Thank you, Speaker.
I referred to the 2014 elections and the overwhelming victory, but here we are, debating a motion of no confidence in the President. Obviously, the almost 38% of the voters who didn't vote for the ANC - and that includes, I would imagine, most of the opposition members of this House and a number of the commentators - did not want him to be President. One can assume that most still do not want him to be President, but unfortunately for the DA, the people of South Africa spoke 10 months ago. Nothing has substantially changed in terms of the points being raised by opposition speakers.
Hon Maimane, you are trying to undo the election results by this motion. [Interjections.] You are being disrespectful of democracy and contemptuous of the voters of South Africa by moving this motion of no confidence. Incidentally, you liked referring to, or claimed that the President keeps saying he doesn't know when he doesn't want to take responsibility for something. I assume, if you had answered the question around the drugs in your church, your response would've been ``I did not know''. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The embarrassing disgrace that was the Agang motion, which we were meant to debate a fortnight ago, only served to affirm our long-standing view that such motions are an abuse of section 102 of the Constitution and a waste of Parliament's valuable time.
In this regard, I think it shows up the inadequacy of the majority judgment in the Constitutional Court, that any member may bring a motion of no confidence, without restrictions or thresholds. To call for a division, one needs a threshold, but to bring a motion of no confidence, which must be debated, one doesn't.
Incidentally, with regard to Agang, I don't think many members of the public know who they are. They voted for somebody else - another lady, who has gone - and those two members are fighting each other and taking each other to court. [Interjections.]
A lot of Parliament's time has been wasted around Agang's motion, and this second motion from the DA further distracts Parliament from the real business of addressing the serious challenges confronting many South Africans. [Interjections.] Of course, the DA is used to wasting Parliament's time: motions of no confidence, walking out of plenaries and committees, intentionally trying to prevent quorums ... [Interjections.] It seems as if they resort to these tactics because their arguments have no substance. [Interjections.]
I was meant to be speaking on the accusation made in the motion on the right of access to quality education having been violated. The hon Maimane and hon Selfe said very little about that, if anything, so I am not going to say much. There are a lot of challenges with education, but there is a lot that has been done: increasing access to education with over 8 million learners in our no-fee schools, up from 5 million in 2009; increasing student enrolment at universities, from 837 000 in 2009 to 938 000 in the 2012-13 financial year; increasing the amount of money given to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, and the number of students at university; increasing the pass rate, and so on.
I imagine you didn't want to talk much about education because of the problems in the Western Cape ... [Interjections.] ... the embarrassing issue of the situation of a high school in Bonnievale and the fact that it's taken you years to accommodate learners from that school in a prefabricated classroom. I understand there are similar issues in Piketberg.
The fact is that there are 10 500 children in the Western Cape who haven't managed to secure a place in school for the 2015 academic year. While this is going on, you, as the DA, are closing schools in the poorer areas, keeping them open in the richer areas. [Interjections.] Then there is also the issue of your paying more money to the richer quintiles. So, those are all issues that one could speak about. [Interjections.]
On the issue of disobeying the Public Protector, I really wish you would read the judgment of the Cape High Court in the case of yourselves, the DA v SABC & Others, and the finding of the Public Protector - the fact that the findings of and remedial action taken by the Public Protector are not binding, although it doesn't mean that these findings, recommendations and remedial action are mere recommendations which an organ of state may accept or reject. The Public Protector findings are not being ignored. Parliament, the President and the Special Investigating Unit, SIU, are all applying, or have applied their minds. So, please don't distort the facts to grab headlines.
On the issue of whether you can say stealing the money here or the President stole the money, I wish you would also read the judgment in that SMS case. It related to freedom of speech during an election campaign ... [Interjections.] ... and contrasting it with the Electoral Act. Parliament has different Rules for what you may say and how you may put forward criticism. [Interjections.]
As far as the politicisation of law-enforcement agencies, raised by the hon Swart, is concerned, well, firstly, the Scorpions were disbanded, not under President Zuma's watch as President. In addition, nobody, hon Swart - because we were on the committee together - could actually say how the Khampepe recommendations could be implemented.
Incidentally, hon Selfe, as far as the issue of the President's corruption charges is concerned, remember that they were thrown out of court by two separate High Court judges. [Interjections.] So, good luck with your case.