposal was sparked by an article that appeared in the Mail & Guardian. That is the first issue. That article is the one that drove hon Trollip to propose legislation whose purpose is to regulate the President's declarations.
The second issue that we need to note is that the committee and the ANC felt that there are currently mechanisms in place that cover this area, and these are such that matters can be reported to the Public Protector.
Lastly, it is important to note that we viewed this proposal as an attack on the President himself and his family. It sought to create the impression that members of the President's family are corrupt and their affairs therefore need to be regulated. It can't be correct and it can't be allowed, and we will not apologise, House Chairperson, for taking this stance as the ANC.
It is important that we note that there is no basis for proposing this legislation, because the current code of ethics is sufficient to cover this, and we raised this matter in the committee.
The issue is also that there is no court in the country that has found even one member of the family of President Zuma to be corrupt. I therefore urge the opposition to stop creating the impression among the public that members of President Zuma's family are corrupt. It is wrong. You can't continue to do that.
I think it is important for us as members of the House and as South Africans to understand that President Zuma and his families are members of the public; therefore, they are protected by the Constitution. This abuse of President Zuma and his family is unjustifiable and wrong. He is a member of society and a human being, and therefore the Constitution of the country protects him. The continuation by the opposition and members of the public to spread the notion that the President does not have human rights or standing in terms of the Constitution is wrong. The fact that he is the President does not mean that he cannot be protected by the laws of this country. We have the responsibility as the ANC and as members of this House to make sure that everybody is protected, including the President himself. The other issue I need to correct, hon Trollip, is in regard to the apology that ANC put in the committee. This was in particular to one member, who said incorrectly in the meeting that we did not respect the Constitution. In response to that I, as the leader of the ANC in the committee, stood up to apologise and I withdrew that statement. But we never said anything else, and we do not withdraw anything or regret rejecting that proposal. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr Chairman, the IFP has taken a very critical position in respect of the workings of the Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions. Yes, before anyone points it out, I have been very noticeably absent from that committee, and that is why the matter is today before the Constitutional Court, where it will be heard on 7 August. We will discuss the issue of constitutionality on 7 August .
We feel that what is taking place here today is far from being democratic. This House is being called upon to give permission to a member of the House to exercise a right under the Constitution, a right that each and every member of each and every democratic Parliament has exercised in the past.
On a point of order: ...
So, under these conditions ... [Interjections.]
Order! There is a point of order.
House Chair, on a point of order: I want to establish whether hon Oriani-Ambrosini has standing on the matter now that he has lost a case against this Parliament. Instead of raising issues here in the House, he runs to the court and he has lost his application ... [Inaudible.] ...
Hon member, that is not the issue here.
... and he is still going to lose, I suspect.
Hon member, that is not the issue. He has the standing. Continue, hon member. [Applause.]
Mr Chairman, that is the type of point of disorder that these people put!
The case is before the Constitutional Court, where it will be adjudicated to restore a right that has been enjoyed since the first parliament in Athens, the Boule [Ancient Greek council], and the Roman Senate, and enjoyed in each parliament since. However, we do not have that right!
That is why the hon Trollip has needed to come here and humiliate himself by asking permission to do what is obvious in each and every democracy, which is to have the right to introduce a Bill. We no longer even have a table before us where a Bill can be tabled.
What the hon Trollip is putting before us is not about President Zuma. It is about the Presidency, the most important institution in the country - the one that must unify everyone and in which we should take pride. We have not voted for this President, but we want him to be beyond reproach. We want this institution to function and the President to succeed because, if the President fails, the whole of the country fails. We are behind the President, whoever the President is, because he is the one who leads us.
What the hon Trollip is trying to do here is to come humbly and ask for permission - which he does not need under the Constitution -merely to have the possibility of strengthening the Presidency, no matter who the President is! I feel that it is humiliating and unfair for any of us to have to give permission to a colleague merely to present a Bill, which should go to the committee, and should be discussed on a par with any other Bill submitted by the executive.
On that basis I think we should give him the opportunity of being heard. Let the Bill go through, and if it is a bad Bill it can be killed in the committee. But we are operating like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, who famously said, "Off with her head!" and "Sentence first - verdict later." What we are doing is killing a Bill before the committee has had an opportunity, through public hearings, bilateral discussions and consultations, to decide whether or not it is a good or a bad Bill. That is the fundamental flaw of this democracy at this juncture. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted.