Deputy Speaker and hon members, at the outset I wish to thank you all for your inputs, and also for the spirit in which the debate was conducted.
I have taken careful note of the concerns raised and wish to assure you that consideration will be given to the challenges which you have raised, as well as the solutions you have proposed. There are, of course, a few matters to which I would like to respond.
Firstly, I am in agreement with the Chief Whip of the Majority Party when he calls for adequate resources, as well as dedicated support, for the Chief Whips' Forum. I have already indicated that to him in our conversations - it was some time ago - but I reiterate it here, now. I believe that the role of the forum, as a multiparty body responsible for the co-ordination of matters for which the Chief Whips are responsible, should be supported. I would, however, like to call for closer working relationships between the Whips of the NA and those of the NCOP, in line with the multiparty Joint Whips' Forum envisaged in the governance of Parliament.
The Chief Whip of the Majority Party also touched on the issue of an oversight committee over the Presidency. I am aware that the matter of the establishment of a parliamentary oversight committee over the Presidency has been and remains on the agenda of the Chief Whips' Forum. I know that the parties submitted their proposals and it is for the Chief Whips' Forum to debate the matter. If parties reach consensus on the establishment of such a committee, the matter can be brought to the Rules Committee for decision. As the Speaker, I cannot be called upon to decide on matters that are before the Chief Whips' Forum, or the multiparty forum, or to consider a matter if I am told it is under discussion.
It is correct that the Joint Rules Committee made the decision in 2009 to defer the matter until there was an understanding of the mandate and functioning of the two Ministries in the Presidency. The intention was to consider whether there was a need for an oversight structure to be established to oversee the new Ministries because of their roles in the implementation of policy and government administration. After the deliberations on the Green Paper on the two Ministries, Parliament obtained understanding on their mandates, functions and expected outputs.
It therefore follows that a process had to be started to determine the oversight structure needed for the two Ministries and to prepare recommendations for the Joint Rules Committee. The placing of the matter before the Chief Whips' Forum for the establishment of a multiparty task team to consider the establishment of an oversight structure was a correct parliamentary process and needs to be followed through.
Mr Davidson raised concerns around the space utilisation project and the appointment of certain service providers. I would like to note that the appointment of MMA Architects was done by the Department of Public Works and not by Parliament. The Department of Public Works paid for their services to design a concept for this project. This firm was appointed in line with due processes within the Department of Public Works.
Parliament conducted a feasibility study which included analysis, option analysis and readiness analysis, in line with the requirements for a megaproject of this nature. This was presented to the Department of Public Works and to the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, POA, in October 2007. This is the same meeting where Mr Davidson was present and the above documents were discussed - so I am told; I was not there at the time.
It is for the Department of Public Works in conjunction with National Treasury to now convert this concept into technical drawings to obtain the necessary approval and funding for this project, as well as to implement it. Discussions at the level of the executive authority with the relevant Ministers are ongoing.
I would like to assure both Mr Davidson and Mr Ellis that the Parliamentary Oversight Authority has met a minimum of four times a year, but more often when pressing matters arose. This is in line with the mandate of the POA to meet at least once a quarter. This has been the case since the inception of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority.
I also take note of the concerns expressed by hon Van der Merwe and hon Ellis that the Joint and National Assembly Rules Committees meet infrequently. This, of course, is a matter of concern to me as well, and I undertake to address this matter urgently.
The Financial Management Act of Parliament requires the establishment of an oversight mechanism that must maintain oversight over the financial management of Parliament. Representation on the oversight mechanism excludes the Speaker and the Chairperson as the executive authority, and also the Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairperson. The oversight mechanism established by the parliamentary governance model in 2006 is the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, which is chaired by the Speaker of the NA and Chairperson of the NCOP. The question is whether the POA, as it currently operates, needs to be amended. I am sure we can continue that discussion - not right now, as I'm just raising the issues for further discussion.
Furthermore, in accordance with the FMPA, the executive authority, which consists of the Speaker and the Chairperson, are appointed by their respective Houses, and remain accountable to them for the sound financial management of the institution.
In respect of the matters raised by the hon Greyling ...