I assume that this means that she has been called to order. Chairperson, I just want to indicate that, if you follow what has been happening in the Western Cape since they took over power, you will find that they have been systematically removing people who are seen in any way to be associated with the ANC, irrespective of whether they are capable of doing the work that they have been appointed to do, purely on the basis of some perceived association with the ANC. So, who are they to come and accuse us of appointing our own people and excluding other people in society? They have no standing to raise that discussion.
Let me not detract from the main issues of the day. The ANC has committed itself to an activist parliament that puts the interests of all South Africans first, especially the poor, as it performs its constitutional responsibilities as a national liberation movement and governing party.
An activist parliament has to be felt by the people. It must be visible through its representatives and have a meaningful impact upon the lives of the people so that they can practically feel and see the concept of the people's Parliament that the Freedom Charter spoke of in 1955. For this to happen parliamentary constituency offices have to be used as springboards for community outreach work. These offices must be the hubs for advice, the engine rooms for discussion and centres where communities can receive literature and information, become informed and politicised and be prepared to go back into the community to serve the people qualitatively better prepared.
Constituencies must be served. The constituency office is the base from which the constituency is serviced. Constituency work is to update communities, to report back, evaluate, assess and monitor the impact of the ANC-led government policies on a community. An activist parliament is one which ensures through its oversight and legislative role that there is a speedy roll-out of basic services to the people by passing appropriate legislation that speaks directly to the needs of the people and will directly benefit them. It further ensures this through its oversight work, working with the executive and ensuring that the executive execute both the constitutional mandate and political mandate they have to better the lives of our people.
An activist parliament is one which understands that oversight is a continuous act in which there is a reinforcing, working relationship between the legislature and the executive ensuring that ANC government policies and programmes are implemented effectively and efficiently.
This is in stark contrast to the opposition and other liberal democratic institutions whose conceptualisation of the relationship is one of a watchdog wanting to bite at anything that moves, misguided by a narrow conceptualisation that the Constitution is there to restrain the ANC and its alliance and must therefore be turned into a guard dog supposedly to protect the people from the ANC.
President Zuma, in the June 2009 state of the nation address, emphasised that the executive welcomed increased oversight as a necessary part of assisting the executive to achieve its targets of an effective and efficient government. An activist parliament is one that is robust but constructive. It seeks to elevate what Parliament stands for - an arena for robust debate, constructive, informed, programmatic engagement, giving direction, providing answers and solutions and giving hope to the nation and its people that their needs are being addressed in their Parliament. Translated, this means that decisions and legislation that are taken and passed by the people's Parliament must result in decent work; steadily improving plurality of life; the provision of quality education; the expansion of skills development; ensuring affordable energy and providing for decent shelter; adequate and clean water; and secure communities. An activist parliament is one in which a battle of ideas must take place between the political parties. Parliament by definition is a forum of debates and of engagement. The activist parliament is current as long as those issues are pertinent to the genuine concerns of our people. We are not here to debate academic issues that have no bearing on the improvement of the quality of life of our people. Let's clarify that.
The activist parliament therefore ensures that the battle and contestation of ideas is a reflection of a deeper struggle for the correct ideological and theoretical direction towards which the state must be driven to realise the expressed interests of the people, especially the poor.
This means that an activist parliament must prepare for the battle of ideas and be adequately equipped to do so by Parliament itself. This does not necessarily have to do with us being sidetracked into issues that are petty and that are not pertinent to the central transformation agenda that the ANC has put forward for consideration by this nation, as the DA would want us to be.
This suggests that the political heart of parliamentary engagement is through political parties, and it is these parties that must be adequately resourced to meet the challenge of raising on a continuous basis the quality and integrity of debate. It is these very debates in Parliament which provide for seeds of policy development and review.
An activist parliament calls for the renewal of the political management of Parliament, the governance of the institution, how it conducts and runs the affairs of Parliament. This requires that there be regular evaluation and assessment of rules and policies that govern the institution of Parliament. It extends to the nature of the discipline that is required in the legislative arm of the state. The Whippery needs to ensure political and organisational discipline of members, ethical conduct and the reflection of sound qualities the nation expects from its leadership.
With regard to working with broader civil society, an activist parliament must have the ability to sustain this work and reach out to sectors which result in this sector enhancing the democracy underpinning decisions of Parliament.
The Speaker discussed the issue of the review of our Rule book in Parliament. He indicated this afternoon that, since 1994, when the existing Rule book was first adopted, it has essentially been a situation of piecemeal amendments and changes to the Rule book rather than overhauling the entire system, which in large measure, I might add, was actually an inheritance from the Westminster system and to some extent the apartheid order Parliament.
Let me pause and remind Mr Watson, who is the DA expert on Rule drafting, that last week's debate about Rule 105 was completely misplaced as an issue of Point of Order. As you read the Rule, it actually says that Ministers may respond to member's statements. It does not create an obligation for Ministers to react to statements. Your point of order was completely misplaced and I was surprised, for a person who is supposed to be an expert on Rules, that you have misread it so badly.
There are a number of drivers that will be proposed regarding how we should go about effecting this review of the Rules of Parliament. There is, for example, a need to determine how the National Assembly wants to give expression to being an African parliament, an activist parliament and a people's Parliament. Issues around the ethos and culture of Parliament and how they find expression in the processes and proceedings of the House need to be clarified. Matters of decorum also need to be addressed, as do some institutional reforms that are required.
The subcommittee of Rules, which I'm privileged to chair, is tasked with the development, formulation or adoption of policy on proceedings, procedures, rules, orders and practices of the Assembly. The subcommittee on review of National Assembly Rules will act as the engine room for the review process, digesting and processing matters of eventual presentation to the Rules committee. [Interjections.]