Chairperson, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the Council, on the recommendation of the Rules Committee of the National Council of Provinces, resolves that the procedure to be followed in respect of Questions to the President and the Deputy President be as follows:
(1) No questions should be put to the President.
(2) The Deputy President should on every alternate occasion when Questions are scheduled for plenary be available to answer questions put to him.
Declarations of vote:
Mevrou die Voorsitter, die Wes-Kaap maak ernstig beswaar teen hierdie besluit dat geen vrae aan die President van die RSA in hierdie Raad toegelaat sal word nie. Trouens, daar was versoeke dat 'n meer buigsame en verbruikersvriendelike proses van vrae aan die President ingestel moet word, byvoorbeeld dat die President drie of vier keer per jaar in die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies vrae sal beantwoord. Ook dit was onaanvaarbaar. Al die opposisiepartye - die VCDP, die ACDP, die IVP, die Nuwe NP en die DP - het hulle ook geruime tyd beywer om hierdie besluit in die veelpartyswepeforum te voorkom.
Die Wes-Kaap se teenkanting word ook verder duideliker in die lig van die volgende redes. Eerstens druis die besluit in teen die gees van die Grondwet, wat in artikel 92(2) voorsiening maak dat lede van die Kabinet, met inbegrip van die President, afsonderlik en gesamentlik teenoor die Parlement aanspreeklik is. In artikel 42(1) word dit uitdruklik bepaal dat die Parlement uit beide die Nasionale Vergadering en die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies bestaan. Derhalwe sal 'n standpunt van die Konstitusionele Hof oor hierdie aangeleentheid uiters interessant wees.
Tweedens, in die lig van persepsies wat reeds bestaan en verder versterk word in 'n verslag wat oor die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies verskyn het waarin hierdie Raad se doeltreffendheid en provinsiale inspraak bevraagteken word, is dit 'n verdere slag vir die voortbestaan van die genoemde Raad. Voorts plaas dit die ANC se toegewydheid jeens die Grondwet verder onder die soeklig en versterk dit sienings dat die ANC eerder meer sentralisering van regeringsbesluite wil teweeg bring deur die Grondwet te interpreteer en te buig deur gewone wetgewing en parlementre rels.
Derdens plaas hierdie besluit om geen vrae aan die President toe te laat nie 'n denkwyse van die ANC om die magte van provinsies af te skaal tot administratiewe uitvoerende strukture en eerder die magte aan plaaslike regering te versterk en te kontroleer deur regulasies en interowerheidstoekennings weer op die voorgrond.
Vierdens is dit onaanvaarbaar dat die President tyd kan vind om vrae op Cosatu se jaarlikse kongresse te beantwoord terwyl 'n Huis van die Parlement ondergeskik gestel word. Dit skyn ook dat die President se voortdurende buitelandse reise 'n ernstige impak het op sy beskikbaarheid vir die parlementre program.
In die lig van bogenoemde kon die Wes-Kaap nie anders nie as om teen hierdie besluit te stem, wat daarop neerkom dat die ANC se verkiesingsbeloftes van meer deursigtigheid en groter aanspreeklikheid teenoor die kiesers van die RSA in die sand uitloop. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr C ACKERMANN: Madam Chairperson, the Western Cape takes serious exception to this decision that questions to the President will not be allowed in this Council. In fact, there were requests for the implementation of a more flexible and user-friendly questions procedure, for instance that three or four times per year the President would answer questions in the National Council of Provinces. This was also unacceptable. All the opposition parties - the UCDP, the ACDP, the IFP, the New NP and the DP - have been striving for a considerable period of time to avoid this decision in the multiparty whips' forum.
The Western Cape's resistance furthermore also becomes clearer in the light of the following reasons. Firstly, this decision contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, which provides in section 92(2) that members of the Cabinet, including the President, are individually and collectively accountable to Parliament. Section 42(1) categorically stipulates that Parliament consists of both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The position of the Constitutional Court on this matter would therefore be extremely interesting.
Secondly, in the light of perceptions which already prevail and are further amplified in a report that has been published on the National Council of Provinces, in which this Council's efficiency and provincial standing are questioned, this is a further blow to the continued existence of said Council. Furthermore, this places the ANC's loyalty towards the Constitution under the spotlight and it reinforces the view that the ANC would rather bring about more centralised decision-taking by Government by interpreting and bending the Constitution by way of ordinary legislation and parliamentary rules.
Thirdly, this decision not to allow questions to the President once again brings to the fore a school of thought of the ANC of scaling down provincial powers to administrative executive structures and of rather reinforcing the powers of local government and controlling them by way of regulations and intergovernmental allocations.
Fourthly, it is unacceptable that the President can find the time to answer questions at Cosatu's annual congresses, while one of the Houses of Parliament is rendered subordinate. It would also appear that the President's continual overseas trips are having a serious impact on his availability for the parliamentary programme.
In the light of the abovementioned, the Western Cape has had no option but to vote against this decision, which boils down to the ANC's election promises of more transparency and greater accountability towards the electorate of the RSA running out into the sand.]
Madam Chair, the position of Gauteng is that accountability is not only in the form of Question Time. Parliament has a number of other mechanisms of accounting. If the President of the Republic of South Africa does not answer questions in the National Council of Provinces, that does not mean, therefore, that he does not subject himself to the accountability that goes with his office, or that he does not subject himself, in one way or the other, to being accountable to the electorate of this country.
There have been a number of occasions, dealt with in terms of our Rules book, such as matters of public importance, the Presidential Budget debates, etc, when neither the province that objects now, nor other provinces, have taken the opportunity to place such matters on the Order Paper in order to engage the President on such matters. If they have not utilised those mechanisms, it does not therefore mean that the Presidency does not regard itself as accountable to this House.
I must say that from the side of Gauteng we believe that there are a number of other mechanisms in our Rules book that would continue to allow us to engage the President as and when necessary, and we are fully satisfied that this motion is in order.
Order! Hon member, do you wish to raise a point of order?
Yes, Madam Chair. With due respect to my colleague from Gauteng, that was not a declaration of Gauteng's vote. It was a reply to the declaration of vote made for the Western Cape.
Order! Hon member, with due respect, you cannot determine what is Gauteng's declaration. The hon member indicated to me that he was tabling on behalf of Gauteng. I have to accept the bona fides of that, unless you have information available to you which could contradict that. I am afraid you are not raising a point of order.
Well, I can only go by what is said in the Chamber, Madam Chair.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution (Western Cape dissenting and KwaZulu-Natal abstaining).