Chairman, I want to say to the hon Khunou that she must be sure of her facts before she decides to speak on matters she knows very little of. It is not at all clear why she chose to speak about the demolition of churches in this debate, but I suppose if you have nothing much to say, that is the kind of thing you do.
Many people have chosen to speak today about oversight and accountability, and it is obviously a very important issue. But the hon Davidson pointed out some of the serious problems facing us in terms of oversight and accountability and the Programme attached to it. Certainly, this does need addressing. He also pointed out that it is a cause for real concern that the Joint Rules Committee seldom meets. But as far as this House is concerned, the National Assembly, it is of even greater concern, because the Joint Rules Committee of this House never sits.
It is to this body, Mr Speaker, that the DA has submitted various proposals, some years ago already, to look at the whole issue of oversight and accountability. Quite frankly, the proposals we have made also attempt to address the ways that our parliamentary programme operates. Certainly we believe that our parliamentary programme is in urgent need of a revamp.
You said in your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, that during the last year we have built on the legacy of previous Parliaments. You are quite right, Sir. This Parliament is regrettably as boring as the last one was. The truth is, our parliamentary programmes, parliamentary structures, what is expected of MPs and generally our own participation as MPs, does leave a great deal to be desired. The best example of this, quite clearly, is Question Time. This is the most boring part of our programme, whereas in many respects it should be, and certainly as in many other Parliaments, the most dynamic and engaging. But it is the structure of Question Time that makes it boring, Mr Speaker. We need to change it. We need to reintroduce interpellations, as the hon Shilowa mentioned. We need to create the opportunity for MPs to ask more follow-up questions so that proper dialogue with Ministers occurs. We need to consider holding Question Time more frequently, maybe two or three times a week for an hour each, with each cluster questioned every week. We need to make Question Time far more interactive, far more alive. Question Time should be an opportunity to really interrogate Ministers. It has become, in fact, a protection mechanism for them because it is so static and unimaginative.
But on the issue of MPs participation, let me say that we as members of this House have a great deal to answer for ourselves. We have contributed - we do contribute on a daily basis - to making our debates boring. There is very little effort from MPs to really debate in this House. Very little effort is in fact made by MPs to improve the overall standard of debates in this House. Most MPs simply stand up and read their speeches, a monologue, with no reference to what anyone has said before them and no attempt to engage members in the debate at all. Head down and read, Mr Speaker, is often the order of debate. In other words, Sir, this is not a debating Chamber, this is in fact a speechmaking Chamber; and often, quite frankly, poor speeches as far as that goes as well. [Interjectons.]
Please, may I have an extra two minutes and I'll slow down and show you how to deliver a speech, Sir. [Laughter.] People stand up and deliver their speeches and make no attempt to even acknowledge, let alone challenge, what others have said in a debate. We need to change this, Mr Speaker, and it is always worth remembering what Rule 62 says:
A member shall as far as possible refrain from reading his or her speech, but may refresh his or her memory by referring to notes.
I would urge this House; I would urge all parties to encourage their members to abide by this particular Rule.
Mr Cronin, the next time you deliver a speech in this House I am going to watch you with a great deal of interest, Sir - a huge amount of interest.
But, Mr Speaker, there is also a need to introduce different types of debates into this House. Member's debates, party debates, etc. Instead, the only debates we have other than Budget debates in this House are debates on national days, and we have these every year interminably year after year. So, let's change this structure, Mr Speaker. Let's have far more short, sharp debates - areas of concern to parties and to members. Quite frankly, if you think about it, there is no reason why we shouldn't do this.
Parties propose motions every single day they are entitled to in this House, but in actual fact, none of those motions are ever debated. Mr Speaker, wouldn't it be fascinating too if, for example, Ministers were prepared to take questions during their speeches? This would really help to make the debate very interactive. I can imagine the hon Stofile, for example, standing up and answering to a question from Mr Lee, having a direct dialogue across the floor. Wouldn't that be fantastic? You'd be too scared to take the hon Lee on, Sir. [Laughter.] We know that. But we don't want to have silly questions like the ones the hon Chauke stands up and ask. In fact, the trouble with Mr Chauke is that he doesn't know the difference between a question and a point of order, but of course that's another matter altogether.