Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers, colleagues, and the hon Speaker, who today had his opportunity to speak, first of all, Cope wants to add our voice to those of other parties in wishing our former beloved President Nelson Mandela all of the best for a speedy recovery. The nation is praying for him to recover soon.
Today our debate on Vote No 2 - Parliament, takes place at a time when the Fourth Parliament is essentially wrapping up its business in preparation for the milestone election of 2014 to celebrate 20 years of democracy in South Africa. It is therefore appropriate for us to assess the role of Parliament and its impact on and relevance for the national discourse. The primary role of Parliament is to pass legislation and to hold executive organs of state and the executive as government accountable. This is its scrutiny role which makes all parliaments relevant or not.
When a respectable columnist like Max du Preez says that Parliament is rendered an irrelevant institution, we should all sit up. In a recent article he wrote that we were almost back in the 1980s, when extraparliamentary politics was more in touch with the nation than Parliament under P W Botha was. He reminded us that the late Dr Frederick van Zyl Slabbert, on the occasion of his resignation, at that stage called Parliament:
... a talk shop, a sideshow with little influence over P W Botha, his Cabinet and his State Security Council. Parliament to them was an unavoidable nuisance.
Unfortunately, Du Preez now compares this Fourth Parliament, or Parliament as an institution, to the one of the 1980's, when the real centre of power was not in Parliament. According to Du Preez:
The real action now is at Luthuli House, the Congress of SA Trade Unions, Cosatu, House, the SA Communist Party, SACP, headquarters, Nkandla and the Gupta compound in Saxonwold. Today, we have a people's Parliament representing all South Africans. Today, the Constitution prescribes how Parliament should conduct its business. It is in Parliament where we should continue the struggle for the inclusion of all marginalised citizens - those who still have not tasted the fruits of our democracy after our oppressive past, those who remain marginalised because they are indeed not politically connected to the ruling elite.
This Parliament is where we should hold government accountable and where we should receive information held by government to scrutinise executive action, or the lack thereof. We also need to debate issues of grave national importance, such as threats to our national pride, the country's security and our sovereignty. It is where we should legislate to close the legislative gaps that make it possible for corrupt politicians and public servants to enrich themselves with taxpayers' money, which they do with impunity at the expense of the poor.
Do we really have such a Parliament? This is the question that we need to answer today. Unfortunately, we don't. Despite the gallant efforts of Speaker Sisulu and others to build the credibility of this institution and to make Parliament a constitutional institution with the values as enshrined in the Constitution, we have serious challenges, not the least being a growing perception that the ANC, and consequently the executive, treats Parliament with contempt. In fact, it seems as if Du Preez is correct when he states that the ANC seems hellbent on rendering Parliament an irrelevant institution and turning us into a rubber-stamp of the executive.
Just last year, the motion of no confidence compelled opposition parties to approach the High Court, and during the same year Dr Mario Ambrosini, whom we wish a speedy recovery, had to approach the Constitutional Court to compel Parliament to change its Rules. When rulings by previous Speakers to limit privilege provisions of the Constitution - freedom of speech - were taken on review, we did that and we will not apologise for that.
Clearly the ANC regards these actions as obstructive, as we have listened to the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party. However, such legal challenges to the Rules, rulings and practices of Parliament are crucial to develop jurisprudence and to test our practices against the provisions of the Constitution.
Cope has sympathy with the hon Speaker, particularly during the tug-of-war on the motion of no confidence namely if and when it should be debated. It was unfortunate that the ANC's Chief Whip hauled him before the ANC caucus in full view of the nation. That begs the question whether the Constitution should not be revised to provide for a Speaker to resign from his or her party position and membership for the duration of his or her term of office. The appropriate party could then fill that seat from its parliamentary list. It does not promote a comprehensive participatory democracy if the Speaker is dragged into politics. We as Cope would like to suggest that we reconsider the role of Speaker and his affiliation to party politics. He should be able to apply the Rules without fear or favour.
We commend efforts by the Speaker to remind the executive about outstanding questions that have remained unanswered. However, whereas administrative capacity is often quoted as a reason why questions are not answered in time, several Ministers show their blatant disdain for members, particularly of opposition parties, during oral question sessions in Parliament. Clearly, that attitude permeates through their officers and possibly explains why the large number of unanswered questions is mainly opposition questions. In contradiction to that, questions of ANC Members of Parliament are answered clearly, specifically within a reasonable time. Deputy Speaker, we have done an analysis and it can be proven. That is exactly what is happening. [Interjections.] A comparative analysis of unanswered questions supports this view. We are prepared to discuss it with the Deputy President soon. This year Parliament will receive close to an historic R2 billion. Whereas Cope salutes the presiding officers for their commitment to enhancing the role of Parliament and to capacitating members serving in this institution, we are warning that throwing more money at the institution will not in itself improve the operations of this Parliament and will not enhance constitutional oversight over the executive.
We have grown a bigger and bigger bureaucracy, but efficiencies in Parliament have not improved commensurate to the additional posts created. Despite additional support staff to committees, committee chairpersons and members are still correcting Minutes. This is happening daily. It appears that members of staff are not trained to understand the holy grail of the separation of powers. In fact, when they keep Minutes, they often list the apologies of Ministers and Deputy Ministers amongst members of the committees. Clearly, that is a very serious oversight. After almost 20 years into our democracy, there can be no excuse for that.
Furthermore, the different roles and responsibilities of committee staff need to be clarified. Some committees now have content advisers, in addition to secretarial support and researchers. Despite that, our limited number of legal advisers is often burdened with the correction of Minutes. This cannot be a sound situation. We need to look at how we are recruiting people to serve in those positions in committees, and we need to ensure that they are managed appropriately. This is a serious management issue and it needs to be addressed very urgently.
During last year's debate, we raised concerns about the limited number of legal advisers at Parliament. They numbered nine then and now they are ten. In addition to that, we thank the Speaker for establishing the Legal Drafting Unit. We have four legal drafters and two more will be appointed. However, the question is, is that enough if legislation and the passing of Bills is our primary role, in addition to executive oversight?
The number of Bills passed thus far by this Parliament equals 98. In comparison to those passed by the Third Parliament we are lagging behind. Altogether, the Third Parliament passed 200 Bills. Interestingly enough, during the last year of the Third Parliament, 77 Bills were passed. If we have a repeat of that situation before the election in 2014, Parliament and its legal advisers will not be able to cope. It is as simple as that.
This is a people's Parliament and we are elected to represent the voters who mandated us to represent their needs and their interests. We are not supposed to be legal eagles who understand the intricate wiring of legislation and how different Acts impact on draft legislation before committees. We do our best, but our best is often not enough. That is where the research capacity and the professional legal advisers have to guide committee members. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]