Hon members, I wish to draw the attention of members to the agreement at the Programme Committee this morning that the debate should focus on the general principles of the matter, not on the specifics which are currently before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have mentioned, the Auditor- General's report on a performance audit of entities that are connected with government employees and doing business with national departments has certainly raised alarming issues. As a Parliament that takes its oversight role seriously, it is proper that we debate the issues highlighted in this report and propose measures to enhance accountability in the Public Service.
Briefly, the report identified 49 employees who were directors or members of entities and doing business with national departments, but failed to declare their financial interests or did not have approval to perform remunerative work outside employment in government. Now, those are the findings.
The rules are quite clear; let's look at that. The code of conduct for the Public Service states:
Employees are expected to place their undivided attention, time and skills at the disposal of the Public Service as employer. The nature and demands of the job in the public sector are such that the interests of both the Public Service and community may be prejudiced by a public servant undertaking remunerative work outside official duties. It is therefore mandatory to obtain prior approval to perform remunerative work outside official hours.
Moreover, the Public Service Act of 1994 states very explicitly that:
No officer or employee shall perform or engage himself or herself to perform remunerative work outside his or her employment in the Public Service, without permission granted by the relevant executive authority or an officer authorised by the said authority.
It is obvious that the conduct of the 49 identified officials is a clear- cut violation of the law. To exacerbate the matter, the report of the Public Service Commission entitled "Overview of the Implementation of the Financial Framework for the Financial Year 2007-08", generally states that the compliance rate for directors-general and their deputies was low. Only 65% of senior officials submitted their disclosure forms after an extended deadline, and only 48% by the due date on 31 May 2008.
Certainly, it then makes sense that the Public Service Commission advises the relevant executive authorities, who are Ministers and MECs, to institute disciplinary action and to charge transgressing heads of departments with misconduct. The Auditor-General echoes these sentiments advocating disciplinary action against officials who violate the rules.
Now, these are the findings and the recommendations of our independent constitutional bodies. The question is: What does the executive say? I only see Madam Minister Motshekga. I would like to hear her response on this, later on. The Minister for the Public Service and Administration, Richard Baloyi - I don't see him here today - addressed the Anticorruption Learning Network in Port Elizabeth last month. He said that this report of the Auditor-General "was the most disturbing news in a long time".
Minister Baloyi further acknowledges that corruption appears to be an entrenched problem. The fact that between 2006 and 2007 reports of corruption to the Public Service Commission's National Anti-Corruption Hotline increased by 46%, supports the Minister's view of the extent of the problem. However, the Minister also said that government needed to fight on and improve its efforts to tackle this problem.
I firmly believe that most members would echo these sentiments. Therefore, the purpose of this debate today is to urge the Minister to fight on. The Public Service will only be able to deliver services effectively and efficiently to all when the executive displays zero tolerance towards corruption, and this was discussed in our Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration. According to my judgment from the discussions, this portfolio committee acknowledges the important oversight work done by other committees, especially Scopa, on this matter.
According to my judgment, the portfolio committee also notes that the Department of Public Service and Administration has already taken steps to enhance accountability of senior officials in national departments and urges the Minister for the Public Service and Administration to ensure that disciplinary action is in fact taken against those officials who fail to declare their financial interests or who did not have approval to perform remunerative work outside their employment in government.
As Minister Baloyi also said at the anticorruption congress in Port Elizabeth, we must raise a hand, raise a finger and do anything, but we must never allow corruption to undermine our hard-won gains. Let us thus heed the call of the Minister and raise a hand, or raise our voices and stop corruption. The battle cry is: Phansi ngenkohlakalo! Phansi! [Down with corruption! Down!]]
HON MEMBERS: Phansi! [Down!]
Madam Deputy Speaker, by supporting these sentiments, Parliament is strengthening the fight against corruption and for an honest Public Service. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. As we have already outlined, this report, which we are presenting today, is confined to specific terms we need to follow. We will definitely oblige, but there might be a lot of similarities from succeeding members because the confinement moves within particular lines.
Hon Deputy Speaker, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and compatriots, ladies and gentlemen, the report of the Auditor-General provides Parliament with a distinct prospect to locate and become the curator of the issues of high morality and societal values. On top of our national agenda is our quest to build a nation with the highest level of ethical conduct and integrity.
In pursuit of a culture of openness and our resolve to fight corruption, the ANC has, since 1994, created a number of checks and balances to disentangle the state from the pitfalls we had identified. The steps we have taken to ensure accountability and transparency include the establishment of a number of public institutions and systems. These include the Public Protector; the Auditor-General, whose report is before the committee and which we are interrogating; the Inspector-General of Intelligence; the Directorate of Special Operations; the protection of whistle-blowers; corruption tip-off lines that the President is very vocal about; the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000; and there are many more that deal with this.
This debate takes place on the occasion when portfolio committees across the board in this Parliament are hard at work studying and interrogating the Auditor-General's findings, for purposes of oversight.
In addition, the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration is occupied with the report of the Public Service Commission, which presents an overview of the implementation of the financial disclosure framework for the 2007-08 financial year. The findings and the concerns of the commission reveal the enormity and lack of discipline in the application of proper procedures within the Public Service. Therefore, Parliament is called upon to assert its oversight authority in this regard.
The Ministry representing the executive authority and the Department of Public Service and Administration wrote letters requesting the implicated department to indicate attempts to address the weaknesses we are talking about. It is of great concern that most departments failed to meet the deadline of 30 June 2009. This means that some of them could not respond on time.
In this instance, we welcome the President's commitment to treat this matter with the urgency it deserves. Most members were in the House yesterday when the President was responding on this matter, and we've all realised that he takes this very seriously.
As the fourth Parliament, we are expected to robustly conduct oversight over these departments that have not played their part. We will leave no stone unturned in doing the duty we are mandated to perform. We are not going to be spectators whilst the legislative instruments put in place by Parliament are undermined by those meant to assist in the execution of their duties.
Failure to do so will mean we have contributed towards the condition of decay in moral values within government in particular, and within the state in general. Parliament should not fail in its quest to effectively hold the executive accountable to foster delivery of services to the citizens of this country.
Chapter 3, section H of the Public Service Regulations clearly stipulates that any designated official who fails to disclose his or her financial interest, or wilfully provides incorrect, misleading details, is guilty of misconduct.
This means that the designated state officials who are alleged not to have declared their financial interests, have to prove that they did comply with this legal requirement in a formal disciplinary inquiry.
We view this report of the Auditor-General against the bedrock of our continuous call to those honoured to serve in public life to protect the integrity and the trust of citizens in public institutions and governance processes. The South African government has put in place these strong measures, through anticorruption legislation and related codes of ethics at different levels of the Public Service, not to catch wrongdoers but rather to protect the state actors against the potential enticement of acting outside ethical norms and standards.
The legislative instruments have been put in place by this august Parliament. However, a parliamentary oversight on the implementation of these measures was found not to be good enough. To remedy the parliamentary oversight deficiency, Parliament must, through the portfolio committees concerned, make an insightful assessment to ascertain the extent of the impact these measures have or have not made.
The national executive, in conjunction with the provincial and local counterparts, should be held accountable by Parliament and provincial legislatures respectively in the implementation of these existing anticorruption instruments.
Although the report of the Auditor-General does not pass judgment on the guilt or otherwise of the outcome of any disciplinary inquiries that may be instituted, transgression is alleged, and there might be those who have a case to answer.
We must desist from calling for action even before guilt has been established. In the process of correcting the deterioration in moral standing, we should not undermine the rights of those who deserve the right to substantive and procedural fairness.
The success of the South African state and the sustenance of our hard- earned democracy depend on the commitment to observe and respect the established rules and standards set to guide our behaviour and conduct, by all who chose to serve the interests of the nation in public office. When we discuss the report of the Auditor-General today, it should serve as a broader developmental and unifying effort to cultivate a new culture for social cohesion in order to unify our commitment towards a transparent and accountable public life. We must do so for the poor who are the main motivating force in the broad national developmental front and, therefore, the main intended beneficiaries of the national Reconstruction and Development Programme.
In our attempt to unravel the state from this scourge, the state should institutionalise the requirements for accepting into its rank all who commit and abide by its anticorruption policies and objectives.
Screening and vetting of potential state employees, for security clearance and to assess their track record for high-ranking positions, is a regular requirement in mature democracies. The NIA is an institution meant to conduct such processes.
The committee will, in future, call those departments that are not complying with the requirements to appear before it, in line with the existing parliamentary oversight mechanisms. The measures put in place by the Minister are most welcome and should also take into account the legislative gaps that have been identified by the Auditor-General. This is with an aim to restore the moral high ground that our people used to be known for.
The future debate on this matter should be located within the context of our broad national effort, as a nation united in our resolve to create a people-centred, democratic, nonracial, nonsexist society and prosperity while occupying the moral high ground. Thank you.
Hon Ramatlakane, this is your maiden speech, isn't it? [Interjections.]
I thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would make a ruling that during a maiden speech, in terms of tradition, there is no heckling. [Interjections.]
That's why, hon member, I am mentioning that they won't heckle you, but you must not provoke them.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much. When the rot of fraud and the fermentation of corruption started to eat away the trust of the people in the state, Cope was regarded as a disgruntled lot.
When the call was made for the distinction between party and state in order for those party deployees to be mindful that they are in the service of the state and should not be rewarded, Cope was called a bunch of sore losers.
We are making this charge today because it is with a profound sense of vindication that even Cosatu, only now, has identified tenders as "the biggest enemy of the revolution".
Tenders, as the largest enterprise in our economy, have become a source of great depression for the vulnerable youth of our country and a source of more despair for the poor and aspirant SMMEs. This sordid state of affairs is mechanised by some in the Public Service, especially in the SMS band, who are entrusted with the confidence of the people to transact, on their behalf, equitably and justifiably for the good of the greater society.
The government has failed to ensure compliance with the following provisions of law: the Public Service Act of 1994 as amended; Public Service Regulations; the Public Finance Management Act of 1999; the Treasury Regulations and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I must emphasise that, as the chairperson of the committee has in fact indicated, the Minister was informed about this violation of the Act and has so far not acted. This has now placed a black cloud over the entire state when, in fact, it may not be necessary. These laws were ratified by this very House after laborious deliberations. However, enforcement is the noble duty of a government that is tasked by the electorate - and this government is. As Cope, we have been horrified by the fact that 434 officials in the Public Service have failed to declare their commercial interests and activities. The Auditor-General has reported on that. Of course, it is suggested that R540 million is in question and this being verified. We are further repulsed that 30 of these officials have acted against these interests and activities in the very department where they, in fact, had influence and authority.
In line with President Zuma's statement yesterday, when he was responding to the Cope leader hon Dandala, he said that government is committed to rooting out corruption. In response, we are unsure whether this can be the truth, but we want to make a call on the Minister to investigate the allegation that a certain Mr Zondi, a director of acquisition in the SANDF, might have vested interests in a company called Origin Exchange Consulting (Pty) Ltd. This company appears to have the same registered address, 2 Jessica Place, Kloof, KwaZulu-Natal, as Mr Zondi's company, Oak Trading 190 (Pty) Ltd.
Interestingly, Origin Exchange, which won the tender bid B/G/894/08, during a moratorium period, did not meet the tender criteria of five years of ordnance removal experience, and invoiced the Department of Defence on 22 June 2009 when the tender was only awarded in August this year!
These officials are fishing in the sink and dealing a double blow to the country by hiding some ill-gotten riches and not paying tax as they are keeping the money away from prying eyes.
In this regard, we are talking about an amount of over half a billion rand that is in question in the fiscal year. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly, I want to congratulate hon Ramatlakane on his maiden speech and I want to thank hon Dreyer for ensuring that this motion is placed on the Order Paper, notwithstanding the fact that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, has not completed their report. But, as you said, hon Dreyer, Minister Baloyi on some occasion said that the more people lift their hands, the more people raise their voices and the more people create awareness against this scourge of corruption, the better. And I am glad that this matter is being discussed in this House this afternoon.
The government departments and employees are funded by taxpayers and they should, therefore, have the best interests of the South African public at heart. I would go so far as to say that they should be examples in ethical business practices. The reality, however, could not be more different. Corruption and nepotism are words that are synonymous with the way that some of the national departments conduct their business practices, with dishonesty and fraudulent behaviour rife amongst some employees.
The sad fact of the matter is that not all government employees are corrupt, but because of the actions of some of their colleagues they are deemed to be corrupt by association.
This behaviour not only affects the performance of the national departments and their ability to fulfil their mandates, but it also contributes to the negativity surrounding national departments and government employees, and entrenches a culture of corruption within government.
Hon members and hon Deputy Speaker, these actions must be stopped and anybody found guilty of unethical business practices must be dealt with, regardless of who they know or who they are related to. Corrupt behaviour must not be tolerated and this culture of dishonesty which seems to be entrenched in some of our national departments must be weeded out.
The senior officials in national departments must lead by example and realise that they are dealing with our money. The starting point in ridding departments of corrupt behaviour, is to make examples of senior officials found guilty of unethical behaviour and not let them get away. We cannot expect the employees to be models of honesty when their supervisors are corrupt. To this end, we would like to propose a name and shame approach because if any official is caught putting his hands in the cookie jar and fingers in the till, then he or she must be named. The reason we are saying this is that during our hearings we discovered that there were officials who were moving from department to department, and some from the national department to provinces. They were accused of unethical behaviour in some departments, but they were employed by other departments down the line. So, if there is a database of these employees, then everybody will be extra careful.
But, as I said yesterday, the responsibility lies with the executing authority, and that is the Ministers. The Ministers have to see to it that the directors-general ensure that senior managers adhere to simple things like disclosure of financial interests.
And also, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hon members of this House, it is the time of the year when annual reports are going to be tabled by all departments. Some questions must be asked as a matter of course when annual reports are being dealt with: Had all senior managers declared their financial interest; does any senior manager in your department have interests in any business and has that been declared?
Lastly, we would like to propose - and there has been news about this - a moratorium on all senior officials of government departments when they resign or leave the department to join the private sector with regard to getting tenders from the departments in which they were working. We must put an end to this and maybe there should be a grace period of one year or so, when they can't involve themselves in the private sector so that they benefit from tenders. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, this report by the Auditor-General presents some very worrying results. Whilst there are insufficient legal provisions in place to preclude public servants from doing business with the government, it can't be right that the government must provide employment for its citizens, who then use state coffers as a cash cow to further their own greed, especially in a country where millions of South Africans are living in abject poverty.
The ID is firmly of the view that public servants are employed to serve the people of our country and not to milk the state of its resources. Public servants must decide whether they want to serve our country or go into business with the government, but they must certainly not be allowed to do both.
The millions of rands earned by government employees through business deals with the government could have been better used to create opportunities for the many micro businesses in our country that are already struggling to survive.
The ID therefore calls for an urgent review of the Public Service Regulations and calls on the government to implement urgent corrective measures to prevent this abuse of our public resources. I thank you.
Deputy Speaker and hon members, one of the central pillars of ethical governance is that public servants should not have a conflict of interest between their daily duties and their private business interests. This principle is well established throughout the world because of the obvious danger that such conflicts of interests will lead to collusion, tender fraud and other forms of corruption.
This form of corruption also has an inevitable further negative consequence, because in most such cases the service or product that is delivered to or on behalf of the Public Service is usually of inferior quality.
In our country we have seen widespread Public Service inefficiency and a growing resentment at ground level about this, which translate into violent community protests.
The UDM urges government to act swiftly to discipline, and where necessary, prosecute, those public servants who are fingered in the Auditor-General's report. We also urge the ruling party to live up to its often-repeated ... [Time expired.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the ACDP wishes to thank the hon Anchen Dreyer for raising this very important issue. We believe that public servants who have businesses should not transact at all with the state as there is clearly a potential for a conflict of interest. In our view it is not sufficient for such public servants to obtain approval or disclose their interests. The potential still remains for tender rigging, fraud and corruption. And that potential is too high.
Why do we say that? The Public Service Commission's director-general advised Scopa during the hearing that in fact there is a regression in disclosure and monitoring of conflicts of interest. According to her, in some cases noncompliance has become habitual, with about 10% of senior managers actively refusing to disclose their financial interests.
Over the past years several investigations by the Public Service Commission and the Auditor-General have identified the same problems with no noticeable improvement in the way the state conducts its business. On the contrary, large numbers of serious breaches continue to be identified, such as those being investigated by Scopa at present. Besides this being an issue of probity and conflicts of interest, it also goes to the heart of service delivery, with those having business interests undoubtedly spending time on their businesses at the cost of service delivery.
In view of this the question arises whether public servants should be allowed to run private companies at all.
During Scopa's hearings the view was strongly expressed that serious consideration should be given to completely outlawing outside remunerative activities by public servants, and particularly senior managers.
The ACDP agrees with this. Such a step would simplify public administration and reduce the ethical complexities and suspicion that continue to cloud our public sector.
In view of the huge challenges facing us in regard to service delivery, isn't it time for such a step? Public servants, particularly senior managers, should accept their often lucrative salaries and get on with doing the job taxpayers have paid them to do instead of moonlighting; perhaps then service delivery will improve. I thank you.
Motlatsa Mmusakgotla, Motlatsa semesegole wa Kokoano Boset?haba, Maloko a Palamente, ke a lo dumedisa. [Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party, Members of Parliament, I greet you all.]
Deputy Speaker, in 1995 our former President and icon, Nelson Mandela, during his opening speech at the Business Initiative Against Corruption and Crime in Kempton Park emphasised the following, and I quote:
We need a collective sense of mission to change mindsets and to steer the nation away from a dangerous course. We need to take decisive measures to strengthen the moral fibre of our nation.
Again the national executive committee of the ANC in its January statement of 2009 stated clearly that we need to defend the gains of the national democratic revolution. Therefore, having said the above, as the ruling party, we will do everything in our power to protect the interests of this country. It is our mandate; it is our responsibility from Polokwane.
Again the President, who is also the president of the ANC, said yesterday, and I quote: "We won't tolerate or condone any wrongdoing; rules are rules". I really agree with him 100%.
Se ke bokao jo bo totobetseng jo bo bontshang gore puso e e eteletsweng pele ke mokgatlho wa ANC e tsaya tshenyego ka tshisibalo, e bile ke rona re tlileng ka ntlha ya tshenyego mo pusong. Ga go ope yo o tlileng go re etelela pele mabapi le yona. Re tla nna re e setse morago. (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[This is evidence that the ANC-led government takes corruption seriously; it is also us who came forward to expose corruption in government. No one is going to lead us on this issue. We will keep on following it up.]
The hearings on 6 July 2009 before Parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts have provided us with disturbing accounts of activities by senior public servants which need a coherent and united response as we begin the fouth democratic Parliament. This unethical conduct by some public officials - of course, it is not all of them - destroys the trust of citizens in public institutions and governance processes. It is beyond reproach and despicable. When dealing with this matter, both the corrupt and the corrupted must be dealt with accordingly.
It is from this premise that we condemn all the acts of greed by some senior officials for not declaring their interests when doing business with government, as well as giving business to their families, friends and relatives. Of course, the law allows them to perform remunerative work, but there must be an approval in this regard. And in this case that the Auditor- General referred to, there was no approval.
We also note that the critics say that several investigations by the Public Service Commission and Auditor-General over the past years have identified the same problems with no noticeable improvement. This clearly shows that somebody somewhere is not doing his or her job in terms of the monitoring and implementation of decisions taken by this highest institution.
The fact of the matter is that as government and as South Africa we have good systems. Is the current framework tight enough and effective enough to deal with the challenges? If not, something needs to be done to add spice on this issue.
In conclusion, one recognises oneself as a member of the ANC and a member of this House. My duties, amongst other things, are to represent the people and ensure government by the people and, importantly for this debate today, to scrutinise and oversee executive action.
The Polokwane conference resolved that the ANC must provide leadership to society as a whole, including the opposition, in the fight against corruption. In my view, this will ensure that we steer the nation away from dangerous courses and we are charged with the spirit of faster and better change, hoping all shall join us in the change of mindset, including opposition parties.
Re rata go leboga kantoro ya Moruni Kakaretso wa Aforika Borwa mo tirong e ntle e a e dirileng go fitlha fa. Ke a leboga. [We would like to thank the office of the Auditor-General of South Africa for the good work that they have done so far. Thank you.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, we need to be clear on what we are speaking about. Public officials, like MPs, own property, they have retirement funds, they have pensions, and they own shares through those pension funds. Those are legitimate private interests, and we are not talking about those. We are concerned with public servants who own and operate businesses which do business with government. That is the issue, and that is the concern when it comes to the conflict of interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps in an ideal world the political, business and government sectors would all exist in neat little compartments but, of course, they don't. Despite our official policy of cadre deployment, South Africa still has a form of government and a political culture which has more in common with the Commonwealth than with the American model.
We continue to believe in the ideal of a Public Service which is impartial and apolitical. Once appointed to a senior management position, we South Africans honestly believe that public servants will operate in the best interests of all citizens and will make decisions impartially and without fear or favour. It is a sign of our continued optimism that even when this manifestly is not the case, we can still be disappointed.
The Public Service Commission report reveals that many public servants have either deliberately or negligently avoided making full declaration of their personal and business interests. Some are even serial offenders who have repeatedly refrained from making such disclosure. The Public Service Commission report indicates that there are grey areas in our code of conduct for public servants, concerning the precise definition of what constitutes remunerative work.
The sheer size of some of the contracts awarded to companies linked to officials who have not disclosed their interests demands that current policy and procedures be thoroughly reviewed. At the very least, nondisclosure must in future have serious disciplinary consequences for the officials concerned.
I'd like to suggest some examples from elsewhere in the Commonwealth that we could consider, for example, the use of inside information or insider trading, to use the commercial parlance, which is now regulated in the Australian code of conduct. Both Australia and Canada have created positions for ethics or integrity commissioners, especially to enforce compliance with their codes of conduct. Canada makes blind trusts obligatory for public service office holders, while the 2007 code of conduct for New Zealand public servants allows state departments to prohibit certain types of financial interests as a condition of employment by that department.
We, in Parliament, need to do more to ensure that the national and provincial Ministers and MECs do what is required of them, which is simply to hold their senior officials accountable. We need to take seriously the problems uncovered by the Public Service Commission and the Auditor-General and move swiftly to improve the way the risks of conflicts of interests are managed, are reported on and are, above all, complied with by all public officials at all levels of government. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you.
Deputy Speaker, the research that was conducted with government to check the number of employees who have companies and closed corporations that are in business with government departments, has revealed for the years 2005 to 2007 an amount of R615 million. Also, the research indicates 2 319 government officials who had interests in companies and did business with the government.
The UCDP, therefore, having listened to the debates and facts presented by my colleagues and also members of Scopa, would like to support the suggestion that the disclosure of interest should be compulsory for employees; not only for them but also their related parties, including family members and close friends. Another suggestion is that the SBD 4 Declaration of Interest form be amended to include spouses, directorships, shareholding and memberships in companies that had transacted with the state in the previous 12 months of the financial year, and that an integration of the PSC system and the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office, Cipro, be considered. We would like to say, let the law take its course with the offenders so that the taxpayers' funds can be recovered.
Letsogo la molao le letelele. A ba ba sentseng ba tlhagisiwe, madi a set?haba a bolokesege. Re a leboga. [Legofi.] [The arm of the law is long. Let those that have committed a crime be exposed, so that public funds can be safe. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, comrades and friends, our area of deployment as Members of Parliament and Scopa, in particular, is to make sure that the public purse is utilised for intended purposes, as appropriated for by this House. In doing so, we analyse the past performance and financial conduct in our public entities and departments in order to produce the future outcomes that deliver value to citizens whose hard-earned money we are enjoined by the Constitution to oversee.
That is why we interrogate the report of the Auditor-General with keen interest. If the above supposition is correct, we then have to reflect and honestly answer the question: Are we, as Parliament, heeding the call to ensure that we perform clean audits of our departments and entities over which we are charged to perform oversight? Is it morally defensible that 15 years down the line after democracy, corruption in our governance structures remains something of a pandemic?
All of us here have no option but to root out corruption in all its manifestations, lest our dream for an equal society and a better life for all remains just that - a dream perpetually deferred. The time has come for this House to raise the bar on its oversight role without pondering on party-political positions.
Firstly, we need to send a very clear message out there, to all accounting officers, that they must take the work of this Parliament and its committees very seriously. We shall no longer allow shoddy preparations when appearing before Scopa or any parliamentary committee, and we will demand timeous and honest answers. Some of them simply just go there and lie. Scopa, being charged to lead, can not tolerate that anymore.
It is not our business, though, to name and shame people, but we expect administrators and managers to manage public funds and to work efficiently. In this regard, we would like to endorse the call by the President for a corruption-free society.
We all agree, even with the worst of the opposition, for the first time, that this debate has matured. The report firstly came in August or September last year. Scopa raised the matter very sharply, and we see that everybody is talking about it and it is also a subject of the media. When the member from the DA proposed this matter, we said: "Oh my God, this is opportunistic!" We were still seized with the matter and were dealing with it as effectively as possible.
There is a need for senior public officials to maintain high standards and professional ethics. We cannot compromise on that one. There is a need for regulations regarding financial disclosure, which are aimed at preventing incidents of conflict of interest before they occur.
That's where we have a problem with the current regulations, because our job, as I have alluded to earlier, is a post-mortem issue. We come after the act has been committed. In this regard, we appeal to the implicated departments for an early-warning sign.
The new regulations require that there must be quarterly reports. That is where we expect the departments to come on board so we can check these things, because ours is really a post-mortem, but a very useful one in that by interrogating them - some of them understand what it means to appear before Scopa - we shape future occurrences.
The regulatory initiative did not occur in a vacuum. It is underpinned by political objectives and choices. We have documents in this regard, and they are ready to govern. In 1992 we said, on professional ethics in the Public Service, that public servants should be impartial in their functioning and should be accountable to both Parliament and the broad community they serve. The ANC further said in its National General Council in Pretoria in 2005, that we needed to investigate measures to deal with potential conflicts of interest. The ANC is equally serious about this. Like I said, if you have followed the interrogations and the public hearings we've had, you will realise that the ANC is as robust as any other party in those hearings, and we want to own it because it is in our interest; this is our government. We want to see the ANC winning its fight against poverty and corruption and to make sure that we realise our long-standing dream of making a better life for all.
That is why we are very serious about this. We said that we want to investigate measures to deal with potential conflicts of interest relating to access to work in the public sector.
Furthermore, in Polokwane, we resolved on ethics and the integration of the Public Service. Furthermore, with regard to the development on policy, post- tenure, the cooling-off period - I know hon Singh has referred to it - it is our policy. We are raising it as the ANC because we want to make sure that people are accountable; they don't use their positions to enrich themselves. We use every resource the country can amass to better the lives of the people. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, today is indeed a historic day. Parliament has entered a new phase in its life. By allowing this debate, the Speaker has ensured that Parliament is taking its rightful place as an oversight body that holds the executive to account. Moreover, Members of Parliament have shown this afternoon that it is possible to stand together on issues of national importance. [Applause.]
I will briefly highlight a few of the views expressed in the debate. Hon Moloi-Moropa, chairperson of the portfolio committee, reiterated, once again, her and the party's support for accountability and transparency, and she spoke in favour of the sentiments expressed in this debate. Thank you very much, hon Moloi-Moropa.
Her feelings were echoed by the last speaker, hon Mbili, who said that Parliament has matured, and that we should now look at raising the bar and setting even higher standards for our public servants. I think this idea has found general favour with some of the other speakers who also spoke here today.
Hon Singh of the IFP, thank you for the compliment, by the way. Has he gone? There he is. You expressed yourself unambiguously and strongly in favour of this issue, and you also strongly want us to strengthen the hand of the executive to enforce rules and regulations.
Hon Ramatlakane of Cope, in his usually quiet, considered and balanced style, was giving his maiden speech today. He was a bit nervous, but said something very important. He said that tenders have become the source of depression; and I agree with him because it is especially affecting the youth who are mostly unemployed. When there is corruption, it's the poor who suffer the most.
Hon Swart of the ACDP articulated his party's support very coherently and in a logical manner, like a true advocate. He also asked for a review of the Public Service handbook. This was also echoed by other members in the UCDP and ID. I think it's an excellent idea.
In the end, what it boils down to is that all of us agree with Minister Baloyi when he said that government should improve its efforts to tackle corruption and to fight on for effective service delivery. Consequently, I want to urge the Minister for the Public Service and Administration to ensure that disciplinary action is taken against those officials who failed to declare their financial interests or did not have approval to perform remunerative work outside their employment in government.
Parliament has expressed itself firmly against corruption and for an honest Public Service. Thank you for a lovely debate. [Applause.]