Hon Deputy Speaker, hon members, one of the ways we serve the interest of the people is to legislate and write good necessary laws. We cannot turn a blind eye on some clauses and negotiate the content of other clauses. A badly written law is a badly written law, period. This Bill falls decimally short of the stated good intentions. In many instances numerous clauses in the Bill remain ambiguous and unclear. Just read the extensive contributions and the submissions by the Western Cape province in this regard. I would advise that the submission of the Western Cape province which forms part of the public record be carefully read.
The Bill will also allow an increase in central government's power over other spheres of government that can lead to the undermining of authority and power that duly elected provincial and local government public representatives may exercise. In fact, when you look closely to what is written in this Bill, you will see the most elaborate and yet subtle smoke screen. It is hiding the real diabolical intent of centralised control under the cloak of the noble course of fighting corruption and building capacity in the Public Service. All these noble causes could have been achieved by amending other laws but no, central government just had to stick its fingers in to the manpower issues and who controls them, right down to the smallest municipality.
The evil genius of clever propaganda is at work here, and I predicted this Bill will - once it becomes law - be selectively implemented to achieve the real intent, that of interfering in other spheres of government. The committee's records will reflect that the Bill's path through the legislative process turned out to be a farce. From the very beginning it was clear that it would be rushed through and with clear premeditated and diabolical intent.
This shameful state of affairs is the result of ignoring input during the so-called public hearings. Not one of the submissions from the public and other stakeholders could convince the majority party in the committee to change a single clause or word. Why on earth do you have public hearings in the first place if you are not interested in what the public and its institutions outside Parliament have to say? It makes a mockery of the whole process of legislation and consultation. Bad laws end up being unimplementable with unforeseen and unintended consequences resulting in unnecessary financial laws.
There are also numerous shortcomings in the Bill that the Minister and the department claim that it would be covered by regulations. This law will boomerang. I will not have my good time attached to it and when the boomerang returns with a vengeance I will not have to duck. I am sure that this Bill is heading for disaster, one way or another with possible endless legal wrangling and misery to public servants. Put plainly, it is a bad piece of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Public Administration Management Bill is of course undoubtedly a framework legislation intended to contribute to the constitutional injunction. It is a part of an array of efforts by the ANC-led government to ensure a progressive realisation of our people's rights and obligations entrusted to us by our supreme law the Constitution.
To this end, the Public Administration Bill is an outcome of our collective hindsight. A hindsight informed by our experience. It represents a deeper insight that comes from growing sophistication and better understanding and conceptualisation of the state as it were, and foresight informed by growing appreciation of emerging patterns of challenges. Put simply, the Bill is a corrective proactive regulatory instrument which serves as a response to many structural and human weaknesses that continue to hamper the Public Service sector. For instance, the Auditor-General consistently sites lack of capacity as the root cause of the poor audit outcomes. The lack of critical skills has resulted, in most instances, in government's outcome and functioning, and its gradual dependence on outside consultants to fill its statutory obligations. The situation indeed is critical in municipalities.
There is an observed regression in proper financial performances and reporting. There was indeed a mandate from section 195 of the Constitution which defines how the public administration must be managed. It provides for the transfer and secondment of employees in public administration to ensure equitable capacity distribution across all spheres of government; regulation of the use of information and communication technologies in the public administration to enhance service delivery; the prohibition of employees from conducting business with the state in order to prevent and eliminate corruption; the establishment of the Ethics, Integrity and Disciplinary Technical Assistance Unit to strengthen a culture of discipline, integrity and ethical conduct in public administration by all officials; measures to inculcate a culture of compliance with the status regulations and prescripts by institutions within the public administration by providing for the establishment of an office of standards and compliance; and education and training, continuously, for the professional development of the Public Service through the establishment of the national school of government. If indeed you are committed to delivering all our people from the shackles of poverty into the light of democracy and development, the noble thing to do would be to support this Bill. The MF supports this Bill.
Deputy Speaker, in terms of this Bill a lot of consultation has been done, in fact, there was overconsultation. The department had public hearings, the NCOP also had public hearings and even the National Assembly had public hearings. Therefore, there was overconsultation in terms of this Bill and so the issue that we ridicule the situation with cannot count. We must all agree in this House that through this Bill on the public administration management our country is on the right path for progressive change and innovation in the Public Service. There is no doubt that the citizens of our country will reap the fruits of the Public Administration Bill after it becomes an act. However, the impact of this Bill, when it is passed, will then be determined through mainly the oversight mandate of this Parliament across all committees. The portfolio committee will therefore work with the Ministry in ensuring that the legislation we are working on today is realised.
It is important to always know that our intentions through the work of this Parliament are meant to liberate our people from apartheid colonialism to a just egalitarian society based on social security and equal justice for all. We will be moving forward with our people in terms of the realisation of this critical piece of legislation. Thank you.
I put the question again. Are there any objections to the Bill being adopted?
Madam, may I address you?
On the report?
Yes, we are on the report item. Thank you.
Any objections?
Please record the objection of the DA to the report.
That will be recorded ...
We did note our objection at the beginning of the process and it still stands.
Yes you did.
And note our objection again.
the Secretary will read the Fourth Order.
Madam Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? Madam Deputy Speaker this is yet again another travesty of justice in this House. This Bill is listed for debate on the Order Paper, yet this morning, after the Order Paper was printed, we as parties were informed that the committee had decided not to debate the Bill. I objected to this in a Chief Whips' Forum pointing out that my party did not agree to it. Our member, Mr Kobus Marais, MP, was contacted by the secretary, and he told them that he does not agree, and that he wants to have this Bill discussed. Now it is yet again another instance where there was blatant disregard of an important and long-standing parliamentary precedence in handling Bills in this House.
In fact, Rule 60 of the Rules of the National Assembly anticipates that if no speakers' list has been prepared, members may get up and speak to the Bill before the House for the period normally allocated. In fact, therefore, if a member of a party decides to speak on a Bill, during the Second Reading, the member is entitled to do so and to be heard. I therefore move, as I have addressed the Speaker in a very urgent letter this morning, that the debate either be postponed to another time or that the full debate takes place as is practice.
The people of South Africa need to hear what the parties have to say and not only what the chairperson of the committee has to say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you?
Yes, can you take your seat hon Moropa?
Yes indeed, hon Watson did raise the matter with us this morning in the Chief Whips' Forum. However, we told him then, as we repeat now, that the DA has no veto in this House. We consulted all parties after the chairperson told us there is no debate on this, and all parties agreed that there is no need for a debate. It is only the DA that is insisting that they want to debate. Debating with whom when there is no one else who wants to debate? They have no veto and they will not get it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? We are setting a dangerous precedence when a new Bill comes before Parliament and it is not debated. It is explicitly stated in the Rules that all Bills, especially new Bills, should be fully debated. And I hereby request that, in terms of the Rule that the hon Watson has quoted, the DA gets its full speaking time.
Hon members, this afternoon the Speaker received a letter from Mr Watson raising his concern that the debate on this Bill has not been scheduled. He contends in that letter that it is implicit in the Rules and especially in Rule 253 that the Second Reading debate will take place on every Bill. That was my understanding of the letter. That particular Bill deals with the Second Reading of Bills. This Rule does not state categorically that the debate must take place, but rather seeks to give guidance on the procedures to be followed should a debate on Second Reading be scheduled, and on what such a debate should be conducted.
The Rules states that the Bill is passed if the Assembly approves its Second Reading. It also states that a Bill is rejected if its Second Reading is not approved by the appropriate majority. This Rule therefore relates to the question of the Bill being read a second time, either being accepted or rejected by the House. Where a debate is not scheduled, political parties would have an opportunity to make a declaration of vote, have their objections noted or call for a division. A cursory scrutiny of the Rules would indicate that there is no Rule that compels the Assembly to debate a Bill. A debate is implied in Rule 253.
In respect of this Bill, I understand that the matter was discussed in the Chief Whips' Forum and the majority of the political parties agreed that the Bill did not require a debate in the Assembly. Therefore, we will proceed with the Order.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I please address you on a point of correction? In my letter to the Speaker this morning, not this afternoon but this morning, I did not say that the Bill has not been scheduled. In fact, I pointed out that the Bill has been scheduled as item 4, Second Reading debate, yet the powers that run this Parliament decided this morning that there will be no debate even though the Order Paper of this august House states "debate on the Second Reading".
Thank you, Mr Watson, but we need to continue with the Fourth Order. That is the practice. We cannot change what was discussed and not won in other forums. In front of me is a Schedule that I need to continue with. The parties were supposed to debate outside this Chamber if there was any alternative to what was agreed this morning. Therefore, we need to continue. The opposition must take opportunity of rejecting or voting against data available to them.
I move that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and Independent Democrats dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted.