Deputy Speaker, hon Speaker, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the National Assembly is elected to represent the people and to ensure government by the people under the Constitution. Any objective assessment of the project to transform Parliament must conclude that many positive changes have been made when compared to the apartheid parliament, where the work of the institution and its committees were held behind closed doors and in secret.
Having acknowledged this, much more still needs to be done to fully transform Parliament into an institution where participation by all South Africans becomes a reality. We submit that without active community participation and community empowerment, and without the voices and wishes of the community being heard, the notion of "government by the people" is reduced to an empty slogan.
The current arrangement of the parliamentary television channel being flighted on pay-TV marginalises the majority of South Africans who cannot afford to pay for this service and are thereby excluded from participating or being empowered in the work of Parliament. [Applause.] On the other hand, one of the key performance areas of the national broadcaster is that of education and information dissemination. It should, therefore, be in the interests of the SABC to flight committee and other parliamentary business on a dedicated channel that has the potential of reaching a larger audience at a much-reduced cost to the viewers. This is an option that must be considered seriously by this House.
Secondly, the practice of public hearings in the formulation of the laws is meant to afford communities and stakeholders a platform to influence the law. In almost all instances, hearings are held within the precincts of Parliament and, owing to its geographic location, the poorer sections of our community find it almost impossible to attend such committee activities. The current reality is that only those who have the means to travel long distances are afforded an opportunity to actively participate in the process of lawmaking, a direct contradiction to the promise of "the people shall govern".
Yes, Parliament has introduced the practice of "Taking Parliament to the People" in an attempt to address this matter. But truth be told, this exercise hardly ever ensures that the voices and wishes of the people are heard, because very little systematic follow-up is ever done by Parliament to address the issues raised in these fora.
Deputy Speaker, Parliament owes it to those that raise matters of importance to them to develop a structured way of ensuring that those matters are dealt with timeously. These are but some of the basics that will enhance citizen participation in the work of this institution.
Our Constitution places Parliament as an equal but independent arm of the state relative to the executive and to the judiciary. Furthermore, Parliament has a responsibility to oversee the work of the executive on behalf of the people of South Africa.
The manner in which the budget of Parliament is apportioned is not in keeping with its constitutional status. The current process whereby Parliament is subjected to the same process as that of a government department, in that it receives a Budget Vote allocation, is inconsistent with Parliament's status as an arm of state equal to the judiciary and the executive.
The current practice has the effect that Treasury and the executive determine, through the budget process, what Parliament must receive and, by extension, the extent of Parliament's operations by determining the financial envelope. This determination of the extent of Parliament's operations through controlling the purse strings encroaches on the doctrine of the separation of powers as envisaged in our Constitution.
The research capacity and other support that Parliament, generally, and portfolio committees, specifically, have access to is nowhere near that which is at the disposal of government departments. It is highly unlikely that any effective oversight can be done without drastically strengthening the support of the committees of Parliament and for individual Members of Parliament. In many of the committees, research capacity and other support structures are sorely lacking and sometimes nonexistent. Very often the reasons advanced for this state of affairs is a lack of adequate funding.
If adequate funding of Parliament is the issue, then this further strengthens the argument for a need to revisit the funding model of Parliament that gives the responsibility of deciding the budget of Parliament to the very executive that is subject to the oversight of Parliament. [Applause.] A revised model of funding must recognise that the amount allocated to this institution to carry out its work must be equitable to its responsibility in entrenching a democratic order in South Africa.
In the same vein we need, similarly, to rethink the budget allocations of the various programmes of Parliament itself. By way of example: The 2010-11 programme allocations are such that Programme 1: Administration alone received an amount of R317 million, as opposed to the combined allocation for Programme 2: Legislation and Oversight and Programme 3: Public and International Participation, which were allocated only R368 million, or 23% of the total budget of Parliament.
Let me hasten to say, Deputy Speaker, that I am pleased that this situation has turned around with the figures that you have just spoken of recently. In other words, Programme 1: Administration in 2010-11 received R61 million more than what was allocated to the core functions of Parliament.
The work of government is extremely complex. As Parliament oversees the work of government, these complexities demand of members high levels of expertise, knowledge and capacity. Everybody in this room accepts that portfolio committees are the engine room of Parliament and, as such, the allocation of Parliament's budget must reflect this fact. The administrative officials of Parliament, who are meant to be a support to committees and Members of Parliament, cannot be better resourced than those that they are meant to support. [Applause.]
Over and above portfolio committees being the engine room of Parliament, the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, the Chief Whips' Forum as well as the programming whips' duties are essential for the smooth running of the daily parliamentary business. Currently these offices are not funded directly by Parliament, but must rely on political parties to utilise their own funds to support these structures. In our view, this practice of political parties subsidising the running costs of Parliament's day-to-day operations disadvantages the affected political parties. We urge Parliament to consider allocating a dedicated budget for these operations as has been done for the operational costs of the House Chairpersons.
The final area of the transformation of Parliament project that we wish to focus on is the productivity levels of the institution. South Africa is probably the only country worldwide where the seat of the legislature is more than 1 000 kilometres away from the seat of government. This unusual situation that we find ourselves in is thanks to an apartheid government compromise of sharing the seats of the judiciary, the legislature and the executive to cater for that government's own constituency demands at the time.
Speaker, of late it has become a populist trend to criticise or question the excessive utilisation of taxpayers' money by Ministers and government officials in pursuit of their duties. The cold truth is that the executive's need to have two state-provided places of accommodation and two vehicles at their disposal is a direct result of this apartheid compromise.
The time has come to examine this arrangement if we want to improve our productivity as a legislature and, at the same time, put to rest the concerns raised by this side of the House of the prudent utilisation of taxpayers' money by Ministers and their officials. [Applause.] It will kill that debate - if we bring the location of Parliament and the executive closer to each other. There won't be this argument; everybody must support this debate. [Applause.]
Today, 18 years into our democratic dispensation, this arrangement has negative consequences for everything we stand for: unnecessary financial costs associated with travel and accommodation; reduced productivity in so far as oversight of the executive is concerned because of time wasted in transit between Cape Town and Pretoria; and reduced public participation because Parliament is located at the southernmost tip of the country, making access to this institution beyond the means of the poor and less resourced sectors of our society. [Applause.] These are some of the areas that require closer scrutiny, and sober and honest debate in this House.
How far down the line are we towards truly transforming Parliament so as to realise the mission, as articulated in the Constitution? What still needs to be done towards realising the goal of ensuring the participation of all South Africans in the lawmaking process? And are we succeeding in maximising the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight? [Interjections.]
Thula baba, ulalele! [Keep quiet, hon member, and listen!]
Listen; and you learn. [Laughter.] In answering these very critical questions, we must deal with the location and proximity of the executive relative to the legislature. We must also be honest in answering the question about the accessibility to Parliament by the majority of our citizens. Citizen accessibility to the institution, substantial savings of taxpayers' money and improved productivity by portfolio committees will enable Parliament to play an even greater role in creating a better South Africa and a better world.
In many countries the executive and parliament are able to interact in pursuit of their duties for many more hours of the day than we do, because both institutions are located in close proximity to each other. [Interjections.] The result of Parliament and the seat of the executive being geographically closer to each other - I'll tell you my agenda in a minute if you keep quiet - is that committees of Parliament are able to sit for much longer periods, sometimes even into the night, doing oversight or finalising legislation. [Interjections.]