Chairperson, we have noted the importance of this particular debate, and maybe before I deal with some issues, there is something I find very interesting that we need to reflect on. It comes from the DA and Cope.
The DA, for a very long time, has very consistently defended the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. All of us agree that it is a very important document that we need to pride ourselves on. The formation of Cope was based on the defence of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. They have also been very consistent in bringing this to the attention of the South African populace, raising false alarms about how the ANC under the leadership of our President, Jacob Zuma, is going to undermine and amend the Constitution.
But I find it quite interesting that in this very important debate today, the DA and Cope are proposing amendments to the Constitution - very selective amendments to the Constitution, for that matter. And we find it very interesting that the DA, in particular, is giving leadership in that regard, that where there are shortcomings, we need to look at the amendment of the Constitution to go forward. And maybe one of the key things that we need to look at is the property clause because it is through that that we will be able to fight poverty, we will be able to fight the inequality that exists within our society that is created by the very same problems that this Constitution addresses here. [Applause.]
Since 1955, at the gathering of our people in Kliptown, at the Congress of the People, we have been very clear. Here, the people of South Africa declared that South Africa belongs to all those who live in it. It was at that particular gathering that we brought up the concept of a people's assembly, of a people's Parliament again. And that concept at that gathering has guided the ANC, throughout the processes of the bannings and even after our liberation. We continued to say, ours will be to build a people's Parliament in which all those who live in South Africa shall be part and parcel of it and will participate actively in deciding the path that our country is supposed to take. [Applause.]
It is not loose. That concept is not loose. It has a particular history as well, because that history is informed by the ANC's adoption of a concept referred to as the national democratic revolution. It was explained as follows - that our main mission is the creation of a South Africa that is nonracist, nonsexist and democratic, which will allow all our people to participate actively in the processes of our advancement.
Therefore, as we speak today we are not losing sight of those historical imperatives. Hence today, as the ANC, we can stand up proudly and say that ours is about the development and the strengthening of an activist parliament, because an activist parliament is that parliament that will take into account all the very same aspects that members have been raising. These are strengthening the capacity of Parliament to do oversight and to be accountable, strengthening the capacity of Parliament or the legislatures to have that kind of relationship with the executive.
Our understanding of the separation of powers and the capacity of Parliament is not based on the liberal conceptualisation of oversight, because that conceptualisation sees Parliament as being a watchdog and an institution with the sole responsibility being to criticise, criticise, criticise. Ours is about a relationship, an understanding that there is a separation of powers, and each and every arm has a particular role to play and, by doing that, we complement one another. We do not just shout from the rooftops about how government or the executive is useless and is not doing their work without providing alternatives that seek to enhance the work of the executive. It is that particular role that we will be playing.
I think one of the things that is very important and unique, in actual fact - and I find it quite strange that it is raised by the DA again - is with the conceptualisation of the National Council of Provinces vis--vis how the Senate works. The basis of the establishment of the National Council of Provinces was, in actual fact, to ensure that we build on the capacity of local, provincial and national government in order to be able to work together, hence the intergovernmental relations. It is, therefore, important.
It would have been quite wise and very progressive, for instance, for the DA to have raised a question concerning the role of the SA Local Government Association, Salga. How, then, do we, as the National Council of Provinces, begin to look at the capacity and active role of Salga in the NCOP? I think it is a matter with regard to which we, as the ANC, say we are lacking in that particular area.
Therefore, we need to look at how best we can ensure that Salga plays the strategic role that it is supposed to play - by ensuring that they are actively involved, not only in plenaries in this particular House, but also even at the committee level. The question should probably be: Does Salga have that capacity? And what, therefore, becomes our role as the NCOP in terms of our budget and programme to capacitate and enable Salga to play an active role in the NCOP? I think that is a very important matter that we need to look at.
There is another thing that we, as the ANC, are raising, because we have made a very important observation on oversight and the role that committees are supposed to play vis--vis the leadership that must be provided to committees in order for them to do effective oversight. You would find that the Chairperson raises the question on strengthening the capacity of chairpersons of committees with content advisers, secretaries, and researchers. But the question we are raising is the disjuncture that you find that exists between the chair and the secretary of the committee in terms of their reporting mechanism. You would find that the chairperson has no role, no say over his or her own support mechanism. The secretary to the committee reports somewhere, the researcher reports somewhere else, and even, sometimes, the content advisers report somewhere else. [Applause.] That causes a serious disjuncture in terms of the functionality of committees.
Beyond that, maybe there is another question we need to ask ourselves, as Parliament, in terms of our budget. Are we really doing them justice in terms of support to committees, particularly committees of the National Council of Provinces, where you find clustered committees that must do oversight over three departments? Just one department can come and make a presentation to a committee of the NCOP, and it comes with two legal advisers, two researchers and the director-general. The department is heavily resourced, and now they sit here with these members whose capacity cannot match the capacity of the department. I think that is another matter that we really need to look at when we speak about this, especially when it comes to committees of the National Council of Provinces, namely whether really, we need to give the necessary and effective assistance.
Coupled to that, there is a particular wave that we see introduced. As much as the others, for instance Helen Zille, went out to say that this government or this executive has achieved zero under the leadership of President Zuma, there is a particular wave in the country, something new that is being introduced that seeks to revolutionise the functionality of the executive in terms of accountability to the President and accountability to the South African public through the signing of performance-based agreements.
The question that we need to ask ourselves as legislators now is how we position ourselves not to be left behind by the speed at which the executive is moving. If we do not do that, we may find ourselves lagging behind and chasing after the executive, where the executive is running at 340km per hour, while we are still at 60km per hour in terms of doing our oversight work, and so forth.
It is quite important that, as a legislative body, we need to reflect and ponder on some of these questions. What are the implications of these performance agreements between the President and the Ministers and the role of Parliament and its committees to do oversight?
Perhaps this is also important, Chair. In 2004-05, there was a concept that was introduced by the NCOP, and it gained momentum up to a point but we ran just short of implementing it - strengthening our oversight mechanism. One of the things that we were saying was about doing 70% oversight and being in the constituencies, and being in Parliament 30% of the time. That was informed, of course, by the fact that, since 1994 and up until that particular time, we had dealt a lot, and sufficiently so, with legislation.
Is it not possible to really revisit that particular concept and its relevance in strengthening our way of doing oversight? That means we would spend 70% of our time with the people that elected us, with the people that gave us a mandate. For the remaining 30% of the time, we would be here doing our legislative work and other things that are relevant to Parliament.
The last thing I thought would be quite important for us to look at closely is the question of the notion of taking Parliament to the people. Is it effective? Is it working for us? What are the gaps? What are the areas that we need to look at? For instance, an issue that we can begin to grapple with is the following: When we leave a place, how do we consistently keep that link with the people that we visited in order to ensure that by the time something happens in those areas, people are able to carry on and say, "If it were not because of the National Council of Provinces, this particular thing would not have happened"? This is an option, as opposed to merely going in and getting out without really ensuring that together we work with our people to find solutions to their problems.
I think it is quite important that as the NCOP we need to have a mechanism that will ensure that as and when we take Parliament to the people, whether it is the National Assembly through the People's Assembly, and so forth, we are still able to keep in touch and keep track of the issues that were raised by our people to ensure that they are not left behind.
Let me conclude by saying that a very important commitment was made. That commitment was based on the fact that, as Parliament, we passed legislation and we passed a Budget. That commitment also went to the construction workers, in that they were committed to constructing the stadiums, and so forth. As we speak today, the Local Organising Committee has lived up to that particular commitment, but only as far as the construction workers are concerned. We want to know what is going to happen to the Members of Parliament who passed the budget to ensure that those things do happen. On that note, thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]