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.]