Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first debate introduced by you, the Deputy Speaker, and by the Speaker as the new Speakers of Parliament, and indeed it would be remiss of me if I did not, in the first place, officially congratulate you from this podium on your elevation to that office, and, secondly, wish you both well in the debate and, more particularly, well in your office in the future.
I would hope that Parliament, being a new Parliament with a new Speaker, will take the opportunity to make itself the centre of debate in this country, where key political, social and economic issues and policies find expression and where lively but reasoned debate takes place.
Let me be frank: Over the past 10 years this Parliament has slowly found itself marginalised in terms of its critical role under the Constitution of exercising oversight, and promoting good governance, accountability and transparency by and of the executive. As a result, many would say Parliament ran the risk of losing its relevance.
Under your stewardship, Mr Speaker, we need to ensure that we once again become an independent, robust and lively institution, an institution in which all oversight mechanisms are freely available to political parties in order to uphold the values of democracy and in which vibrant and meaningful debate takes place on issues pertinent to the everyday lives of all South Africans. My colleague Mr Ellis will deal further with these matters.
Mr Speaker, one of the first challenges you have to face is the budget deficit that this institution is facing, currently estimated at about R143 million. This has arisen, predictably, as a result of the general belt- tightening required by Treasury in the light of the decline of revenue the fiscus is experiencing. Indeed, the deficit may well have been higher but for the required delay in the implementation of certain past policy priorities determined by the third Parliament.
Mr Speaker, this period of austerity is certain to be with us for some time and therefore I believe it is necessary, in the light of the changed circumstances, for us to complete, as a matter of urgency, a thorough reprioritisation of all Parliament's strategies, programmes and accompanying policies.
The second challenge that the Speaker has to face, I believe, is to make Parliament as accountable and transparent as we demand of government - to restore its integrity as an institution. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, POA, has become a shadow of the name by which it is described. Indeed, its function seems to have been usurped by the ANC's political committee in Parliament, the committee that champions ANC strategy in this institution.
In this context I would like to focus my attention on the whole matter of the Secretary to Parliament. On 10 March 2009 parliamentarians woke up to find that the Secretary to Parliament had been requested to take special leave and that certain allegations into his conduct were to be investigated. These investigations related to his allegedly failing to act in the best interests of his employer, negligently engaging in certain conduct and failing to exercise the good judgment and diligence expected of an employee in his position.
I need to make the point here that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to Parliament are both appointed by resolution of Parliament - that is, both the NA and the NCOP. It follows that if there is a suspension, such suspension should at least be reported to both Houses. Indeed, it does raise the point as to who can suspend a person appointed by both Houses of Parliament. Surely it is only both Houses of Parliament by substantive motion?
However, notwithstanding repeated attempts by myself to ascertain the exact nature of the charges against him, I was blocked in the Parliamentary Oversight Authority by the then Speaker. I was advised that an investigation was being done by KPMG, the findings of which would constitute the case against him.
On 20 March 2009, KPMG delivered its report, after which I again requested a full briefing and that the report be made available. I was told that the report was still in its draft form and therefore access was denied.
On Sunday, 21 June, Members of Parliament again woke up to find more news about the Secretary. This time the news was that he had been found not guilty and that he had been exonerated of all allegations against him. Fortunately, that Tuesday a Parliamentary Oversight Authority meeting had been scheduled at which I again requested the presiding officer to brief us fully about the developments surrounding the Secretary. The only briefing we got was to be told that they, the presiding officers, were studying the report of the disciplinary commission.
Well, now I too have been studying the report, but not by courtesy of the presiding officers. What is interesting about the KPMG report is that far from being the founding document in respect of the case against the Secretary; it more pointedly concerned allegations about the Secretary of the National Council of Provinces, Adv Matyolo-Dube. Her alleged behaviour documented in the report is deeply problematic and points to an ongoing culture of jobs for pals and potential contraventions of section 17 of the Corrupt Activities Act. Other officials are implicated as well. Indeed, cronyism and nepotism had provided the perfect breeding ground, as it always does, for malpractice and corruption to take place.
In this regard, I have written to you, Mr Speaker, requesting you to submit a full and proper report to the POA detailing what the latest status is with regard to the disciplinary matters of individuals referred to in that report. I also believe, Mr Speaker, that you should be looking at the same time at all cronyism-type practices that seem to epitomise staff appointments in this Parliament. Indeed, since the disclosure of the KPMG report, my office has been contacted by other parliamentary staff members confirming similar incidents of cronyism and corruption in other departments in this Parliament.
In respect of the Secretary, only the last 10 pages of an 88-page report allude to any potential culpability of the Secretary, and it is these matters and others that form the basis of the case against the Secretary. I have now read the findings of Adv Moroka, the presiding officer of the Secretary's disciplinary hearing. Now, it is not my intention to go into the findings of the case or indeed comment on the merits or demerits of the case against the Secretary. However, I do feel constrained to make the following point. I am not surprised by Adv Moroka's finding. The truth is that Parliament's case was put in such an incompetent manner that I believe she had no option but to make the findings she did.
In each charge that Parliament levelled against the Secretary, Parliament either failed on many occasions to lead evidence to support the charge, or else led evidence that was contradicted by the same witness at a later stage. It at times led hearsay evidence or let evidence stand uncontested. Often it failed to understand where the onus of proof lay or led charges that were misconceived and groundless.
I can only come to three possible conclusions. Either there was no real evidence to lead, or the advocate prosecuting the case was incompetent, or the case had been deliberately sabotaged by officials sympathetic to the Secretary. Perhaps there is a bit of truth in all three. My concern is that if I am correct then Adv Matyolo-Dube, the real subject of KPMG, will likewise escape successful prosecution. Having said that, I welcome the Secretary back.
Mr Speaker, your challenges - our challenges - are important. We dare not fail for all of us need to recognise and respect the role Parliament needs to play in promoting, both in respect of the executive and itself, the democratic values of accountability, responsiveness and openness. I thank you. [Applause.]