Chairperson, hon Tau, I am not a member of the Local Organising Committee. I am the Chairperson of the NCOP. I am not sure whether you will get the tickets or not but keep on trying your luck.
Let me start with you and reply to just one thing. I cannot reply to everyone. One of the two things that you have raised that is very important to me is the participation of Salga. That discussion has to continue in the Fourth Parliament and must take place. You are aware that I have said many times in this House that Salga has not taken its full place in the NCOP. I would like you, particularly as the House Chair, to assist me to take that discussion on. We cannot leave it like that because they have a role to play, and I believe, in terms of co-operative government and delivery of services on the ground by the local municipalities, Salga can play a very important role.
On the second thing you have raised, and I have heard it before, I want to say that I find it very strange that a report of a committee can be tabled in this House without a chairperson having gone through that report. I find it strange that the committee secretary just finalises the report, and then the report comes to the House. I don't know whether I heard you well. That report is the chairperson's and the committee's report. It cannot be the secretary's report.
It is like the Bill. When the Bill is before the committee, it is your Bill. You have to deal with it if there are amendments. I have said it many times. An example of this was the Children's Bill, as you will remember. It cannot be correct that you make some amendments to the Bill and when the Bill comes to the House to be passed, there are other amendments that you don't know about. Then you stand in the House and you say that you support the Bill but you don't know that somebody has added some amendments that you have not seen and discussed. The final piece of legislation that comes to the House should have been passed by the committee, and you should have agreed to those amendments.
The same applies to the report of the committee. The chairperson is the owner of that report. What is it then that you are debating about? Is it the report that you haven't seen and discussed? How do you defend it? I just want to support you with that one. I think secretaries to the committees must be very careful. Let them give support to the chairpersons, but don't let them take over from the chairpersons. That is their job. They should not take over. They must give support to the chairpersons. Everything has to be checked by the chairperson before it comes to the House. The last important thing which you have mentioned is the question of follow- ups on our public participation. It doesn't matter whether it is Taking Parliament to the People, public participation on policy issues or any matter that the committee has undertaken. What is of importance is those regular follow-ups in order for us to get in touch, either with those communities or the leadership around there, to ensure that things are happening the way we want them to happen. That is the capacity -and- I agree with you - that we need to build. Committees should actually build them into their programmes when they carry out their oversight function.
You've already said to me that we went to Limpopo and that we should go back. I am going back with a small team in May. I will take one or two of you people. We are going to do some work with the leadership there to check what they have done up to now because it is leading up to the new local government budget which will be in July. Before they finalise their budget we would like to know what they have done about the issues that have been raised by the people there. We would like to know what the province has done because provinces have their entire budget to apply already to those particular municipalities in order to address some of the issues there. We will do that. [Interjections.] I said I will take a few people with. You must leave it to the chairperson. I will take a few people. I will definitely not go alone.
I have listened to Prince Zulu, Mr Gunda and Mr Plaatjie. All members, including Mr Tau, have emphasised the oversight function. I realise how important this aspect of work is to us as members. I am very happy about that. Without us doing that type of work, it will be as if we are glued to our chairs. It will be as if we do not see what is happening out there. That is the most important work that Members of Parliament have to do, because we represent the people on the ground. We are their mouths, their voices and everything. We have the power, and we are their saviour. If we don't do that, we will not achieve anything. I am very glad that members have a full grasp of that. Maybe it is of importance that more capacity is built around the Members of Parliament in order to do all those things. I must thank you.
Prince Zulu, for the past three years Parliament has never had qualifications from the Auditor-General. [Applause.] We are managing our money very well. Nobody can say that there is anything wrong with our budget. It has taken us five to six years to remove that. When we took over as presiding officers, we found qualifications that were nearing disclaimers, unfortunately. We, together with the Secretary to Parliament, have overturned that to make our budget more effectively managed. With the Bill that we have passed now, the Financial Management of Parliament Bill, we will do much better to manage our finances in Parliament.
Mr Watson, on your comment on the involvement of the members of the NCOP, I can guarantee that we are involved. We are so small in the NCOP in terms of size. I don't know what we will do if we are not involving each other. Democracy is about involving other people. I want to repeat it. It is important that everybody is involved, whether you agree on a thing or not. I have said to you many times in this House that involvement does not mean that we will agree all the time on the issues on the table. It does not mean that. We will disagree and sometimes agree. We will find each other where we can find each other. That is an important thing.
Dialogue is very important because one will hear all the sides of the people in this institution. We will keep doing that, and I believe in it. Openness and transparency are very good principles of democracy. We will discuss with the people who are in the institution and take decisions together. You will have a very peaceful institution. You will have an institution that achieves things, rather than having a setback with the things that we are doing in this House.
I am very happy about the way we are functioning, and some of us might be staying a little behind and we are saying: Die agteros kom ook in die kraal [Even those who progress slowly eventually reach their destinations].
We will not leave you behind. We will take you with us. That is important. Let's assist each other.
In terms of the questions, you are correct. I have made it my job to check, every quarter at least, how many questions have not been answered by the executive so that I can respond on behalf of the members of this House. I have done that again this quarter because we are just finishing our first quarter.
I have already written a letter to the Deputy President. It is here in front of me. If you want a copy of it, you can just ask me. There is a total of 38 written questions from members to which there has been no response. I am not taking this very kindly, because I think 38 questions not responded to are many questions. I have already written to the Deputy President, and I have asked him to intervene as a matter of urgency. It is mostly on the written questions. On oral questions, Ministers come here and they respond to the questions, but the problem comes in with written questions. I have done a check again. From 19 March until 16 April, these questions have not been responded to. I have taken the matter up already with the Deputy President.
In terms of the Rules, I should commend you. Mr Jacobs, the chairperson of the subcommittee on review of Council Rules, and you, as members, have done a wonderful job. I have never seen people working at the speed that you have done. I thought that it would take us another year to review those Rules. You would remember that in the Third Parliament you and I discussed that we should revisit our Rules. The Programming Committee agreed that we should revisit all our Rules because they were drafted in 1994 when we came here. We have completed the review of our Rules. Is the workshop for the Programming Committee or for all of us? The workshop is for the Rules committee on 4 June.
In terms of the point of order, I heard that you have raised it and the presiding officers will meet soon. We will look at ourselves in terms of how we are dealing with those issues concerning the Rules. I want to introduce something in this House. When you stand up on a point of order, can you carry your book with you? Can you tell the Chairperson that you are standing up on a point of order in terms of Rule 106? I want to teach you that.
People just stand up on a point of order, even if it is not a point of order. That wastes the time of the House and interrupts the business of the House. That, at the same time, will teach you how to use the Rules. You are assisting me, as the Chair. You will know if the member is correct or wrong, in terms of Rule 106. You will know if the member could not have raised a point of order, in terms of Rule 106. If we carry our books, even though we memorise the Rule, we can just refer to the Rule. I will then check the Rules while I am sitting here. It also teaches me because I forget some of the Rules. All of us will learn the Rules by doing this. Mr Watson, the other point that you have raised was actually raised by Mr Bloem. I have advised that you should write to the Constitutional Review Committee to look at whether we can deal with that and other discussions can take place. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.