House Chairperson, in Parliament last week we saw a shameful display when the ANC used its majority on our committee to prevent a debate in this House on the Financial Services Bill. With due respect to my friends on the Trade and Industry Committee, it is telling that this House has just debated the uncontroversial Legal Metrology Bill, supported by all parties, but last week would not debate a controversial Bill that divides the House.
Today, I am afraid we have sunk to a new low. Not only do the supply chain regulations that we are considering leave Parliament open to fraud and corruption, but they have not even been deliberated on by the Select Committee on Finance that submitted them to this House.
So, last week we had the ANC shutting down the debate after a Bill was considered by a committee. This week we see the ANC using its majority to prevent the actual deliberation by a committee. They did this by moving straight to the committee vote immediately after our committee has been briefed on the regulations. The committee did not debate the regulations - it did not deliberate on them and the members did not apply their minds to them. However, here we are, considering regulations that will define how Parliament procures goods and services.
I am sure members will all agree that they are critical for the management of this institution, but I am afraid to say that they are deeply problematic.
Firstly, the definition of a conflict of interest is subjective and so narrow that it allows employees themselves to decide if they have a conflict of interest or not.
Secondly, the Secretary to Parliament can condone any conflict of interest he sees fit to. He can also continue tenders that they no longer need in Parliament, including those that have come about through improper processes.
Thirdly, the regulations give no substantial rights or duties to the Bid Adjudication Committee. Such rights and duties are usually conveyed by Treasury directives under the PFMA, but the PFMA does not apply to Parliament. So, we needed to be specific in these regulations and we were not.
These aspects, amongst others, mean that the regulations leave our Parliament vulnerable to corruption. The regulations are weak. They give too much unchecked power to the Secretary to Parliament and this is perhaps not surprising, because the Secretary has been allowed to function for four years without a legal supply chain management process. These regulations allow for this unfettered power to continue. The fact that they have been pushed through Parliament so fast, before our committee could even deliberate on them, raises serious questions about what the Speaker wants us to turn a blind eye to.
Members, can I urge you to reject these regulations ... [Interjections.] ... and request that the finance committee do its job ... [Interjections.] ... and apply its mind to the regulations before bringing them back for consideration by the House? Thank you. [Applause.]