Mevrou die Voorsitter, die Wes-Kaap maak ernstig beswaar teen hierdie besluit dat geen vrae aan die President van die RSA in hierdie Raad toegelaat sal word nie. Trouens, daar was versoeke dat 'n meer buigsame en verbruikersvriendelike proses van vrae aan die President ingestel moet word, byvoorbeeld dat die President drie of vier keer per jaar in die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies vrae sal beantwoord. Ook dit was onaanvaarbaar. Al die opposisiepartye - die VCDP, die ACDP, die IVP, die Nuwe NP en die DP - het hulle ook geruime tyd beywer om hierdie besluit in die veelpartyswepeforum te voorkom.
Die Wes-Kaap se teenkanting word ook verder duideliker in die lig van die volgende redes. Eerstens druis die besluit in teen die gees van die Grondwet, wat in artikel 92(2) voorsiening maak dat lede van die Kabinet, met inbegrip van die President, afsonderlik en gesamentlik teenoor die Parlement aanspreeklik is. In artikel 42(1) word dit uitdruklik bepaal dat die Parlement uit beide die Nasionale Vergadering en die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies bestaan. Derhalwe sal 'n standpunt van die Konstitusionele Hof oor hierdie aangeleentheid uiters interessant wees.
Tweedens, in die lig van persepsies wat reeds bestaan en verder versterk word in 'n verslag wat oor die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies verskyn het waarin hierdie Raad se doeltreffendheid en provinsiale inspraak bevraagteken word, is dit 'n verdere slag vir die voortbestaan van die genoemde Raad. Voorts plaas dit die ANC se toegewydheid jeens die Grondwet verder onder die soeklig en versterk dit sienings dat die ANC eerder meer sentralisering van regeringsbesluite wil teweeg bring deur die Grondwet te interpreteer en te buig deur gewone wetgewing en parlementre rels.
Derdens plaas hierdie besluit om geen vrae aan die President toe te laat nie 'n denkwyse van die ANC om die magte van provinsies af te skaal tot administratiewe uitvoerende strukture en eerder die magte aan plaaslike regering te versterk en te kontroleer deur regulasies en interowerheidstoekennings weer op die voorgrond.
Vierdens is dit onaanvaarbaar dat die President tyd kan vind om vrae op Cosatu se jaarlikse kongresse te beantwoord terwyl 'n Huis van die Parlement ondergeskik gestel word. Dit skyn ook dat die President se voortdurende buitelandse reise 'n ernstige impak het op sy beskikbaarheid vir die parlementre program.
In die lig van bogenoemde kon die Wes-Kaap nie anders nie as om teen hierdie besluit te stem, wat daarop neerkom dat die ANC se verkiesingsbeloftes van meer deursigtigheid en groter aanspreeklikheid teenoor die kiesers van die RSA in die sand uitloop. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr C ACKERMANN: Madam Chairperson, the Western Cape takes serious exception to this decision that questions to the President will not be allowed in this Council. In fact, there were requests for the implementation of a more flexible and user-friendly questions procedure, for instance that three or four times per year the President would answer questions in the National Council of Provinces. This was also unacceptable. All the opposition parties - the UCDP, the ACDP, the IFP, the New NP and the DP - have been striving for a considerable period of time to avoid this decision in the multiparty whips' forum.
The Western Cape's resistance furthermore also becomes clearer in the light of the following reasons. Firstly, this decision contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, which provides in section 92(2) that members of the Cabinet, including the President, are individually and collectively accountable to Parliament. Section 42(1) categorically stipulates that Parliament consists of both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The position of the Constitutional Court on this matter would therefore be extremely interesting.
Secondly, in the light of perceptions which already prevail and are further amplified in a report that has been published on the National Council of Provinces, in which this Council's efficiency and provincial standing are questioned, this is a further blow to the continued existence of said Council. Furthermore, this places the ANC's loyalty towards the Constitution under the spotlight and it reinforces the view that the ANC would rather bring about more centralised decision-taking by Government by interpreting and bending the Constitution by way of ordinary legislation and parliamentary rules.
Thirdly, this decision not to allow questions to the President once again brings to the fore a school of thought of the ANC of scaling down provincial powers to administrative executive structures and of rather reinforcing the powers of local government and controlling them by way of regulations and intergovernmental allocations.
Fourthly, it is unacceptable that the President can find the time to answer questions at Cosatu's annual congresses, while one of the Houses of Parliament is rendered subordinate. It would also appear that the President's continual overseas trips are having a serious impact on his availability for the parliamentary programme.
In the light of the abovementioned, the Western Cape has had no option but to vote against this decision, which boils down to the ANC's election promises of more transparency and greater accountability towards the electorate of the RSA running out into the sand.]