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.