Ke a leboga, Modulasetulo. [Thank you, Chairperson.]
The 124th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly will convene from 15 to 20 April in Panama City, under the theme "Parliamentary Accountability: Living up to People's Expectations". This topic will form part of the broad political debate. As part of the assembly agenda, there will be other areas of focus that standing committees will deal with.
The first standing committee will focus on the topic "Providing a Sound Legislative Framework Aimed at Preventing Electoral Violence, Improving Election Monitoring and Ensuring Smooth Transition of Power". The second standing committee will focus on "The Role of Parliaments in Ensuring Sustainable Development through the Management of Natural Resources, Agricultural Production and Demographic Change". The final standing committee, of which I am a member and a reportee, will focus on "Transparency and Accountability in the Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns".
The other important meeting that will take place during this assembly will be the women parliamentarians' meeting, where matters that generally affect women in parliaments will be considered.
I would like to start by quoting President Mandela after the elections in 1994, when he said:
I watched, along with all of you, as tens of thousands of our people stood patiently in long queues for many hours, some sleeping on the open ground overnight, waiting to cast their momentous vote. South African's heroes are legend across the generations. But it is you, the people, who are our true heroes.
This was the birth of democracy in our country and a situation or a position where many nations in the world today wish to be and long for.
Parliamentarians across the globe have a responsibility to work together with communities and governments to protect democracy. It is important to indicate that at the heart of democracy and elements of democracy is participation in the decision-making process by all citizens.
Participatory democracy is a process emphasising the broad participation of constituencies in the direction and operation of political systems. It strives to create opportunities for all members to make meaningful contributions to decision-making and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.
We have seen the change that was longed for by many of our liberators, heroes and heroines. In his presidential address at the annual conference of the ANC's Natal branch on 31 October 1953 in Ladysmith, President Albert Luthuli said:
One is either for freedom or oppression; we are challenged to take an unequivocal stand one way or the other. Shall we follow those who counsel us to submit to domination or follow those who urge us to struggle and sacrifice to gain freedom?
The quote shows the longing many had in those days of apartheid for freedom and democracy, and to be allowed to participate in the decision-making process that affected them.
This is one of many responsibilities that parliaments have - to ensure that there is democracy and that the will of the people is a reality. The role of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, is to create a platform for worldwide parliamentary dialogue and to work for peace and co-operation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative democracy.
It is responsible for fostering contacts, co-ordination, and the exchange of experience among parliaments and parliamentarians of all countries. It is responsible for considering questions of international interest and concern and expresses its view on such issues in order to bring about action by parliaments and parliamentarians. It contributes to the defence and promotion of human rights, an essential aspect of parliamentary democracy and development. It further contributes to better knowledge of the workings of representative institutions and to the strengthening and development of their means of action.
One of the standing committees, as I have highlighted, will work on democracy and human rights for the 124th assembly. The standing committee will focus on transparency and accountability of political party funding during elections. As I've been elected as a reportee for this standing committee of the IPU 124th assembly, we have done extensive research on the topic. The topic has provided the opportunity to look at global trends and do comparative studies. At the heart of it all is the promotion of democracy by members of parliaments to ensure that all have an equal opportunity to participate in their elections in their respective countries.
The research work focuses on both public and private funding for political parties, looking at the impact of each and considering which is more desirable than the other. The critical thing to note is that both of them are important. The work done acknowledges the difference in various countries and different challenges. Some countries can run elections at minimal cost, using technology. In other countries, especially in countries in Africa, because of their rural nature, the use of technology is not yet desirable because many communities don't have access to these advanced technologies. Therefore political parties are left with only one option, that of physically making contact with their supporters and those who mean to vote for them.
It has been quite an interesting topic. I would like to note that some parliaments promote the increase of more substantial funding by the state to political parties. The difficulty has been that this will create a burden on the state and more crises for countries that are poor and survive mainly on donor funding.
The report further emphasises that the representatives and participatory democracies function largely within the political party system as essential expressions of the political will of the people. It recognises that political parties need to generate funds not just to finance their election campaigns but also to ensure that they run efficiently. Further, it recognises that it is to the benefit of the public and to democracy as a whole that political parties are adequately funded, with an agreed framework of accountability and transparency mechanisms.
It's important to consider that political parties and election campaigns in all states should work towards preventing and fighting corruption and that inadequate resources can result in political parties entering into relationships with donors who may have an expectation of legislative or other benefit arising from their support. This would ultimately undermine the democratic process. I think it is important to note that many countries that made a contribution towards this submission, to the report and the resolutions that we have made as South Africa, agreed with our resolutions, which are finding expression in many countries. These countries supported us in terms of how we formulated those draft resolutions. They also agreed in terms of how we expressed ourselves as members of that standing committee, but mainly as South Africa, on ensuring that accountability and transparency exist in the protection of democracy and our human rights.
Further to this, I would like to quote from President Zuma's address at the commemoration of Human Rights Day at Athlone Stadium on 21 March 2011, when he said:
Today we urge all our people to celebrate our Constitution and use it as an instrument of freedom, as a tool that enables us to enjoy the freedoms and human rights that so many heroes and heroines sacrificed for.
This is the tool that the IPU urges many members of parliaments to have for ensuring that citizens are protected. In the current global climate, and given what is happening in other countries in Africa, South Africa can be proud of our Constitution, which protects our democracy, our rights and our freedom. We owe this to the many who sacrificed their lives for us to have this democracy and this freedom. In so doing, we acknowledge the role of those who support us in making sure that the Constitution is protected, those who are making sure that all of us adhere to the principles and what is said by the Constitution. In making sure that we continue to acknowledge what has been achieved by our country, I need to acknowledge the fallen heroes and heroines who made this country what it is for all of us.
To conclude I quote Comrade Solomon Kalushi Mahlangu before he was executed on 6 April 1979, when he said:
My blood will nourish the tree that will bear the fruits of freedom. Tell my people that I love them. They must continue the fight.
I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the title of this debate should be turned into a question and the debate should focus on whether we actually live up to our constitutional provisions and whether we meet the people's expectations.
I venture that we don't and that very often the lofty ideals that we set and the ambitious names we call various institutions and bodies in our public framework fall far short of what they are intended to be or to do. The authenticity of these institutions and this Parliament is all too often abrogated by the action or lack thereof that emanates here from, and thereby their integrity becomes the victim and the public need is often scorned.
In that regard, I want to make mention of the Human Rights Day commemoration that took place in Cape Town yesterday and was dishonoured by the ANC members who, in the presence of the President of this country, refused to honour the rights of the acting premier to speak at the event. These actions were called into question all the more by the qualified member's statement that makes their activities all the more regrettable.
With regard to this Parliament, I would like to contextualise the call made by President Zuma at the beginning of his tenure, when he publicly stated his commitment to seeing a more robust, activist Parliament emerge under his administration. He has two years to make this happen, yet little or no progress has been shown. His commitment raised expectations among South African people that the attempts of the Mbeki government to undermine Parliament's oversight of the executive would be reversed. You will hear a catalogue of examples from my colleague, hon James Selfe, regarding how the secrecy of the Mbeki years is being entrenched under President Zuma and his Cabinet.
Given Cabinet's increasing disdain for Parliament's authority and the chronic underperformance of Parliament in holding the executive to account, the President's sentiments appear to be motivated by political point- scoring rather than a sincere commitment to strengthening our democracy's most pivotal institution. This should not be the preserve of the President. It is our collective responsibility to ensure our relevance, and we require the parliamentary leadership and management to ensure that Parliament is indeed an activist Parliament and the ultimate oversight authority.
The President's call for the development of an activist Parliament raised a number of fundamental concerns. First, by definition, if Parliament is to become an activist body, then its members, the MPs, should be its greatest activists. However, the majority party's caucus is characterised by an overwhelming sense of party-political and executive compliance, illustrated most notably by high levels of absenteeism and a distinct reluctance to hold Ministers to account. If the President is serious about empowering Parliament, attention must first be paid to the attitude of his own party's public representatives to openness and accountability.
Recent efforts to curb the robust oversight and holding of the executive to account by ANC chairpersons are testimony to an executive that cannot cope with the glare of political scrutiny and public accountability. This Parliament has capitulated to the executive's pressure.
Secondly, the President's calls for an activist Parliament appear to be, on the one hand, an appreciation that there is political capital to be gained by publicly committing to strengthening Parliament. On the other hand, however, under the Zuma administration, the ability of Parliament to carry out its functions has been undermined, rather than strengthened. The President keeps saying, for example, that we must have debates with the proponents of the idea of nationalisation. The debate was supposed to happen with the ANC Youth League and Mr Julius Malema, who are not members of this Parliament. It should in fact be in this Parliament that those debates take place.
Another example is the debate around the impending labour legislation amendments. We need to have a proper debate in this Parliament about the impact of that legislation and not simply have it railroaded through Parliament by the ANC, where the whole ANC caucus will vote like sheep when told to endorse whatever changes, regardless of the consequences.
Some examples of how Parliament has been undermined by the current Cabinet are as follows: the disdain shown by Ministers for the work of Parliament, as seen in the ongoing problem of poorly answered written and oral parliamentary questions, including the quality of the President's responses; the evasive approach that has been adopted by the majority party to the DA's proposal that a portfolio committee be established to oversee the currently unaccounted-for activities and budget of the Presidency - a telling indication of the ruling party's position on executive accountability. This is a classic example of "do as I say but not as I do". The Presidency should be overseen or oversighted by Parliament, as are the premiers' offices in all nine provinces.
Delivering an address last week on the role of legislatures in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, the Minister in the Presidency, Trevor Manuel, stated:
The objective of legislative oversight, anywhere in the world, is to raise the level of accountability. It is up to members of legislatures to define in our context what accountability means ... Other than strong words, what measures of censure does Parliament have? How do they exercise their oversight role? Will the officials be expected to account or will Ministers be held responsible for the outcomes on the performance agreements?
Ironically, it is Minister Manuel, and Minister Chabane, who are responsible for monitoring and evaluating all the other Ministries, whose portfolios are not subjected to any objective oversight by a parliamentary portfolio committee. It is, for example, in this Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation where the organisation of the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, finds itself and where it needs to account - or doesn't account. If the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation was oversighted, I am convinced that the shambolic International Youth Conference would either not have taken place or it would have been properly monitored and accounted for.
Why should public funds have been used for this jamboree in the first place, when it was the ANCYL that bid to host this event? The answer is simple: because the ANC executive cannot discern between the party and the state. This is all the more reason why the Presidency and the Ministries therein should be oversighted by this Parliament.
There is still much work that needs to be done in strengthening the role of Parliament and improving both its relationship with and oversight of the executive. If the President truly wishes for a more effective legislature to be part of his political legacy, he will need to ensure that attention, and the necessary political will, is devoted to the pursuit of excellence in every aspect of Parliament's operations. He will also need to accept that the crafting of Parliament's identity as an activist body must begin within the ranks of the majority ANC itself. I thank you.
I rise in this debate to support the notion that we as Parliament continue to have the responsibility to give input on international fora about how this Parliament sees the matter of accountability. As we know, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, continues to be an important forum for over 155 countries in the world to interact on the critical matters and questions that face the nation state.
The IPU engages with various challenges that continue to face the nation state. These matters range from the assassination of political party leaders elsewhere in the country and the continent. Therefore as Parliament we continue to be an important body to engage with and give input on those processes around how the IPU and that interaction continue to function.
We know the challenge we are currently faced with is to deal with the discussion around the mandating by Parliament of matters of transparency and accountability in the funding of political parties. The previous speaker already mentioned the committees that are dealing with these particular matters. South Africa is regarded highly in the IPU, and we have already indicated earlier that South Africans have been given the responsibility to draft the resolution around the issue of the funding of political parties and accountability.
Therefore it means that as Parliament we need to understand the responsibility we have, including the responsibility of capacity and the capacitation of Members of Parliament in order to perform that particular oversight function. To continue to do this, of course, we as Parliament need to begin to build the capacity of MPs and the oversight role that we need to play as Parliament - without fear or favour, of course.
The current debate, as we already indicated, is about how we regulate the funding of political parties for elections. That is the topic the IPU is currently engaged with. Our position: and it has been highlighted - is that there is unevenness across the countries of the world in how this particular question is addressed.
Those who argue and advocate for an immediate legislative process may be missing the point of what we actually need. What we need is regulation, transparency and accountability. These are the measures that we need to put in place. We need to understand that both public funding and private funding are critical in elections for maintaining democracy. We need a balancing act. We need to find a uniform mechanism, one that could even introduce a sunset clause, taking us from voluntary self-regulation towards an actual legislative process. After all, if funding is not regulated, you will of course continue to find challenges in that a vote means less when those who take power are indebted to the people who funded a particular election. Therefore it is important to make sure that regulation happens. It continues to be our view that there must be a balancing act. It is important for the public purse to fund and help maintain democracy. It is also important that the private sector comes to the party, but that must be regulated so that we are able to see the value of our democracy. We don't want to vote when the people who are pulling the strings are not necessarily in Parliament, but are outside - the ones who have the money.
I want to end by saying that if we look at the IPU's comments in their publication on accountability, it says:
Parliament is supposed to be the grand inquisitor of the nation. Yet in their operation parliaments all over the world are steadily losing ground to the executive.
This is what the publication says and this phenomenon needs to be changed. The intervention we are debating here basically has to make sure that Parliament plays the role of mandating those who participate in international fora on behalf of our nation. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, those who represent this Parliament in the IPU will be representing this Parliament as a whole, not a single component of this Parliament. As such they need to receive a mandate, and the mandate is given on this occasion. The mandate, in my opinion, must reflect the variety of views expressed here as well as the challenges confronting this Parliament.
Undoubtedly, this Parliament has gone a long way in the past 16 years, but it needs to be confronted with challenges. Challenges are the things which need to be discussed, not the achievements. Challenges lie ahead of us while achievements lie behind us. I want to mention a few challenges which could form the object of discussions with our counterparts internationally. The one thing I am particularly involved in is the challenge of reinstating the rights of Members of Parliament to introduce legislation. It does appear - and this was not my reading but a case by the Speaker of this National Assembly - that this is the only Parliament known to democracy in which Members of Parliament need to receive prior permission before being able to introduce a private member's Bill.
The Speaker argued in court that this is a unique feature of our democracy. Only South Africa is said to have the unique feature of requiring prior permission. This would make this Parliament unique, not in promoting, but in curtailing parliamentary democracy.
There is also the issue of capacity. The level of capacity that each of us is provided with - secretarial, legislative and administrative assistance - is appallingly low. That goes to our capacity for performing our functions. It is real; it is part and parcel of what a parliamentary democracy is. Let us try to see what the international standard is to capacitate Members of Parliament.
There is an issue on questions. I and many of my party colleagues, such as the hon Smith, who is not here - and I understand this also applies to some of the DA members - have a repeated problem with questions in Parliament. Our questions have been censored, for lack of a better word. We ask Question A but what comes out is Question B, which is a much lower and softer version of Question A, without our approval.
This has been done to the point that one of my questions was not even asked. This was the question on whether any telephones of any members of the House are under the control of the National Intelligence Agency. The staff of this Parliament took it upon themselves to say that the question was inadmissible, even though the very same question had been asked during the dark days of apartheid. The Minister then took it upon himself to say he was not going to answer, even though the chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of Information Bill - I'm not sure if he is here; oh, there he is - as well as Parliament's liaison officer and the Minister responsible for Intelligence gave me their assurance that the question could be put and that the Minister would entertain the question. Six months later, I still have not be able to put a question to a Minister because the parliamentary staff feel that it is their role to question what can be asked and what cannot be asked of a Minister. That is the problem of this Parliament.
Let's look at other challenges. We saw one today, with the Immigration Amendment Bill. There you have a Bill which has been put out for public comment. All the public comments, without any exceptions, unequivocally rejected the Bill, and this Parliament passed it. We need to transform form into substance. This has happened in several pieces of legislation in which I am involved, where consulting the public is still a perfunctory exercise and the process of passing legislation continues to be driven by the executive.
These are real challenges which, through our dialogue with our counterparts internationally, we will surely overcome, fulfilling the promise of making this an activist Parliament in promoting the full measure of democracy which it has promised to perform under the Constitution. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Within the Inter-Parliamentary Union debate on Parliamentary Accountability: Living up to People's Expectations, I wish to address the issue of co-operation for world and regional security and stability, as well as respect for all forms of sovereignty and independence of states.
The charter of the United Nations organisation emphasises a global vision of peace as the basis for development, with a special focus placed on fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of the people, equal rights of women and men, and of nations large and small.
To this end the following are two essential purposes of the United Nations. The first is to maintain international peace and security and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace and the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace. Collectively, countries agree to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, the settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace.
The second is to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian nature and to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all.
The plan in Chapter 8 of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg focused on Africa's call on the global community to help create an enabling environmental at regional, subregional and national level to promote peace and stability, economic growth, democracy and good governance.
The creation of an enabling environment cannot be the sole responsibility of a particular country; it must be shared jointly by the international community. Today's real borders are not between nations but between the powerful and the powerless, free and fettered, privileged and vulnerable. No walls can separate a humanitarian or human rights crisis in one part of the world from a national security crisis in another. Global effects such as economic recession, globalisation and natural disasters have created a world of interdependence and co-operation.
The successful countering of the common threats and challenges largely depends on the world's solidarity and concerted efforts. Peace, security and stability are essential conditions for sustainable development. Violent conflict is a threat, not only within the country where it happens, but far beyond.
Genocide begins with the killing of one person, not for what he or she has done, but because of who he or she is. A campaign of ethnic cleansing begins with one neighbour turning on another. Poverty begins when even one child is denied his or her fundamental right to education. What begins with the failure to uphold the dignity of one life all too often ends with a calamity for entire nations. If different communities are to live together in peace, the world must give priority to what unites them - common humanity and a shared belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law.
It is through multilateral institutions that states can hold each other to account. In order to achieve this objective, all multilateral institutions must be organised in a fair and democratic manner. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation, and the UN Security Council all need restructuring so all countries - powerful and weak nations - have an equal voice.
In recent years, regional organisations have developed a closer partnership with UN operations. This contributes to security and stability in regions and assists in ending conflicts as early as possible. Some regional countries share a culture, traditions, history and religion, which enables them to craft a proper intervention strategy.
Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the entire cleansing in the Balkans and Kosovo in 1995 and 1999, the international community began to seriously debate how best to effectively respond when a citizen's human rights are grossly and systematically violated. The issue at the heart of the matter was whether states have unconditional sovereignty over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene militarily in a country for humanitarian purposes.
It was during this period in the 1990s, with incidents in Somalia, Rwanda, Srebrenica and Kosovo, that the discussions of a right to humanitarian intervention evolved into the concept of a responsibility to protect - to protect the individual. In this Millennium Report of 2000, the Secretary- General of the UN, His Excellency Mr Kofi Annan, recalled the failures of the UN Security Council to act in a decisive manner in Rwanda and Kosovo and put the following challenges to member states. He said:
If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?
Following this Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, established by the Canadian government, issued a report titled "The Responsibility to Protect". The report found that sovereignty not only gave a state the right to control its affairs, it also conferred on the state primary responsibility for protecting the people within its borders.
It proposed that when a state fails to protect people, either through lack of ability or lack of willingness, the responsibility shifts to the broader international community. In the wake of threats to peace, security and stability, a new understanding of the concept of security is evolving. Once synonymous with the defence of territory from external attack, the requirements of security today have come to embrace the protection of communities and individuals from internal violence.
Any form of military intervention initiated under the premise of responsibility to protect must fulfil criteria in order to be justified as an extraordinary measure of intervention. These are: just cause, right intention, final resort, legitimate authority, proportional means and reasonable prospect.
The international community must broaden its view of what is meant by peace and security. Peace means much more than the absence of war. Human security can no longer be understood in purely military terms. Rather, it must encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratisation, disarmament and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
With warts and all, the UN organisation is an indispensable international authority and the irreplaceable forum for authorising international military enforcement. The general consensus of the UN member states on the Responsibility to Protect will go a long way in curbing human rights violations by states against their citizens under the guise of national sovereignty.
In conclusion, strengthening democracy and the protection of human rights carry the greatest legitimacy when the state providing the support comes across as an honest broker and genuine believer in them, both at home and abroad. Foreign policy coherence and a progressive development agenda thus go hand in hand. It is the job of parliaments to ensure that this happens, which means it is our responsibility as parliamentarians.
Lastly, the spaces for South Africa to advance these values are manifold. South Africa is currently a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council. It is a member of the G20 group of the world's strongest economies. It is a founding member of India-Brazil-South Africa, Ibsa, grouping. It is a regular participant in meetings at the UN and the AU, including the UN Human Rights Council and the African Union's Peace and Security Council.
South Africa plays a leading role in the SADC Parliamentary Forum and in debates regarding trade justice at the World Trade Organisation. The Secretariat for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, Nepad with its African Peer Review Mechanism, is based in South Africa, and so is the Pan-African Parliament.
The 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, COP 17, is going to be a very important conference for us in South Africa at the end of the year. This UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is going to take place in Durban at the end of 2011.
As a leading voice of the global south, and as a representative of the continent of Africa, it is vital that South Africa remains steadfast to the values of the African and UN charters by advancing the cause of justice and that of oppressed people near and far.
Former President Mandela's speech at the SADC summit in Blantyre in 1997 holds a key message for us. He said:
Our ... rebirth as we enter the new millennium depends as much as anything on each country and each regional grouping in the continent committing itself to the principles of democracy, respect for human rights and the basic tenets of good governance.
He continued:
Amongst SADC's basic principles are respect for the sovereignty of member states and noninterference in one another's internal affairs. This is the basis of good governance on the interstate level. But these considerations cannot blunt or totally override our common concern for democracy, human rights and good governance in all our constituent states.
At some point, therefore, we as a regional organisation must reflect on how we support the democratic process and respect for human rights. Can we continue to give comfort to member states whose actions go so diametrically against the values and principles we hold so dear and for which we struggled so long and so hard? I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, the role of Parliament as one of the key institutions that build a link of accountability connecting citizens to the state cannot be overemphasised. An effective parliamentary democracy ought to strive for the implementation of policies and programmes that encourage effective constituency service and improved government departmental performance.
In many countries around the world parliaments are considered to be weak and ineffective due to their being state-centred and executive-dominated. Although at times there are worrying signs of an executive that attempts to impose its will and decision on this House, thus seeking to turn it into a Mickey Mouse, rubber-stamping institution, we can safely say that by and large our Parliament plays its accountability and oversight roles.
It would be impossible for this institution to live up to our people's expectations if it fails to make the government accountable for how it uses the taxpayers' money; if it fails to evaluate whether government departments are being managed effectively; if it fails to ensure optimal constituency service and so on. These issues, among others, have a direct effect on the quality of service delivery to our people and their quest for the betterment of the quality of their lives. A parliament that fails to carry out these important tasks can never meet or exceed our people's expectations. It would have failed to carry out its basic constitutional duties. I thank you, hon Chairperson.
Hon Chairperson, the topic of the debate today - dealing with parliamentary accountability and living up to the people's expectations - goes way beyond the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU. In fact, it's a constitutional imperative that we are supposed to do exactly that. If you look at section 43 of the Constitution, we as the National Assembly are elected by the people to represent the people and in that process we are supposed to scrutinise and oversee all executive action.
Maybe we should not be surprised if at some stage some group of citizens out there decides to take us, the National Assembly, to the Constitutional Court for not fulfilling our own duty. We must think about that. As the National Assembly of Parliament, we are supposed to keep the executive, and also the Chapter 9 institutions, accountable.
But there are different forms of expectations by the people out there. Every day, notices are given of motions dealing with relevant issues - things that are important with regard to the expectations of the people out there. But the tragedy is that we in this Parliament almost never debate those issues. We always keep to all the internationally recognised days and we debate those kinds of things, but we never discuss the real issues dealing with the expectations of the people, as if they don't exist. That is also a mistake. Thank you.
Chair, living up to people's expectations - what a wonderful thought! Of course it begs the question: What do we expect from Parliament and its members? Criticising and belittling parliamentarians has become something of a national sport, just as it is in most parts of the world. As a result, the work of Parliament and its members is underappreciated.
Politics and the business of Parliament affect every aspect of our everyday lives and while many South Africans are to some degree aware that Parliament impacts on their lives and engage, a significant number of people aren't and don't. It could be that people feel disconnected from Parliament and their representatives - an indication, of course, that we are not yet the people's Parliament that we aspire to be.
The question is not only what should we be doing, but how could we do what we do more effectively? A close relationship with constituencies is critical if we are to have a hope of living up to people's expectations. People see Members of Parliament, as less accountable to constituents and more accountable to their party, with party positions taking precedence over constituency needs. However, even in the United Kingdom, UK, where MPs are directly accountable to their constituencies, they still have to toe the party line or face the consequences. So, it's a fallacy to think otherwise.
Committees provide public access to the political process and written and oral questions, which are useful in holding the executive accountable, also ensure constituents' concerns reach the ears of Ministers. Living up to people's expectations here can depend on whether or not the executive takes MPs questions seriously. Lastly, snap debates on topics of current public concern could and should be better used.
Many of the perceptions of Parliament and the work of members are created by the media, both in terms of what they do and don't cover and the way they do it. But campaigning MPs are themselves responsible for creating unreasonable expectations within communities and individuals. Living up to these expectations between elections presents no small challenge for all MPs and not just for those who make the unrealistic promises. Thank you.
Hon Chairperson, before I start my speech, I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by our late president, Comrade O R Tambo, when he said South Africa will not be free if women are not free. This was the statement that encouraged the ANC to move and support women.
It is a great pleasure for me to be given the opportunity to talk about what South Africa is going to be presenting to the coming 124th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Panama. The focus of my presentation is going to be on the current situation of women parliamentarians in the National Assembly and the legislatures, highlighting the achievements we have made in promoting women representation and the challenges and proposed areas of assistance from the IPU. It is underpinned by the belief that democracy should be based on the participation and perceptions of both men and women in decision-making.
The organisation aims to achieve a gender partnership in political life by facilitating women's access to and influence in Parliament. Its overall goal is to achieve representative and accountable parliaments through increased and enhanced participation of women and more gender-sensitive parliamentary institutions.
Institutionally, the IPU promotes its gender equality and women's rights programmes through the Co-ordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians and the gender group. Its key focus areas include conducting research and producing information on women in politics, and providing support to women to access and transform parliaments, and to enhance gender mainstreaming in parliaments.
Our presentation at the IPU assembly will have to provide a progress report on how the South African Parliament and the provincial legislatures are doing in meeting the main goals, as identified within the IPU programme. Its programme is based on Millennium Development Goal 3, which is to promote gender equality and empower women. These are consistent with the principles of equality as enshrined in our Constitution, which prohibits racial, gender and other forms of discrimination.
As a country, we are proud of our achievements so far in promoting gender equality, and of all the efforts being made towards the ultimate realisation of the nonsexist society that we are striving for. The recent country report on the Millennium Development Goals 2010 by the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, shows positive signs that the country has made progress in this regard.
What is of relevance to Parliament is that recent statistics indicate that parity in political life is being achieved. According to the UNDP, Statistics SA reports that more than 40% of the 400 seats in Parliament are held by women. The report shows that a similar trend in the increase in the number of women has been recorded in the provincial legislatures. In totality, there has been an increase of women representation in the provincial legislatures since 1994 from 25,4% to 42,4%. Globally, South Africa is rated number three in the world among countries with the most number of women Members of Parliament. Therefore in terms of gender parity the country is closer to achieving the 50% target with regard to representation in political life.
Progress has also been made in the following areas: the establishment of the Ministry for Women, Children and People with Disabilities; establishment of the office on the status of women in all provinces; establishment of a Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women; existence and mainstreaming of the Commission for Gender Equality; establishment of the parliamentary Multi-Party gender caucus; and South African women parliamentarians actively participated in the United Nations programme that promotes gender equality and seeks assistance in the achievement of the Millennium Goal Development.
South African women MPs are working in most structures to promote and encourage all political parties to achieve 50-50 representation regarding gender parity, and the South African Parliament has women participating in all its committees of Parliament or legislatures. In spite of these achievements, there is recognition that the end of the road to achieving gender parity and a nonsexist society is still a long way off.
With regard to parliaments, there are still challenges that the IPU can assist with going forward. The most pressing challenge is that of extending education and monitoring mechanisms to the grass-roots level of society. This requires financial and other technical resources. As the South African delegation, we will therefore make a plea for assistance from the IPU in this regard.
I would like to conclude my speech by making a very humble plea to all the opposition parties to bring us 50% in the local government and 50% in the next elections. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, the theme of the general debate in the 124th IPU assembly is Parliamentary Accountability: Living up to People's Expectations. I think it is appropriate to reflect on how the South African Parliament shapes up to the expectations of the people of South Africa. We are fond of calling our Parliament a people's Parliament. We encourage public participation in its proceedings, inter alia, by taking Parliament to the people and encouraging public participation in the legislative process.
We demand accountability of our government to the people via their elected public representatives here in Parliament. Thus, section 57 of the Constitution allows the National Assembly to make rules, "with due regard to representative and participatory democracy, accountability, transparency and public involvement". Section 59 goes further to say it requires that the National Assembly must facilitate the involvement of the public in its proceedings. Our Constitution is also very clear that there is a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Section 92(2) of the Constitution provides that members of the executive are, and I quote, "accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions" and goes on to say that they must, in terms of section 93(3)(b), "provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control."
These heady sentiments were incorporated into our Constitution when we drew it up between 1994 and 1996. We did this because we were determined to avoid mistakes that had happened in our history - a history characterised by governments that were authoritarian, secretive and abusive of power. Above everything, we were determined that the democratic Parliament of South Africa should be transparent, open and accountable.
The question that we need to ask is: Is it accountable? Well, it certainly was, particularly under the Mandela presidency. But since then, the executive has become more imperious and disdainful of their duty to account fully and regularly to Parliament. Perhaps worse, Parliament has allowed it to happen. Parliament itself has become more executive-minded. Let me give you some examples.
Probably the most effective way of ensuring accountability is through question time. Last year, Ministers were frequently absent from the Assembly when oral questions were put to them. On the oral question day to the Security and Justice cluster on 3 March last year, the Ministers of Justice and Constitutional Development, Police, Defence and Military Veterans, International Relations and Co-operation and State Security were not here. On the oral question day to the Social Services cluster on 10 March, the Ministers of Higher Education and Training, Sport and Recreation, and Water and Environmental Affairs were not present to account for their departments. On 25 August last year, when questions were put to the Economics cluster, the Ministers of Trade and Industry, Transport, Tourism, Mineral Resources, Science and Technology, Economic Development and Energy, were missing in action.
Most shockingly, when the Adjustments Appropriation Bill was debated on 17 November last year, the Ministers of Arts and Culture, Basic Education, Economic Development, Energy, Health, Higher Education and Training, Home Affairs, Tourism and Trade and Industry did not regard Parliament as being important enough to attend so as to answer questions about changes to their budgets.
There is another worrying trend that concerns me, and that is the whole issue of the way in which parliamentary questions are answered or not, as the case may be. There is a tendency among Ministers to simply ignore questions put to them or to provide answers that are completely divorced from the question they were required to answer. Thus, there were 176 questions last year that Ministers simply did not reply to in 2010. Of these, 133 came from DA members, and those questions simply lapsed.
The other issue is questions that are not answered properly. I'll just give you one example. This year I asked the Minister of Correctional Services whether any security weaknesses were discovered in any correctional centres as a result of Operation Vala; if not, what was the position in this regard; if so, what were the appropriate details? A long explanation was given about how Operation Vala worked, how much it cost, and everything else besides the question that was actually put to the Minister - whether any security weaknesses were uncovered. We are still none the wiser.
Another way of ensuring accountability is contained in section 42(3) of the Constitution, which specifies that the National Assembly must provide "a national forum for the public consideration of issues". In the course of last year, the DA gave notice that it wished to debate 129 topics. These ranged from the threat posed by Aids, calls to nationalise the mines, threats to media freedom, implementation of a wage subsidy, and the provision of basic services to informal settlements.
We raised these topics in Parliament because we thought they were sufficiently important to be debated in this, the most important forum in the country. Only one DA motion was accepted for debate and a total of only four member's motions were accepted for debate. In my view, this has fatally undermined Parliament's role as a forum for debate and discussion of critical national issues.
Worse, in our view, were the decisions of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker to refuse debates under Rules 103 and 104, which allow MPs to raise issues of public importance. Last year we twice asked for such debates, one on the closing of the investigation into the Scorpions and the other on the proposed injection of R20 billion into Eskom. If issues of such importance cannot be raised in Parliament, where else can they be raised? By doing this, Parliament has abrogated its role as the body that must ensure the accountability of the executive.
I have worked in this building for a very long time. I celebrated when the old Parliament disappeared and when this new democratic Parliament was elected. While the apartheid Parliament was completely illegitimate, it was surprisingly accountable. Cabinet members had to answer truthfully, and the hon Mulder's father had to resign when he did not tell Parliament the truth.
In the space of 17 years, we now have a Parliament that is completely legitimate, but an executive that is increasingly unaccountable. We, as parliamentarians, have allowed that to happen. This is obviously very sad and this is a tendency that can only be reversed by South Africans themselves. We get the government we deserve. South Africans have the power in their vote to demand a more accountable and more transparent government. The next opportunity they have to send this message is on 18 May, and I know they will take that opportunity. I thank you. [Applause.]
House Chairperson, I'm going to respond at the end to some of the comments that have been made by various speakers in this debate, but I want to focus on the area that I will be speaking on. This relates to meeting the expectations of citizens, and particularly to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs. Thereafter I will deal with some of the outrageous statements that have been made. [Interjections.]
In September 2000, world leaders gathered at the United Nations in New York. The adoption of and commitment to the Millennium Development Goals by these world leaders gave hope to millions of people that the conditions in which they found themselves would be addressed.
The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals signified the commitment of the world to deal with, among other things, extreme poverty and hunger, the lack of adequate shelter, and the reduction of child mortality.
While the adoption of the eight Millennium Development Goals is a commitment of world leaders, it is equally a the responsibility of the parliaments of the world to monitor and oversee their implementation.
The Fourth Parliament here in South Africa has upon its shoulders the responsibility of monitoring and interrogating the implementation of policies and plans aimed at meeting our commitment to the MDGs. At the end of this Fourth Parliament, we will be one year away from the 2015 commitment. In the coming four years, much remains to be done, not just in our own country but in the countries of the world.
As parliamentarians, we need to remind ourselves of what the commitments were that world leaders made in September 2000, and I want to just touch on them. The eight goals are as follows: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV and Aids, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development.
We also need to commit ourselves to ensuring that we perform our duty as public representatives to both monitor and oversee the implementation of these commitments. This includes scrutinising budgets, strategic plans and policies. In addition, we have to make sure that the correct decisions are made and implemented.
As we are currently engaged with the budget here in our own Parliament and dealing with it in our respective committees, we need to ensure that the MDGs remain high up on our radar screens and that the departmental budgets indeed continue to take us on the path towards achieving the MDGs here in our own country.
During the Inter-Parliamentary Union World Conference of Speakers of Parliament in Geneva last year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, said, and I quote:
We look to parliaments to write the laws and invest in the programmes that will achieve the MDGs. You are on the front lines, fighting for your people for basic services like safe water and sanitation, primary education and health care... Parliaments must help us move from vision to action.
He also said the following at the 122nd Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, assembly in Bangkok in 2010, and I quote:
Parliaments provide the enabling national legislative framework for achieving the MDGs and are at the forefront of fighting for improved livelihoods and access to basic services.
The declaration adopted at the Third World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments held in Geneva last year said:
Our parliaments can do more to ensure that development goals are taken into account in our daily work and translated into national programmes and laws. Likewise, encourage our parliament, when they examine draft budgets and Bills, to assess their impact on the fulfilment of the goals.
There is a need for parliaments to interact with each other and share best- practice experiences. Co-operation among parliaments of the South is extremely important. During a survey of 20 parliamentarians at the 122nd IPU assembly in Bangkok last year, it emerged that some of them believed that parliamentarians from the North and developed countries are less aware and enthusiastic about the MDGs. In addition, it was felt that northern members of parliament were not sufficiently informed about the MDGs.
We need to ensure that as the South African Parliament we effectively use our participation in the Southern African Development Community,, SADC, Parliamentary Forum, the Pan-African Parliament, India-Brazil-South Africa, Ibsa, and Brazil, Russia, India and China, Brics, among other forums. It will be important that in the next four years there is far greater interaction between parliaments in these countries. Parliaments need to play a greater role in oversight on multilateral agreements and their implementation
Progress has been made in meeting the MDGs although there are many countries, particularly developing countries and those in the South, that will not be able to meet all the MDGs without help and support. It is therefore important that parliaments work together and that greater pressure is placed on those who can assist, to assist.
The world we live in today is facing many challenges which will impact on the speed with which we advance towards realising the eight MDGs adopted in 2000. These include the current global economic situation, natural disasters such as those seen recently in Haiti, Japan and elsewhere, and the Middle East situation, which has contributed to rising oil prices. All of these events require that we work together and remain united in our quest to meet the 2015 deadline.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, of which our Parliament is a member, has identified specific areas in which it will assist various parliaments. These include promoting awareness among parliamentarians of the important role that they need to play in respect of the MDG agenda; and to insist that the MDGs are not an agenda from the South but a global agenda; that parliaments from the North and South share the same interest in making sure that budgets are respected; and that policies for development have political commitment and are efficiently conducted.
It is important that we as Members of Parliament and members of parliament throughout the world work together in ensuring that the peoples of our world experience the realisation of the implementation of the MDGs and that their expectations are indeed met.
I want to touch on a couple of issues that were raised in this debate. Firstly, for the benefit of the hon Oriani-Ambrosini - and I'm not too sure if he is here - I want to say that when we go to the IPU and other international fora such as these, we don't go there as individual parties or members. We go there representing our Parliament and make our inputs as representatives of our Parliament. I thought I should just allay his fears in this regard. To give an example, if you read the report on the 123rd IPU in Geneva last year, you would see the various inputs that we made jointly as members of that delegation. Members of different parties sat down and put together the inputs that we made. This proves and shows that we work together not as individuals but as a collective.
The hon Athol Trollip and a number of others have spoken about and seem to have indicated that our Parliament is falling apart, that we don't hold the executive to account and that the executive does not respect this Parliament. In my view that is incorrect. It is not true. If you look at the work of committees in our Parliament, many of our committees perform vigorous oversight. They interact with the executive. They very often express their concerns regarding the manner in which reports are given to committees.
So, I think it's far-fetched to say that the executive doesn't account to Parliament. I think that as a Parliament and as committees we do our work very effectively. Certainly there may be weaknesses here and there. Certainly there may be areas that we need to strengthen, but I think it would be wrong to come and give such an impression here.
The hon Oriani-Ambrosini raised an issue about questions. He stood here and said his questions were being censored, some were withheld, and he was not allowed to ask certain question. Again, I think it's wrong to come and give the impression that we operate in a Parliament that censors what we do and doesn't allow us to ask questions. That is not true. It's incorrect. In fact, there are Rules that govern how questions should be asked in Parliament. Some of these deal with how a question can be returned to a member if it hasn't been asked in accordance with the Rules.
So, I want to say that I totally disagree with the member. If he has a concern about the Rules, I am sure he can raise it. However, I don't think it's correct to come and say here that this Parliament censors questions that are put by Members of Parliament.
I want to say to the hon James Selfe that I think it's quite outrageous to come here and tell us how the Parliament that you used to serve in pre-1994 was this open, free and democratic Parliament. I think it's absolutely outrageous. I think it's absolutely outrageous. [Interjections.] I think you would have to acknowledge, hon Selfe, that this Parliament, the democratic Parliament that came into being after 1994 is far different to what we experienced pre-1994. [Applause.] Maybe your time sitting in that Parliament was an enjoyable time for you, sir. Maybe you felt that there was an open, free and democratic Parliament, but I can honestly say that much of what you are saying is incorrect.
This Parliament is a huge improvement on and very different from the Parliament that you experienced pre-1994. [Interjections.] It's a democratic Parliament. It's a Parliament in which we are able to hold the executive to account. It's a Parliament in which we are able to ask questions. It's a Parliament in which we receive answers to our questions. [Interjections.] Certainly, there may be weaknesses. There may be areas that we need to strengthen and if that is the case, it's incumbent on us as a parliament to rectify those and to bring in those strengths. However, to stand here and say that we should long to go back to the Parliament of pre- 1994, I think is outrageous. [Interjections.] Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.