Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. As we have already outlined, this report, which we are presenting today, is confined to specific terms we need to follow. We will definitely oblige, but there might be a lot of similarities from succeeding members because the confinement moves within particular lines.
Hon Deputy Speaker, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and compatriots, ladies and gentlemen, the report of the Auditor-General provides Parliament with a distinct prospect to locate and become the curator of the issues of high morality and societal values. On top of our national agenda is our quest to build a nation with the highest level of ethical conduct and integrity.
In pursuit of a culture of openness and our resolve to fight corruption, the ANC has, since 1994, created a number of checks and balances to disentangle the state from the pitfalls we had identified. The steps we have taken to ensure accountability and transparency include the establishment of a number of public institutions and systems. These include the Public Protector; the Auditor-General, whose report is before the committee and which we are interrogating; the Inspector-General of Intelligence; the Directorate of Special Operations; the protection of whistle-blowers; corruption tip-off lines that the President is very vocal about; the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000; and there are many more that deal with this.
This debate takes place on the occasion when portfolio committees across the board in this Parliament are hard at work studying and interrogating the Auditor-General's findings, for purposes of oversight.
In addition, the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration is occupied with the report of the Public Service Commission, which presents an overview of the implementation of the financial disclosure framework for the 2007-08 financial year. The findings and the concerns of the commission reveal the enormity and lack of discipline in the application of proper procedures within the Public Service. Therefore, Parliament is called upon to assert its oversight authority in this regard.
The Ministry representing the executive authority and the Department of Public Service and Administration wrote letters requesting the implicated department to indicate attempts to address the weaknesses we are talking about. It is of great concern that most departments failed to meet the deadline of 30 June 2009. This means that some of them could not respond on time.
In this instance, we welcome the President's commitment to treat this matter with the urgency it deserves. Most members were in the House yesterday when the President was responding on this matter, and we've all realised that he takes this very seriously.
As the fourth Parliament, we are expected to robustly conduct oversight over these departments that have not played their part. We will leave no stone unturned in doing the duty we are mandated to perform. We are not going to be spectators whilst the legislative instruments put in place by Parliament are undermined by those meant to assist in the execution of their duties.
Failure to do so will mean we have contributed towards the condition of decay in moral values within government in particular, and within the state in general. Parliament should not fail in its quest to effectively hold the executive accountable to foster delivery of services to the citizens of this country.
Chapter 3, section H of the Public Service Regulations clearly stipulates that any designated official who fails to disclose his or her financial interest, or wilfully provides incorrect, misleading details, is guilty of misconduct.
This means that the designated state officials who are alleged not to have declared their financial interests, have to prove that they did comply with this legal requirement in a formal disciplinary inquiry.
We view this report of the Auditor-General against the bedrock of our continuous call to those honoured to serve in public life to protect the integrity and the trust of citizens in public institutions and governance processes. The South African government has put in place these strong measures, through anticorruption legislation and related codes of ethics at different levels of the Public Service, not to catch wrongdoers but rather to protect the state actors against the potential enticement of acting outside ethical norms and standards.
The legislative instruments have been put in place by this august Parliament. However, a parliamentary oversight on the implementation of these measures was found not to be good enough. To remedy the parliamentary oversight deficiency, Parliament must, through the portfolio committees concerned, make an insightful assessment to ascertain the extent of the impact these measures have or have not made.
The national executive, in conjunction with the provincial and local counterparts, should be held accountable by Parliament and provincial legislatures respectively in the implementation of these existing anticorruption instruments.
Although the report of the Auditor-General does not pass judgment on the guilt or otherwise of the outcome of any disciplinary inquiries that may be instituted, transgression is alleged, and there might be those who have a case to answer.
We must desist from calling for action even before guilt has been established. In the process of correcting the deterioration in moral standing, we should not undermine the rights of those who deserve the right to substantive and procedural fairness.
The success of the South African state and the sustenance of our hard- earned democracy depend on the commitment to observe and respect the established rules and standards set to guide our behaviour and conduct, by all who chose to serve the interests of the nation in public office. When we discuss the report of the Auditor-General today, it should serve as a broader developmental and unifying effort to cultivate a new culture for social cohesion in order to unify our commitment towards a transparent and accountable public life. We must do so for the poor who are the main motivating force in the broad national developmental front and, therefore, the main intended beneficiaries of the national Reconstruction and Development Programme.
In our attempt to unravel the state from this scourge, the state should institutionalise the requirements for accepting into its rank all who commit and abide by its anticorruption policies and objectives.
Screening and vetting of potential state employees, for security clearance and to assess their track record for high-ranking positions, is a regular requirement in mature democracies. The NIA is an institution meant to conduct such processes.
The committee will, in future, call those departments that are not complying with the requirements to appear before it, in line with the existing parliamentary oversight mechanisms. The measures put in place by the Minister are most welcome and should also take into account the legislative gaps that have been identified by the Auditor-General. This is with an aim to restore the moral high ground that our people used to be known for.
The future debate on this matter should be located within the context of our broad national effort, as a nation united in our resolve to create a people-centred, democratic, nonracial, nonsexist society and prosperity while occupying the moral high ground. Thank you.