I think Members of Parliament should really take time to go and read this report. When you read it, you will find that it is actually very embarrassing because of its quality. I mean, hon Landers has been very kind in the report he has given, without pointing out all the difficulties, because it is not often that all the parties in this Parliament unanimously agree to something. Without a lot of debate on this matter, we all unanimously agreed that we should not entertain this report because what has been suggested is unconstitutional and legally not feasible.
When we wrote the letter to the Public Protector and she wrote back, she apologised for quoting the wrong clauses. Firstly, for the Public Protector to write a letter to the Speaker of Parliament and quote her own Act incorrectly is unacceptable. Then she quoted section 8 and said that she was acting in terms of section 8. Section 8 says that if you make findings that you think the National Assembly should deal with, then you should refer your report to Parliament. In the next sentence she wrote that she never intended for Parliament to discuss the report, although she had just indicated that she had acted in terms of that section.
The recommendation in the report - listen to this - is to "the Speaker of Parliament", not the "Speaker of the National Assembly". The Public Protector does not even know that it is the Speaker of the National Assembly. Then, the "Speaker of Parliament" must, in consultation with the IEC but without the chairperson of that body, decide whether action should be taken. I must be honest with you that a Grade 1 kid would not make a legal suggestion like that. It just breaks every tenet of the separation of powers in how government should operate, to suggest not that Parliament should do it but that the Speaker should do it. Firstly, she does not understand that the Speaker operates through Parliament. That is why the Speaker, even though what he received looked so funny, obviously referred it to the committees - he acts through them.
Then, of course, at no stage did she say at all that she was looking at the removal of the head of the organisation. Somehow, someone must have mentioned it to her when she sent the report. So she wrote about it in her letter to us, although in her report she never dealt with the removal. She wrote asking, "Why do you not just pass this on, because she said something nasty about me in the media? Why do you not just pass this on to the Electoral Court, because there is a dispute?"
Please go and read the legislation that this Parliament passed on how to deal with the commissioner. Please do yourself a favour, and also go and read the report yourself. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.