Madam Deputy Speaker and Mr Deputy President, two words stood out from the addresses of both the Speaker and the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, and they were "oversight" and "accountability". Nothing gives more focus or more amply illustrates the need for these than another project that was announced, and that was the building of office space.
I think we need to get some clarity as far as this is concerned, because if we look at the Space Utilisation Project that was announced in early 2000, it went beyond just office space. It included a new Chamber, a banqueting hall, visitor centres, restaurants and apartments for visiting guests. This Parliament needs to know exactly what the status of those projects is. Is this an extension, or the building of a new Parliament by staff?
The genesis of this issue was a presentation of the entire project to the Parliamentary Oversight Authority in July 2007, soon after I was appointed as Chief Whip of the Opposition. At that meeting I asked a number of questions, and those questions are still relevant now: whether a needs analysis had been done; what the costing and budget for the project were; what the tender process was; if there was a consultation process; and which responsible body had approved such a project.
It immediately became apparent that the conceptualisation and planning - as it is now - of the project, as well as the approval of expenditure was cloaked in secrecy. Once again, it is secret.
What also became apparent was that the whole project had been given approval by the presiding officers, without any of the aforementioned processes having been completed. Most importantly - and I'm sure that is the case now - an appropriate tender process had not been embarked upon in respect of the conceptualisation and the design of the project. The latter point is important, as what did emerge was that the presiding officers had awarded the project without due process, having been followed. It was awarded to MMA Architects, a director of which is or was Luyanda Mpahlwa, the brother of the then Minister of Trade and Industry.
In August 2007 the then Speaker responded to an enquiry by me as to the need for a new precinct by stating that the current buildings were designed for a different dispensation and were inadequate for the needs of Parliament. She claimed that the National Assembly Chamber was too small for Joint Sittings. Well, how many sittings do we have? Parliament and the presiding officers did not have suitable banqueting facilities. Cape Town is full of banqueting facilities! The suites for the President and the Deputy President were too small for current requirements.
Mr Speaker, are these still on the table, or are they once and for all off the table? All this happened when the Minister of Finance was telling the nation to tighten their belts, an entreaty that is even more relevant today. The total cost of the project then was R1,4 billion and, billing it in today's money, it is close to R2 billion's worth of public money to be spent on a project of this nature. Exactly how much are we spending now? We do not know. When the then Speaker, Baleka Mbete, moved on, I was of the view that the whole project had appropriately been shelved. It now seems to be springing to life in an ad hoc way!
The critical question has to be: What are Parliament's mechanisms of exercising oversight over a project of this nature? I have searched the records and found no resolution of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, POA, or any other body's approving of that project or the building of the offices opposite. Indeed, we have no appropriate mechanisms.
The question also needs to be asked: How many hospitals, clinics, houses, schools or libraries could be built with such money? In truth, that grand project seems to have been nothing more than a lavish act of self- indulgence.
It is clear that Parliament's own systems and oversight mechanisms are desperately in need of review and strengthening. The need to have strong appropriate mechanisms put in place to exercise oversight over the decisions of the presiding officers - as I believe - manifests, as well as the need to introduce mechanisms to bring them to account. The infrequent meetings of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, with their packed agendas and limited time scales, are clearly inadequate for this purpose.
One such mechanism which was passed by Parliament in 2009 was an Act regulating the financial management of this institution. Chapter 2 of the Financial Management of Parliament Act creates such an oversight mechanism, a kind of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, for Parliament - an independent body to oversee and ensure that all revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities are managed efficiently, effectively and transparently.
This is something that this Parliament desperately needs. However, despite Rules to implement the Act having been adopted by the Joint Rules Committee twice in 2009 and once again in 2010, the Act has not been implemented. The reason, I am advised, is that there is a belief by some of the presiding officers that they need to be represented on the oversight mechanism. Madam Deputy Speaker, such would be akin to a ministerial department, when appearing before Scopa, demanding to be represented by the Minister on that Scopa committee! It is meant to be an independent body.
The Speaker referred to the Oversight and Accountability Model. It is quite ironic that at the very time that the new Parliament was being promoted behind close doors and implementation of the Financial Management of Parliament Act blocked, a very good document entitled Oversight and Accountability Model was being produced by Parliament.
One of the important functions of the oversight model named in the document is to improve the transparency of the institutions of government so as to improve public trust. This is an important document which sets out a unique overview and oversight in the South African context. I quote:
... oversight entails the informal and formal, watchful, strategic and structured scrutiny exercised by the legislatures in respect of the implementation of laws, the application of the budget, and the strict observance of statutes and the Constitution. In addition, and most importantly, it entails overseeing the effective management of government departments by individual members of Cabinet in pursuit of improved service delivery for the achievement of a better quality of life for all citizens.
Now, let me just make the point that democracy and a better life for all are not advanced by the erection of new parliamentary buildings or the compilation of excellent oversight models. The model is an excellent one, but it does not help if Members of Parliament, MPs, are unwilling to exercise the scrutiny referred to, to ask the tough questions and to demand appropriate answers.
What does it help if, having received the answers, they are unwilling or unable to bring the executive appropriately to account? What needs to be fostered in this institution is not just another set of rules or a model, but a culture of oversight and accountability.
We don't have that in this Parliament at all. What we do have is just the opposite: a culture where the executive ducks and dives; where questions often remained unanswered or inadequately answered; where replies to debates or statements in the House are of frustrations or just nonreplies; and where accountability to Parliament is avoided at every turn.
What we need to develop more than models is a culture where the executive recognises the role given to Members of Parliament and their obligation to exercise oversight; where the executive accepts accountability; where the executive is responsive to Parliament and treats it with respect; and where Ministers answer questions and respond appropriately to debates and statements in the House. All this goes well beyond the mere acceptance and formal approval of another oversight model. It speaks to the underlying values of our democracy.
One final word in respect of our failure to exercise oversight since 2002 this Parliament has been drafting interim Rules for the scrutiny of delegated legislation. All members are agreed that such a scrutiny mechanism is urgently needed and necessary, more particularly taking into account the scope and extent of delegated legislation provided for in legislation passed by this House.
This process of drawing up Rules, as I said, began in 2002. We have still not approved them, notwithstanding the fact that the Joint Rules Committee approved the Rules twice in the Third Parliament and once again in the Fourth Parliament. Indeed, these interim Rules have been placed on the Order Paper a number of times this year, but have never been moved or adopted by this House. If you look at today's Order Paper, they are there!
Sometimes I think that on real issues of importance, this Parliament is a parliament in paralysis. Can the DA support Parliament's budget? The answer must be no, not until Parliament gets its own House in order, with appropriate mechanisms introduced to make it transparent, and enable proper oversight and accountability of its own institution. I thank you. [Applause.]