Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA essentially supports the document tabled as we see it as a useful framework going forward.
This document is based on current practice, and our own experience indicates that there are various problems such as constraints with regard to the implementation. One of the critical constraints that exists is an attitudinal one because one can produce any theoretical model one likes, but if the attitudes of the members of this House and the executive are not in tune with the model, then I'm afraid one is wasting one's time.
So it is this relationship between the members and the executive that I initially want to focus on. Section 42(3) of the Constitution clearly gives this House the right to exercise oversight over the executive; and Section 55(2) requires this House to actually bring government to account where there are problems. Yet, what is our experience?
I'm reminded of the electricity crisis that we went through early last year. Our desire on this side of the House was to bring the then Minister of Public Enterprises, hon Alec Erwin, to account or rather be fired, because he did not exercise due diligence in his portfolio.
Now Section 92(2) of the Constitution specifically says that members of the executive are collectively and individually accountable for the exercising of their powers and performance of their functions. Yet the ANC and the Cabinet hid behind the whole concept of collective responsibility, contrary to what is in the Constitution.
So the nub of the issue is this: Unless members and the executive take on board exactly what is in this model, are prepared and have the courage to actually implement the model, then I'm afraid the model is useless. We have to exercise that oversight and demand accountability irrespective of what party bosses say - and have the courage to do so - because the attitude of the members, and not the model, will define the credibility of this institution. This brings me to the attitude of some of the Ministers of this House. All too often they treat the House at best as an irritant, at worst as an institution for which they have extreme disdain, bordering on contempt.
Why do I say this? Take questions, for example. They are a critical part of exercising oversight and demanding accountability. What is our experience? First of all, let me just say that in respect of written questions last year, 1 757 questions were tabled. The ruling party tabled 12 questions - 0,68% of all the questions. The DA tabled 1 512, which is almost 86%. But that is by the by.
More importantly, what is the record in respect of answers? Now, it is the Rule of this House that Ministers have to answer within 10 days. Our experience, first of all, is that very often there are no responses at all. As at the end of 2008, 56 questions had not been responded to. In October last year, there were over 280 questions that had not been answered, some of them stretching back to as early as February 2008 - late replies. In fact, the vast majority of replies ignore that Rule which is in the model.
So it is the attitude of Ministers that is pivotal as far as this is concerned. And very often when the replies come, they are fudged replies. In law we call it "vague and embarrassing", and indeed the replies are very often vague and embarrassing.
So, what is the solution? The solution is, as we see in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape, that if a Minister is unable to reply in time, he has to give an explanation in writing. If he does not give an explanation, must appear on the next oral day, table a response and give an explanation as to why that response was not in time. It's done in other legislatures, and there is no reason why it cannot be done in this legislature.
Now, what about oral questions? Regarding oral questions, we know that Ministers come here, but very often they are not present. The nadir was in October 2007 when, in the social clusters, 11 Ministers were required to appear, only four of whom did. Clearly, that can neither be an exercise of oversight nor the accountability demanded in those circumstances.
Very often Ministers do not appear and the Deputy Ministers are required to actually respond, and very often they have not been properly briefed. So, in respect of follow-up questions, quite clearly it is a waste of time; and very often not even the Deputy Minister is here and the response is given to a Minister in that cluster. Well, I get more response from my puppy dog, which at least wags its tail. So, we need to do what we do as far ... [Time expired.]