The composition of the Cabinet and the appointment of Deputy Ministers is the prerogative of the President. The President is under no obligation to explain the reasons for his actions in this regard. However, I did indicate on 31 October, when we announced changes to the national executive, that, having spent 17 months in government, we have had time to study the functioning of the current administration and we were able to ascertain what works and what needs to be changed or strengthened.
We were guided by the mission of our government, which is to improve the quality of life of all South Africans, especially the poor, working with all our people. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the former members of Cabinet for their contribution to government and to the nation during their term of office. I thank you. [Applause.]
Agb Speaker, agb President, die VF Plus verwelkom ... [Hon Speaker, hon President, the FF Plus welcomes ...] I will change to English just now, Mr President.
Die VF Plus verwelkom uit die aard van die saak enige verbetering in dienslewering. Wat egter nie sin maak nie, is die afdanking van persone en voormalige Ministers soos die agb Barbara Hogan en Geoff Doidge wat goeie prestasie gelewer het. U het ges wat nie werk nie moet weer reggemaak word om te werk. Hulle het gewerk, want dit was twee moeilike portefeuljes.
Verder moet u u nie laat mislei deur te dink dat al u Ministers wat nou hier sit, altyd in die Huis is as hulle moet werk nie. Hulle sit hier om u te bendruk, want gister met die Aansuiweringsbegrotingswetsontwerp was daar 10 Ministers - eintlik net 9, want een het darem 'n amptelike verskoning gehad - wat nie teenwoordig was nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The FF Plus naturally welcomes any improvement in service delivery. However, what does not make sense is the dismissal of individuals and former Ministers like hon Barbara Hogan and Geoff Doidge, who performed well. You said that if something is not working the situation should be rectified to make it work. They were working, because those were two difficult portfolios.
Furthermore, do not allow yourself to be misled by thinking that all Ministers who are present now are always in the House when work needs to be done. They are sitting here to impress you, because yesterday when we dealt with the Adjustments Appropriation Bill there were 10 Ministers who were not present - actually only 9, because one of them at least had an official apology.]
The FF Plus welcomes any improvement in service delivery. What we do not understand is why former Ministers, Barbara Hogan and Geoff Doidge, were replaced. They have done a good job and you said that if something does not work, you have to replace it with something that works. They had two very difficult portfolios which were in chaos and they have done a good job. My first follow-up on that one is whether you would agree that it was not only service delivery but also political situations that you had to consider.
Secondly, you must not be misled by the fact that when you are in this House, all your Ministers are sitting here. Yesterday, with the Appropriation Bill or the additional one, where the Ministers came to this House and asked for more money, nine of them were absent. They could not even answer the questions of the opposition. Would you agree that that is disrespectful towards this House and that you should do something about that? Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, the hon member has his own view of what happens; it is normal for a person of the opposition. I don't think anybody will be surprised by that. I don't think the hon member would want the President to discuss the reasons why one person is replaced and not the other. It has never been done. Rather join the party that is ruling. [Applause.] Then you will benefit from the inside discussions.
I am sure that the hon member asks but he knows we cannot give an answer. Certainly, it was informed by what the President said and not by what other people think informed the decisions. I am sure that is very clear.
With regard to the Ministers who were not here during the time of the discussions in Parliament about the Appropriation Bill, it is very difficult to answer the question here because you said it happened yesterday. I don't know what the reasons are because some of them might have been engaged in other kinds of commitments that they could not avoid. I don't know. If you want me to comment on that, it will be an unfair comment. It is unfair to judge people if you don't know the reasons. I don't do that, absolutely not. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Speaker. Hon President, with respect, the first duty of Ministers is to account to this House. Other arrangements which are made need to be put aside because this is where their duties and responsibilities lie; this is where accountability lies.
Would you not agree that a change in Ministry or members of Cabinet is part of the solution? Isn't one of the real problems the whole question of unskilled people who are not fit for purpose or cadre deployment in officialdom because that is where real delivery will take place? Real delivery will take place when officials are fit for purpose, skilled and appropriate for the job that they have been designated to. It is then that service delivery will take place. You are quite right in one respect. Your Presidency will be defined by the extent to which delivery takes place. Ministers are one thing, but officials need to be addressed as well.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon member, firstly, I would like to respond to the first comment you have made that Ministers are firstly responsible to this House. Part of the reason why I did not want to venture to answer that question is because I don't know whether their commitment is as a result of the instructions from this House. How would I know? [Interjections.] No, I am answering the question, not how you feel. I really don't know. If they are answerable to this House, this House instructs the Ministers, as they do the oversight, to do x, y and z. If it was as a result of that, why should I condemn them? That is why I am saying that I can't condemn people if I don't know the facts. It doesn't change my answer that I gave.
Secondly, with regard to reasons, I can see that they are trying their level best to search the reasons. They are not related to inefficiency or lack of skills, not at all. It is totally not related to that. Remove that out of your mind and just accept what has happened. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Speaker. President, I understand, and we all agree, that you appoint Ministers because it is your prerogative and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa empowers you to do so. However, as you do that, would you want to use your prerogative to appoint these Ministers just to keep them in your Cabinet when they are adding no value to service delivery, which is the primary task of the government that you are leading?
If service delivery is the primary task, you would not appoint them just to keep them safe in their positions. Why would you keep a Minister under whose leadership collapsing municipalities have become a daily norm? The Ingquza Hill Local Municipality of the very same Minister, Minister Shiceka, in the Eastern Cape has not been able to hold a council meeting for two consecutive years. The council cannot do its business. It cannot focus on service delivery, and it cannot serve the people of that area because of the political infighting in that municipality. You are at the helm of the Cabinet and have the prerogative. Why would you keep such people? Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, of course, the hon member has her own view of things and, naturally, as an opposition member, she will have her own view. You have a very specific case that you mention, which is a place you would know better. I don't have the facts of the place you are talking about but I take it that you talk about a place you know. This is a place in Ingquza. It is one place.
This minute, I am dealing with the whole country. You are not asking me why I keep a Minister when the whole country is collapsing. [Applause.] If it was, you would have said so. I don't think one can take serious decisions based on one issue. It is your view, but as far as I'm concerned, that Minister has been working and is very active. He has done a lot in terms of that department, and that is why I have kept him. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Speaker. President, the ID would like to commend you for the courage that you have shown with the reshuffling of your Cabinet. However, it is unclear whether the reshuffle was about service delivery or internal ANC politics. We would like to know the rationale behind your decision. Why would I first have to join the ANC to know the reasons? They are public representatives and we have a right to know the reasons. We would like you to take us into your confidence by releasing these performance audit reports. Finally, when did the Ministers sign the performance agreements, and will you ever release those reports? [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, I stated my reasons why I have made changes. I am not going to consider any suggestion that is made different from that because there is no reason to do so. It is the imagination of whomever that this is about internal things in the ANC. It is imagination, absolutely. I stated the reasons and I am not going beyond that. The reason why I said the hon member should join the ANC is that you cannot know the internal matters of the ANC from a distance. You will have to be inside because we can't discuss our internal things with you. It is impossible. If you feel very eager to be part of changing government, win the elections. That is a simple thing to do. Then you have the right to do so. [Applause.]
Don't worry; the matter is as clear as anything. The agreements were signed and we have said it will be made public; it is not a secret. At the right time, we will publish it. It is an agreement that we have signed with the Ministers. We said so, and it is not the first time we are saying it. Thank you.
Policy to ensure co-ordinated execution of independent mandates by three spheres of government
22. Mr L P Khoarai (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:
What policy has he put in place in terms of the Constitutional provision of co-operative government to ensure that the three spheres of government execute their independent mandates in a co-ordinated and cohesive manner? NO3910E
Hon Speaker, all spheres of government must observe and adhere to the principles of co-operative government, as depicted in Chapter 3 of the Constitution. It is an intergovernmental obligation across national, provincial and local government.
Provinces and local government have to exercise their authority within a framework and direction set and supervised by national government. As early as 1998, the Presidential Review Commission had reported on the challenges of co-ordination within and between the different spheres, which created incapacity with regard to implementing programmes and services.
An extensive period of consultation was undertaken to inform the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act promulgated in 2005. Last year, government began working on a White Paper on Co-operative Governance, which is currently a draft Green Paper. It is due for submission for comments by February 2011.
The purpose of this policy paper is to strengthen key elements of the system. These include some reforms in the exercise of powers and functions across government in order to clarify and simplify the executive obligations of each sphere. Closely related to this is a process of reviewing the intergovernmental planning system.
A third and critical element is the strengthening of the supervision and intervention capacities of national and provincial government. This is in order to provide for timely interventions when municipalities are in distress. In this way, appropriate action may be taken before a situation escalates and impacts negatively on communities.
Finally, our outcomes approach to governance is fundamentally co-operative in its conception and practice across government. Each of the 12 delivery agreements that have been signed depends on the co-operation of a range of partners in the three spheres - Ministers, MECs and mayors.
I am honoured to join the NCOP, this Friday, when it meets at the Charles Mopedi Stadium in Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality in the Free State province. We will be celebrating co-operative governance in practice, urging all spheres of government to work together to speed up the delivery of services. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Speaker. Good afternoon, Mr President. Mr President, if you look at the municipal system - you said just now that we should not look at one municipality only, but at the whole lot - you see that it is, in fact, a bit of a mess. The reason for the mess is the failure of the intergovernmental relations system. At least we will give you credit for taking the initiative to hold an indaba last year and set the ball rolling for a turnaround strategy.
The question that arises is: What are you going to do about the provinces? The reason for such a question is due to the fact that I don't think you have grounds to be proud of what is happening in all the provinces. There are problems of governance, maladministration, corruption, nepotism and lack of service delivery all over the place. The Eastern Cape, North West and Northern Cape are really badly run. As for Mpumalanga, I am not quite sure if it is run by a party or by the mafia. [Interjections.] So, we have real problems.
My question to you, Mr President, is - in fact, I have three questions. Firstly, would you not consider holding a provincial indaba - as you did a municipal indaba - including the legislatures to discuss improving the governance of the provinces?
Secondly, are you satisfied that your Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs is devoting sufficient time to the provinces? What I see is a department of local government, despite the name change. I am glad that there is a Green Paper coming out, but in terms of actual activity and engagement with the provinces, I don't see a lot of it.
Thirdly, what does your performance agreement with the Minister have to say about his responsibilities in terms of improving the performance of the provinces? Thank you.
Thank you, hon Speaker. I am happy that the hon member acknowledges that we have called an indaba to discuss this issue. In the meantime, there is a Green Paper that is coming, which we will all have time to comment on and help find solutions where we think there are serious problems. Certainly, the proposal that we should have even a bigger indaba, I don't think is a problem, if we all agree there is a need to do so in trying to deal with the issues that affect our provinces and municipalities.
Certainly, we are together in that. I think your being here in Parliament is for the oversight that you are talking about. You are asking questions so that we can look into those matters if they are matters that need to be given attention.
As you have correctly said, there are processes with regard to this, and we must always bear in mind that we are talking about three spheres of government. I hope you are not saying that the Minister must now run provinces, because it is a co-operative governance issue. Provinces have their space within which they must do their work. So, you can't say the Minister must now go to that level because, again, it will be contravening the Constitution. So, we have got to do everything within the context of the Constitution.
I think the Minister has done his work. He has gone there to research and found all the difficulties and challenges. He has been talking about the turnaround strategy precisely because he has discovered what the problems are. I think the Green Paper will be addressing those issues, and ordinary South Africans, MPs and everybody will have an opportunity to participate to help improve the system. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon President, would you not agree that the biggest barrier in delivering services to the poor is not the lack of co-ordination but, rather, the fact that individual municipalities are crippled by lack of skills, are inefficiently run, and are rife with corruption? [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Speaker. Well, these are some of the factors that we have mentioned and that have to be taken into consideration. We have said that, as the majority government, we are going to take measures to deal with some of those issues.
Corruption is an issue that we are dealing with at every level. I think it is important to make the point that it is not every municipality or council that is corrupt. I think the majority are very good citizens who are working for this country. It is the minority that is corrupt, which all of us have to deal with.
We also have to deal with the question of skills. However, we have got to identify where the gaps are, specifically, and then make our move. I think it would be very useful, at some point, that when people raise issues they are able to say that this particular council or this man is inefficient so that we look at the issue. At times, the generalisation does not help.
If I move from here, where do I go if there is a claim that there is inefficiency? I think it would be important, particularly for those who are doing oversight, to be very meticulous in collecting information so that they can say here is municipality A or B and there is problem X, Y and Z so that we can focus on that one.
I will be very happy if issues are raised in that fashion so that we can then address them. That is the point I want to make because, otherwise, we could generalise and end up not knowing where to go. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon President, in October 2009, Mr Yunus Carrim bemoaned the lack of co-ordination and cohesion in the different spheres of government. The Human Sciences Research Council, in its submission to the Budget Policy Statement, supported this position. Back in 2004, the then Department of Provincial and Local Government's indaba also raised the same issue of lack of co-ordination amongst the different spheres of government.
Recently, where there were problems of service delivery, the reports have identified some of these problems. In spite of all of this, there is no indication that this problem is subsiding. Is it lack of will on the part of the institutions or government to solve this problem? Is it lack of capacity, or is it because there is a problem in our institutional arrangement in the different spheres of government?
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon member, I think, in the previous answers that I have just given, I said that there has been research to find out these issues accompanied by the indaba that discussed these issues, as you correctly say. The Minister has repeatedly said that we now have a turnaround strategy, precisely to remedy these problems. We have just said that the paper that is being prepared is about to be released so that we - all of us, including you; not only government - have an opportunity to comment on it. You will be able to say what it is that you think needs to be done in order to correct what we believe are the problems. We are going to have an opportunity to do that.
I have just said that that is a process which is ongoing. Nobody is saying we have done everything. We are saying that, given the problems, we have researched and identified them. There is now a strategy to address them. However, before the strategy is implemented, there is a paper that allows us to make healthy contributions to help the process and, therefore, help the system. I am sure that you will have an opportunity, hon member, to make a contribution, knowing you as I do. [Applause.]
Particulars regarding South Africa's use of its position on UN Security Council to advance human rights and free political activity
23. Rev K R J Meshoe (ACDP) asked the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether South Africa will use its position on the United Nations Security Council to advance human rights and free political activity in countries such as Myanmar and Zimbabwe; if so,
(2) whether it will include supporting sanctions against countries that fail to respect human rights and do not allow free political activity; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?