Introductory meeting with Parliament’s Executive Authority and Secretary to Parliament

Meeting report

Introduction

The Chairperson welcomed Members, guests and the leadership from Parliament. This meeting is a long-anticipated introductory engagement. The Joint Standing Committee on the Financial Management of Parliament started its induction sessions in November 2024 with briefings from its content and research support. The sessions scheduled for this week are a continuation of that induction. It is only fitting that the engagement starts with an introductory session to allow the Executive Authority (EA) and Secretary to Parliament (STP) to bring to the Committee's attention matters present in the institutions leadership, including issues related to the restoration of the building destroyed in the 2022 fire and temporary engagement in place to ensure permanent work continues. The engagement will also look at Parliament's long overdue organisational structuring and how it will improve services and efficiencies in the institution. The briefing will also address the leadership of the institution's positions in respect of the best possible model for funding Parliament, to ensure that it can effectively execute its constitutional obligation of holding the Executive to account and lastly, progress made as far as developing regulations for the Financial Management of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.

The apology of the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) who could not be present as she was at the Pan African Parliament (PAP).

The agenda for the day was adopted.

The minutes for the previous Committee meeting were considered page by page and adopted.

Remarks by Parliament’s Executive Authority

Ms Thoko Didiza, Speaker of the National Assembly, thanked the Committee for the opportunity. She indicated the presentation was made jointly, not as the separate Houses. The presentation she would make would reflect on some of the issues the Committee has raised and legacy issues from the Sixth Parliament. The presentation will look at the mandate, vision and governance of Parliament, legacy issues, strategic priorities, administration and performance of Parliament, and the challenges and proposed remedial action. The mandate of Parliament derives, as we all know, from our Constitution, which established Parliament and set out its functions that it has to perform. As we would all agree, even when we do our campaigns as various parties, we always indicate that this House, which is Parliament, represents the people, and ensures that the government undertakes its business is responsive to the people's needs. As the apex law, our Constitution also ensures and outlines how provinces would be represented as part of the House. So when we talk of Parliament, we really talk of the two Houses, not just of one. We also indicate that in executing our mandate, we do so by ensuring that we pass legislation, which is really our primary responsibility, overseeing and scrutinising executive action, and ensures that in the way in which we work, we foster public involvement, as well as cooperative government and also international participation through parliamentary diplomacy. We see ourselves as an activist and responsive people's Parliament that improves the quality of life of South Africans and ensures enduring equality in our society. And again, I want to affirm that as part of our mission, we represent the people and ensure that government by the people fulfills our constitutional functions of passing laws and oversight and overseeing executive action.

There are certain values that, in terms of what we have to do, are supported by our administration, and ensure that there is openness in our work and responsiveness in how we respond to issues that communities raise. also accountability, firstly as members, in terms of our own responsibility, but also holding the Executive to account and that as the administration, we offer professional services to support the work of Members with integrity, but also ensuring mutual respect. And we work in a team spirit in terms of governance structures, as outlined in the FMPPLA of 2009 - it sets out that there is an Executive Authority of Parliament, which is the Speaker of the National Assembly and Chairperson of the National Council of Province, where in undertaking the matters of Parliament, they act jointly. And then this Committee is an oversight mechanism which really ensures that the resources that are given to this institution, as Parliament is used for the purpose which it is budgeted for. The Secretary of Parliament then becomes the Accounting Officer. To ensure an independent eye on managing these Parliament resources, the Executive Authority will appoint an audit committee.

So, we see that our work reflects three pillars. The mechanisms utilised by Parliament to execute these mandates, as we all know, include plenary debates, motions that are tabled in both Houses, petitions and committees in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. It is also done through public participation, where, as we know in particular, the National Council of Provinces would interact by having engagements where they would go out to communities and actually ensuring that they are continuously in touch with what communities want and listening to them, but also giving feedback and working also with the various structures such as SALGA and engaging with traditional leaders through the National House. These committees, the portfolio and select committees, do over 90% of the work of both Houses and are submitted for consideration and resolution of the Houses.

The presentation looked at how, from 1994, Parliament has evolved in terms of legislation, public involvement, oversight and accountability, cooperative government and international participation. We will recall that in the first term, in 1994, it was more about drafting the Constitution, but also setting out the legislative framework, and as Parliament evolves, it became clear that public involvement not just in ensuring that people can access Parliament through television, but also ensuring that effective public engagement processes are undertaken in all our work, particularly in legislation.

There are a number of issues from previous parliaments, even the Fifth Parliament, that still need to be engaged on and formalised. This includes the Kader Asmal report on the review of Chapter Nine and associated institutions. This recommendation still needs finalisation to reflect on the journey since 1994 and to examine whether functions are duplicated between the institutions supporting democracy. I want to report that we've already met all of the various Chapter Nine institutions together, what they've been doing, and what the challenges are facing. I also want to start the discussion about what the Asmal report indicated. In my view, this is important work that this administration needs to conclude on. For example, we have seen the Human Rights Commission approach Parliament and even the courts to have their recommendations binding like the Public Protector. So these are some of the matters, in my view, that we would need to finalise and resolve.

There is also the Kgalema Motlanthe Commission, whose task was to assess key legislation passed since 1994 and see to what extent these accelerate fundamental change. This was in the fifth administration and the report was forwarded to various committees in line with the report's recommendations. We need to conclude this report because, from where we sit, not much has been done by various committees to really look at the outcomes and the recommendations. For example, the Motlanthe was actually saying the government needs to develop legislation on land redistribution, as it is suggested by the Constitution, particularly section 25 (6). You would recall that the committee even drafted legislation but could not proceed with some recommendations.

Speaker Didiza outlined the next matter: the Zondo Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption, and Fraud. Again, this is another report that we are working on. Similarly, the Public Protector's reports and recommendations have been brought to the House.

The other matter from the sixth administration relates to how we incorporate court directives in the law-making processes to effect remedies to laws, both substantive and procedural and issues that were struck off the roll. One of those was the Traditional Leaders and Khoisan legislation and the review of pre-1994 legislation. I can indicate that from the side of the National Assembly, this matter has already been brought to the relevant committee to look at it. There has been agreement that the portfolio committees might need to engage with one another, because some of that legislation may have certain elements that are still relevant to our legal framework today, even though the entirety of the law may not be. So, in the National Assembly, various committees address this matter. The political party funding legislation was taken to court and is being considered by the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs.

The restoration of Parliament’s buildings is work in progress.

We are refocusing the Speaker’s Forum and its function. We've had our first Speaker’s Forum. We've relooked at its functions and how it can really be refocused so that it retains its responsibility of coordination and maybe moves away from some of the issues that they might have started to deliberate on.

Parmed is another legacy issue that has not really been resolved. The core issue has been the cost of the medical aid, particularly for serving Members. And there was a view that was expressed in the fifth administration and continued on the sixth administration, that we need to look at two options, one of repealing the law so that it's not mandatory when a Member comes into a Parliament that they automatically become a member of Parmed. The second proposal that was made in subsequent meetings, some of which came from the Chief Whips Forum and others were discussed in the board itself, was maybe to broaden the scheme to allow for magistrates, traditional leaders and all of those who are public office bearers to form part of the scheme. This matter was also raised with the commission that is responsible for remuneration of public office bearers, and in the report that they presented both to the Speaker and NCOP Chair, they indicated the challenge that the magistracy has because they felt they will not be able to afford the cost of the fund. The third option was for the scheme to have various options like GEMS. The matter was not actually resolved, because the legal advice was that if there is to be any change of any kind to the scheme, all members, including those who are continuing members, will have to be consulted individually to get their views on what they would want. This is a matter the Deputy Speaker is responsible for.

It's important for us to say that the impact of two extraordinary events that happened globally and in our own country will continue to be felt by the seventh administration, particularly the burning of our Parliament and COVID-19. Though these have affected the efficacy and effectiveness of Parliament, I must say that we have been able to manage through technology to ensure that the work of Parliament does not get frustrated. However, in the seventh administration, Members have strongly felt that a temporal measure needs to be put in place to ensure that the functionality of Parliament takes place. That would mean having a place for the plenary of the National Assembly, but also ensuring enough committee rooms for both Houses, portfolio committees and select committees to meet. Some work has been done. Working with Public Works, the dome has been constructed, and the debate of the president and budget will be hosted. We have made progress with committee reports. I think there are 15, but the weakness is that not all of them have a broadcasting system, so it does affect one of our values of transparency and openness as Parliament.

Speaker Didiza said the new political landscape following the 2024 election has enabled us to relook at our rules in both Houses and how we actually ensure that we are alive to those changes that happened as a result of the elections. For example, we've got the Deputy Chief Whip of the largest party, as opposed to the majority as we would have had before that. Now, even though in number, the official opposition is not the one that had the largest numbers in terms of the elections, which is now the MK party, which is the third party in terms of number, but because of the formation of the Government, includes other parties, so certain changes were necessitated. This meant amending the rules of both Houses on a number of issues. I know with the NCOP, they're also in the process of amending some of their rules to ensure that it covers some of those matters that will address the fuller functionality of the House.

As we all know, there are continuous challenges domestically, which does create constraints, but also means, in my view, maybe there is heightened work that is Parliament we have to do in ensuring that, when necessary, we actually ensure that the Executive responds to those issues that are a challenge in our society, such as unemployment, the cost of living, as well as rising crime, gender-based violence and others. But also there are global shifts, and I'm sure we have also experienced what some of those shifts have meant. If you look at the sixth administration, I think the conflict between Russia and Ukraine impacted the cost of living because it shot up the fertiliser and grain prices, affecting the global value chain. But at the same time, I think the current reconfiguration that’s happening in the EU as well as in the US, has also brought other dynamics, particularly when it comes to issues of trade. I'm sure our various committees and as part of our international diplomacy will continue to engage with some of that work.

Looking at the transition from the sixth to the seventh parliament, it’s very interesting to compare, for example, the total number of Members – 54% are new in the Seventh Parliament, which speaks to the need for ongoing training, but not just because they are new. Older Members will also benefit from ongoing training. I think the NCOP has been doing that very well, having an annual training in the beginning of the year. I think that, as the National Assembly, there's something that we can learn from the NCOP. We also looked at the members' average age. It is very interesting that we have young members, but the average age is 51. So, the question maybe we might have to ask ourselves is how to ensure that in our various political parties we become deliberate about infusing young people, women, as well as people with disabilities.

The other issue relates to the number of chairpersons since we started. We have had engagements with the chairs, and they've said they would want increased engagement, particularly training, not just for themselves as chairpersons, but also of their Members, even on sector-specific training. It is important for us to note that from the sixth parliament to now, as a result of the new configuration of government, we've got four additional committees, portfolio committees, which indeed will increase human and financial resources.

Looking at the parliamentary priorities and planned outcomes and impact we have had, both Houses, since October last year, are dealing with strategic planning to determine the priorities of the seventh administration. The Houses will deal with the timelines to make the final determination. But from where the administration sits, we look at how we can strengthen oversight mechanisms of Parliament and how we can enhance legislative processes and public involvement and improve appointments and international engagements. one of the things we have reflected upon in engaging with the various portfolio committee chairs and select committee chairs is about the funding model to enhance. At the moment, a ballpark figure of the budget is under core business. So at times, when the committees plan for their annual work, they plan without really knowing what is the figure for each committee to do their work and acknowledging that the work of the various committees may not necessarily be the same, we then end up sometimes with committees not being able to do the oversight work that they would like to do, because they are then informed that there are no resources. So we have agreed that in the way we budget going forward, we will need to be very clear about how much each committee is budgeted for, at least for a year, so that they can have better planning regarding the work they are doing. This is important to ensure that the outcomes improve Parliament’s effectiveness, and that our work in law-making is impactful. This also relates to public participation and ensuring a proper record of the work being done. When we go on oversight and engage communities, we need to see whether the legislation we pass is really having an impact. So what it means is that we have, as Parliament, need to be more rigorous in looking at the legislation that comes from the Executive, or it might be a Private Member’s Bill to see to what extent this legislation will impact our people.

We also believe that if we do our work well, we'll be able to ensure that we are responsive. We hold the Executive to account as we must, and that we afford meaningful and adequate participation, so that our value of ensuring that we engage our people in the processes of Parliament, particularly on law making, is seen and that it actually impacts the programming of Parliament. In the latter part of last year, we tried to allow for more time for constituencies because we believe that enables members to engage more with our people and resolve their problems or challenges. And I do think that as the two Houses, we have indicated that it will be important that in looking at the programme of Parliament, we do really afford enough time for constituency work, but also, how do we ensure that our constituency offices are not just the four walls and the desks. So, resources permitting, we have had an engagement of really making sure that our offices are effective and properly supported in terms of technology, so that even if a Member is in Parliament, if you have a TV screen or whatever that is interoperable, you can still be in Parliament. You can engage your constituency from where you are. So, we are looking at some of those issues. Once we have a clear proposal of what is possible in the first or second year, we'll be able to communicate with the Committee, because we believe that as Parliament, we really have to take those offices as the extension of Parliament. Members belong to different parties, but every constituency office must enable every member of society to get services, which therefore means the way we as Parliament see those offices and how we support them becomes important.

The Speaker indicated the presentation touched on the work Parliament has done like the number of bills dealt with, international relations and diplomacy work, oral questions and written questions. as the two Executive Authorities, we are constantly engaging with the Leader of Government Business to try to really make sure that we improve on it. The presentation showed that the executive response rate increased from quarter two to quarter three, particularly in terms of written questions, similarly, in the NCOP. We think we will have to continuously engage in these areas to ensure we keep the executives accountable regarding their responsibilities.

We also indicate the committees’ activities and the work done by both Houses regarding the oversight visits, quarterly reports, and meetings.

The next slides relate to the 2024/25 budget allocation. The slide also addressed human capital and the turnover. There are ongoing capacity-building interventions to strengthen our human resource capability as well as the capacity of the institution. This is important because these officials support you in doing your work on the various committees. We've also ensured that in terms of our labour relations, we continue a healthy engagement with our labour. The budget will always be a challenge. Regarding office space, I'm sitting with members here who have written to me and are raising the issue that they would still need office space. We're attending to it because, as you would know, we lost a lot of office space during the fire. There is also the perennial issue of parking which we continue to look at to be addressed. Regarding the funding model, we have had at least one engagement with the Minister of Finance. We have agreed that we will continue to look at how Parliament is properly funded so that it can do its work.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Speaker for the comprehensive presentation. I thought you would make remarks, so you made a presentation that preempted most of the items that will be presented this week. We want to thank you so much for that. He opened the floor for questions.

Ms M Clarke (DA) Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the presentation. I would just like to ask a few questions. In this presentation, we discussed that our core functions as Members of Parliament are writing legislation, oversight and public participation in the main. In experience, and I don't know if other Members have had this experience, but I serve on the Health Committee, and Member Frollick [House Chairperson: Committees] has always declined our oversight in many instances when we've applied. So I really think that that is an issue that needs to be looked at, that there's enough budget for us to actually go and do our oversights. Our hospitals really need visiting, and we need to table reports to upgrade our health facilities. So in my experience, that is an issue. And there are some other committees that, when we caucus, have the same problem. So if that could really be taken up, that would be our main core function.

Then in terms of Parmed, I've belonged to it for very long time. So, you know, I qualify for the top up when I retire, and the percentage that we get paid. So I'm very glad to hear that the board is going to speak to each and every Member on their own merits, because someone like me that's been around for a long time, I would like to remain on Parmed, because it's beneficial to me to do that, because I've paid into that scheme for a very long time.

Then, in terms of the committees that will now be sitting in person, I experience that we still do a lot of virtual meetings, and I don't think it's ideal in terms of accountability. I think when you are face to face in meetings, you get a lot more done because you can actually read the meeting and get a feel for the discussions that are going on.

Then, in terms of the budget and expenditure, in terms of the burning of Parliament, I note that only 10% of the budget is expected to be spent out of the R1.3 billion, if I'm correct. I would like to know the contractor appointed, the timelines for the project, and if there are penalty clauses within that contract. Because normally, when you embark on a big project like that, there should be penalty clauses if the contractor does not meet the timelines. I request that a full report be sent to this Committee regarding the status quo of that issue, and the investigation is also linked to that. She asked for a report on the investigation to give the Committee more insight on the issue and what happened.

Then I just want to get clarity on the constituency offices mentioned in the presentation because I'm not aware that any of us have constituency offices. So, what are the criteria and the thinking around constituency offices? We have our own working spaces in our constituencies, but Parliament does not provide them. Thank you very much.

Mr R Badenhorst (DA, Western Cape): it's my first time here. I'm very excited to be here. Looks like a lovely bunch of people. So let's see how it goes. And it's amazing how you often sit next to a colleague and think the same thing. So just to expand on what my colleague asked about the core function of Parliament. I think it'd be useful to know at the moment if our core function is oversight and legislation, which obviously includes public participation, and how much of the operational budget Parliament is spending on our core function. Maybe it'll be useful to interrogate, just to see percentage-wise as a figure.

With regards to the burning of Parliament, burning of the National Assembly, I've noticed that we sometimes have parliamentary protection services, because when you watch TV and some of our colleagues get a little bit unruly, you see these guys in white shirts jumping on the stage and doing work as security. So they are parliamentary protection services. But as a Member of Parliament, I don't ever see them on the campus. I see police. So I wonder what the parliamentary protection services are doing on a day-to-day basis? What are they doing in between [sittings]? Where are they and why are they not doing the job that the police are doing at the moment? Surely they should protect the windows, doors, and entrances instead of SAPS. Maybe we could use SAPS in a more productive way on the Cape Flats, protecting people there. What does it cost us to have SAPS protecting us versus paying for parliamentary protection services and maybe having them protect Parliament?

Which brings me to the employees - I think we mentioned that we have 1,195 employees in Parliament. How many of them are actually working in Parliament, and how many of them are working from home? I'm a committee chair, and three of my staff are not available to me on a day-to-day basis. They work from home. So if I want something done, for example, printing, they say sorry, I can't help you chair, because I work from home, you have to go and get printing done by your political party if you want it done for a committee meeting. The reality of the matter is, as a committee chair, I don't have a printer, so at the moment, I'm using my party political printing office, abusing it for printing. But it brings me down to where the support for Members of Parliament is if they work from home and are not on the precinct. And I understand there might be a shortage of office space, but there is space available in some of the buildings.

Then, with regard to the restoration of Parliament, and as my colleague mentioned, there must be accountability for the contractor and subcontractors. Surely we have to have a certain say on when the contractor subcontracts and if the subcontractor doesn't do their work properly. Are we holding this contractor responsible for what the subcontractor does or doesn't do, and what are the parameters of appointing those subcontractors? What are the actual reasons for the delay? I noticed that Treasury has made R2 billion available for the restoration of the National Assembly, and our presentation only refers to R1.3 billion, so there's a shortfall of R700 million somewhere in there. What is the reason for that? I think we have one go at it, to rebuild the National Assembly. We should do the best possible job we can to rebuild the National Assembly, because I don't think going forward, lots of other money will be made available for any capital investment in the National Assembly.

Mr C Dugmore (ANC): I'm aware that we're having a presentation immediately after this one by the Secretary and that during the week, we will be having a lot of presentations as well. But with that in mind, I just wanted to make a few comments in terms of the Speaker’s presentation. I think, in terms of the outcomes that the Speaker has mentioned in her priorities, I think all of those outcomes need our full support. But I think as we go along, it's going to be important for us as an oversight committee to have a look at exactly what resources are committed to achieving those particular outcomes. I do have a concern that in terms of what's described as meaningful and adequate participation of the public, I think until we have an idea about what is actually being spent on parliamentary communications, how that could be enhanced, public participation would be difficult. So I'm just signaling support for all those outcomes. But as we go along, I think it's important that we get a sense of what's spent. Ms Clarke mentioned something about a health committee wanting to do oversight, and being told by the chair of chairs that there's no budget. My experience in the legislature in the Western Cape was that committee chairs were responsible for a certain budget per committee. So they knew that within that budget, if they were going to go and do an oversight visit to the Southern Cape or whatever, they would have to budget for that. So I don't know if it doesn't work like that in Parliament. Do committees actually get an allocation, and then can the committee decide? I didn't realise there would be permission for every oversight visit from the chair of chairs. So it could be useful to get clarity on that. What is the actual budget available for committees? In terms of those outcomes, meaningful and adequate participation and oversight would be needed if we can’t fund these activities. I’m aware this week that 16 committees are actually on oversight, and the 20 are having meetings around Parliament and the NCOP. So budgets are required for that.

And then I just wanted to ask a question: we're restoring Parliament, and I think many of us are not fussy regarding accommodation. I think the three parliamentary villages are an important part of Parliament's life because that's where our Members are staying to come and participate and so on. But is in this budget, does the budget for improving or upgrading parliamentary villages come from the budget that's referred to in the Speaker’s presentation? Or is that a budget somewhere else? I'd be interested around that.

Reference was made to values and professionalism etc but just in terms of my experience as a Member regarding the responsiveness of parliamentary staff, I was just wondering if, for instance, is there a standard protocol so that when Members of Parliament request support from ICT, or when they submit a claim, or when they do this, or that, is there like a protocol or a standard in terms of Parliament meeting those requests? Is there a two-week turnaround time for a request for reimbursement? Or do we have issues that assist in the accountability and support that Members get from our parliamentary staff?

Mr Dugmore lastly asked for a list of the audit committee members, appointed by the Executive Authority.

Mr M Feni (ANC, Eastern Cape): I welcome the presentation. Indeed, it is assisting us as members in understanding our role as legislators at this level critically. I must also welcome and appreciate the consistent briefing in terms of the developments concerning the rebuilding. Also regarding the budgetary constraints, it is useful to be educated on this to understand the operations. He spoke to the rebuild project. He asked about the legislative process vs the court judgments. Remember, our role as legislators is that we don't necessarily need the court to instruct us to make a particular decision. There is an issue in the public domain: our parliamentary role is now being taken over by the court, and we are being forced to make decisions in our mandatory political responsibility. I won't mention specific legislation because there is a plethora. What is important is to look at what becomes a best practice. It is important not to be complacent in the process. There is a serious challenge with venues, understanding that COVID-19 has made us to be more creative and dynamic in terms of how we approach certain issues, but it does have an element of destabilising somewhere, somehow, in terms of how we approach our work. Certain functions are not necessarily performed as expected due to the absence of support we might need. I must appreciate also the allocation of time for constituency work, because that's where we are needed. But it must not just be the allocation of time, but also resources in different forms, such as your human resource, because in response to some of our constituencies' challenges, you need resource mobilisation to respond to those.

Ms H Neale-May (ANC): I just have four questions, and basically one or two are comments. I like the idea of spending more time in the constituency. I think it's very important that we engage with people, and at the same time, finding ways that we can interact with constituency offices more creatively, like through the TV screen, and making your constituency office like a parliamentary precinct. I'm busy trying to do that as a model now, just to see so that one can encourage people to come into the office while taking Parliament to the people. I think that is very important that we need to do.

The other area that I wanted to speak on is the parliamentary rebuild. I think we need to do it. We need to do it right. That is your national pride. Your parliamentary buildings in any country are of national pride, irrespective of what political party you are. So if we can monitor and evaluate, but do it right, it must be done in a manner that generations will look back and say, look at this. This is South Africa's Parliament, and this is what it actually means to the nation.

The third question that I wanted to speak about is, I still think that having hybrid and virtual meetings is important, and it is part of how the world is moving. You still need that contact. We still need face to face, but at the same time, we are moving into an electronic sort of dimension. So I think balance is very important, but we still need to ensure that hybrid or virtual meetings are part of it. It is also part of cost containment, because if you think that every meeting is face to face, the costs go up, but at the same time, we can prioritise which meetings are important for face to face.

The last question that I have is on the budget. If so, who is responsible for cutting Parliament's budget? If legislation requires Parliament to approve its own budget, does Parliament's underfunding not limit its ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities? I think it is very important that we look at that and make sure that Parliament is able to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities with a properly crafted budget. Thank you.

Ms O Maotwe (EFF): you did very well Speaker. You mentioned that one of Parliament's mandates is to pass legislation. But our experience is that, the majority of the time, the bills that come to committees that get expedited are the ones from the Executive. Every time we ask, we are told about the inefficiencies in the legal office, structuring staffing and such like that. So we need to really prioritise beefing up the legal office to ensure that they are able to function and do what they need to do, because all Members of Parliament should be able to bring a Private Member's Bill that gets processed. It doesn't matter where it ends up; it ends up not being approved by Parliament, but it has to go through the process. We've got experience of a lot of our Private Member Bills that did not go any further. Some stems from the Fifth Parliament, such as the Nationalisation of the Reserve Bank. So I think we need to beef up the legal office.

On the Political Party Funding Act, as the previous Member said, we see people who are not Members of Parliament forcing Parliament to develop laws for the country. We won't shy away from the fact that NGOs are pushing this Political Party Funding Act to come to Parliament because of a court ruling brought there by an NGO. Again, the NGO has taken it to court to say remove the threshold of R100 000. So we see that happening quite a lot. How will we arm ourselves as Parliament to ensure that we are not being removed from our mandate and don't bring elements into the country? Who funds these NGOs and what are the motive forces behind all this? Which direction do they want to take us to? So those are the questions that we, as members of Parliament, need to ask ourselves. And how do we navigate being used to create the laws? And maybe we should also create laws for these NGOs because they are free to dictate what we need to do.

On the matters stemming from the Sixth Parliament, as much as we welcome the reconstruction of Parliament, there's also the relocation of Parliament matter that, if I remember quite well, was never finalised. So perhaps you should also find expression in the seventh administration to deal with it. The last time I checked, the feasibility study was done, but I am not sure where it ended up, so perhaps we can look at that again.

Regarding the parliamentary villages, I remember there was talk about a housing allowance for Members of Parliament instead of staying in the parliamentary villages. Members of Parliament can choose where they stay. I do know that we need to maintain and respect the dignity of Parliament, but do we find dignity in those houses? Box houses, I don't know. What happened to that issue of the housing allowance?

Regarding the meeting rooms, we went to Denmark, I think in 2021 or 2022, they had a similar issue with painting the Parliament. Actually, it was the second time that the Parliament burned, and they told us it took them more than ten years to restore it. So I don't know how far we are. But it means that we will still have this challenge of meeting rooms, which makes it difficult for Parliament. We see some committees being forced to go to hotels, which are far more expensive. Can't we look at other offices that we can utilise? We are your legislature. Surely the provincial legislature perhaps has meeting rooms that can be looked into, if not, then the Cape Metro municipality, because all of that is government. Perhaps instead of utilising the hotels… I don't think the provincial legislature is far from Parliament. I think it's just four minutes walking distance, if you are fit like me.

Regarding the impact of raising the quality of life in our citizens and the speedy service delivery to our people. How do we measure that? How do we measure the workings of Parliament actually filtering down to our people? And I'm saying this because a survey shocked us all, and people actually don't take us seriously. I think it was 11% or 12% of the people that were actually taking Parliament seriously. So how do we make sure that our people change their attitude to this democracy that was fought so hard that we don't end up losing it, and then we see our work raising the quality of life to our citizens, speeding up delivery by the government?

Regarding questions, what else can we do besides escalating to the Leader of the Government Business? Because we've seen that, we write letters to you, Speaker, you reprimand, you involve the LOGB, but for example, the Minister will just leave in the middle of the oral questions session, and nothing happens when the Minister doesn’t answer the questions. Is that how we want to hold them accountable? Is that how we want our leaders really to behave? So we need to have a mechanism of forcing the Executive to really respond to our questions because these are the questions that are coming from our constituencies. So if you want to bring Parliament to the people, that's one of the ways of bringing Parliament to the people. Because when I go back home, I report back to say, Hey, your issue was raised in Parliament, and this is a response, so they feel somehow that they are indeed represented. Perhaps they will change their attitude and not take Parliament seriously.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC): we really appreciate the progress made so far. Regarding the reports highlighted in the Speaker’s overview of the Asmal Report, the Kgalema Motlanthe, the Zondo report and even the Public Protector’s reports, we really want to see some improvement from Parliament, and also our committees on how we deal with these matters, and we want Parliament to take decisions concerning these matters, because they are thorns in our necks. The people out there want to see what Parliament is doing with this. We know some of the [recommendations] have been implemented, but not all of them.

Then, on Parmed, while some of us are benefiting a lot, some have retired and have invested in this Parmed for years, like Ms Clark. Let's allow for more options for Members of Parliament, because it's really unfair to be forced to belong to one medical aid, which is very expensive for Members of Parliament. People think we earn a lot, but it's not like that. And as Members of Parliament we pay for everything for our kids, they don't benefit from NSFAS or anything, unless if your child gets a bursary on their own. So I think we need more options on Parmed. People must have that opportunity to choose whether they want to join Parmed. I think that will be fair for all of us. The Parmed matter has been discussed since 2014, and many options have been tried. The board is saying that they will have to engage members, even those retired, but not everyone is going to agree. As current Members of Parliament, we subsidise those who have retired, so I don't think they will agree to repeal. So I think we need to do something different about Parmed.

Regarding the construction contractors and subcontractors, I think we should wait for that presentation to be made to us in full. Then, we can engage in the refurbishment of Parliament. So, if we can wait for that presentation, it will assist us.

Make time for the programme to allow Members to do more work in their constituencies. I think that is what we've been trying to do all along. We must make sure that people on the ground understand the role of Members of Parliament, how Parliament works, and how the legislation we pass will assist them [the people] and also change their lives for the better.

Constituency offices are a responsibility of political parties. Yes, because from the budget that political parties receive from Parliament, a constituency fund is given to parties. So it is the responsibility of a party to have their own constituency offices. So that's how it works.

Then, regarding political party funding, I think that South Africans, or Members of Parliament, know that these NGOs carry the interests of those who fund them. So I think we should be more patriotic to our country as Members of Parliament, and leave party politics aside, so that when we deal with some of these matters, we must have the interest of our country at heart. Sometimes we shouldn't allow these external forces to push us into doing something that at the end of the day will harm us or put us in a corner where it’s difficult to come out. So, we must love our country and be as patriotic as South Africans. We shouldn't behave as if we have other countries where we can run to as South Africans. Some of us only have one citizenship. We don't have dual citizenships, so I think it will be better for us to do that, then for Parliament to be able to achieve the goals it set out for itself.

Let's first stabilise Parliament, which means abolishing the acting positions. For any organisation to be stable, we really need to have permanent people in permanent positions, not acting. Acting will lead to some delays because those acting will not be able to make decisions to assist Parliament with the goals that they have set themselves to achieve.

As members of this committee, we must be realistic about our challenges. Before our Parliament went up in smoke, we had many committee rooms. I don't remember us maybe having meetings outside Parliament, but the situation we are faced with right now is that our Parliament went up in smoke. We don't have many committee rooms. To save our little budget as Parliament, I think we have adopted the rules for virtual and hybrid sittings. We have adopted that is part of our rules. If committees deal with sensitive matters, they should be in physical meetings. For now, as Public Works is also trying to build the Dome where meetings can be held, let’s use the rules for virtual and hybrid meetings.

Mr B Radebe (ANC, Free State): First of all, I would like to congratulate the Speaker for being appointed a Speaker. This is the first time she's here. Congratulations and all of the best. Number two, I think we have legacy issues that we have to deal with as the seventh administration, slide number seven, I believe South Africa will be a better place to live if we can achieve that. But it can only happen if Parliament is well resourced to do this. A simple example of this is the slide that speaks to raising the quality of life of citizens. Here are people who made a joke last month that there's genocide in South Africa. Then, with that simple statement, there's a probability South Africa is going to suffer seriously when it comes to financial matters, particularly trade. But this Parliament has not called anyone to come and account for that. I think that if Parliament is the epicenter of any democracy, Parliament should have called those people a long time ago to go here and account. Why did they do that? This issue will be the issue raised by Ms Maotwe regarding NGOs and NGO regulation. It is not right that we should have a country where anyone can do anything at any time. No, I think it's high time that we put a reign. It's not that we are against the NGO. NGO's play a critical role. But they must be regulated. I'll give a simple example in one country. I'm not going to mention it by name, if an NGO is founded outside of that country, it is declared a foreign agent, so whoever it is going to interact with that NGO will know it is serving the interests of the people outside that country. I think those are the realities we must face as South Africa so that we can defend ourselves as we move forward.

However, regarding legacy issues, I think the budget of Parliament must be looked at to determine if we're going to have impactful lawmaking. The law making can only be impactful if there's proper public participation. If there's insufficient funds for proper public participation, the courts will dictate to Parliament what it must do. Because most of the bills will pass, the court will find it very easy to strike down. The very same NGOs will take them to court. I like how the Speaker said Parliament is already preparing to incorporate the court directives. It is basically one arm of the state dictating to another arm what they are supposed to be doing. So part of defending the legacy of this Parliament is ensuring the institution is well resourced so that it can do its job properly. When we speak about public participation, if a bill is being passed, for example, a section 76 bill, we must ensure that it goes to all the provinces. Parliament must have the ability to track and ensure that the people who participated in that process were really valid, so that when it goes to court, it can be defended. So that's why an appeal to the Executive Authority, that the relationship, which was established in the Sixth Parliament, between the Executive Authority and the Treasury that the issue of the relooking at the budget of Parliament, it must be done as of yesterday, because when you look at that R4 billion, it looks nice, but when you go deep into it, you find that the Parliament is in trouble. It cannot do what it's supposed to do. So I really appeal to the brand new Executive Authority that it enhances the issue of budgeting Parliament, because if you can do that, we can do better on the issue of parliamentary diplomacy.

Regarding the G20 issue, we need a presentation on what the EA will do because we don’t want to be surprised to find that things are lacking, so an earlier appraisal is best. What will Parliament do to ensure that we involve our communities and our sister parliaments from the continent so that it becomes an African thing, as the President has articulated, that this G20 will involve everyone?

Mr K Ceza (EFF, Mpumalanga) I echo the sentiments of colleagues on the issues on the NGOs, and the illusion that they are representing the public. Therefore, they represent a certain sector from which they come. Consequently, they are raising issues that might not have been raised regarding their beliefs. But if you go to a report by a whistle blower here in the Western Cape, he talks about how those NGOs are funded. He also provides a breakdown of who funds those NGOs. And you can see clearly their interests are neoliberal, or they are in maintaining the status quo, as it were. The [whistleblowing] report speaks to embassies, newspapers and everything else that is a propaganda against injustice in the Western Cape. And therefore, because the state in the Western Cape actually controls the media and everybody who is an NGO, it drives a certain narrative and wants to influence what the national government must do.

[there was a bit of back and forth disagreement as Mr Ceza felt other Members were interrupting his input by laughing and the Chairperson was called on to protect Mr Ceza]

Mr Ceza continued: so I am raising these issues Speaker, so that you reign on these issues, if you have powers to reign on the issues that I'm raising as the EFF. Then I want to raise the issue relating to Members of Parliament that are registered in institutions. What is the turnaround period in regards to the period between when the Member has outstanding fees, and therefore that Member has to re-register to continue with study, and then there is a delay between the institution and Parliament, which therefore delays the Member of Parliament to re-register? I think there is a misunderstanding between those institutions because you often run back and forth trying to mend issues that could have been mended at the level of the institutions rather than the student itself.

Then, during on-site visits, there was a point where we were sitting in the Portfolio Committee on Cogta. We wanted to go somewhere last year, and then they said we don't have money. What is the cause of action? Because our work belongs on the ground. We are sent here by the people, and it does not assist us at all to sit with presentations that often paint a great picture. But when you go to the ground, you find out it is the same presentation done in 2024, it's just that they think that we are stupid, not to look at the numbers. So when you go to the ground, you find it is not the case. Therefore, it says that there's lots of work that Members of Parliament have to do on the ground to verify and ascertain the facts presented by departments, by entities, by municipalities etc.

Regarding public participation, 170,000 people are affected by blindness in South Africa. Therefore, in terms of legislation, how long do we have to try to get legislation in Braille? How long do we have to say this thing? What is the response time? What do we as MPs say when we go back to these people? These people can’t participate and critique the legislation. They just use other means, like audio.

We came to the Western Cape to participate in the Independent Municipal Demarcation Authority Bill by the provincial Cogta, but when we arrived, no one was there. This is a waste of Parliament’s expenditure. Is the Western Cape the only province that doesn’t have people? What do you do there? Because it's a section 76 bill. It affects the provinces. Do you hold that province liable for sabotaging the process of Parliament, or do you just postpone that and spend again and start afresh? What is the course of action?

There have been no responses to written questions, and it is quite ludicrous to think that I can't get anything in terms of a response to go back to people weekly because we ask those questions on a weekly basis.

Chairperson Lekganyane: I wish what happened here in this meeting did not happen again, especially when we are with the Speaker, the steward of this institution. We need to respect that office. With how our democracy matures one day, one of you may hold that office in the future. And you will expect those that you will be working with to reciprocate, and they may remind you about your previous shenanigans. I decided to deal with your matter in a very calm way. I could have agreed to degenerate to the standard you wanted us to wallow in, but we felt it would not help us. South Africans are watching us and want to see the best from us. I'm not addressing you individually. I'm addressing you as a collective, those who are innocent and those who are culprits. So, we need to rise to the occasion. When we are sitting like this, Parliament is in session. Parliament cannot meet every day. That is why it has committees. So I hope we will not have to come and reprimand each other again for something like this.

In addition to what colleagues said, we will need to expedite the regulations on implementing the Financial Management of Parliament Act so that we don't call a meeting with you. And one committee of Parliament is also under the impression that you must appear before them. You don't appear before portfolio committees as it stands now. The only committee you appear before is this committee, but we need a legal framework that provides clarity. We're not saying that when other committees invite you, you must say arrogantly no, I can't come, you. You can respond to them and inform them that we appear before the Joint Standing Committee in terms of the legal framework, but we will come and share whatever information you want us to share with you. So, I think those regulations will help us. Many unprecedented situations require the regulations and other thinking for their impact on Parliament. 

And I also want to echo the sentiment expressed by Members here regarding our core functions, maybe we will need to find a way how, for instance, when we do how our oversight programme complement that with public participation, or how the two programmes complement each other because, as I remember, we only find ourselves in close interaction with the people when we in law making processes where we call public hearings, but committees can come to my village to do oversight. The whole town is out on the streets because sirens are wailing. Not a single Member of Parliament or a single vehicle stops to talk to the villagers. If the Committee is there for public hearings, they can also stop and check on the projects being implemented and budgeted for. So, if we have to incorporate that, the work of Parliament is manifestly seen as a representative of the people. If we come to do oversight, there must be an aspect of engagement, because we can still receive reports, like Mr Ceza is saying here, but that report is not the reality people live on the ground. And we have come here to act in their name but haven't spoken to them. The department officials come to meetings, but there is no representative from the community. We all left when we finished our meeting, and nobody in the community gave feedback. We were here to see if your services are being provided, and they are good quality services that will dignify you. If we can look at how we improve on those aspects, Speaker, I think it's going to be very critical.

And maybe the last point I want to make is the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is the funding model for Parliament, which will depend entirely on our attitude as Members of Parliament, whether we are in the Executive or in the legislature, it does not matter. We have to reposition Parliament as the epicenter of South African politics. Parliament as the paragon of democracy in the country. It can only happen if Parliament does not belong to another God in terms of budgetary processes. Parliament has to be in the same congregation with the other arms of the state. We are not a state department. The Executive derives its mandate from Parliament, and when you look at the core functions of Parliament, we don't only exercise oversight on the Executive. We also exercise oversight over the Judiciary. We oversee the Chapter Nine institutions, including every citizen of the country. Parliament can call anybody here regarding the law, but we are just reduced to a paper tiger without the means to do that. It's a matter that we may not exhaustively deal with today or this year, but it's a matter that I believe, Speaker, we can put up processes, explore avenues, and come up with concrete proposals on the best funding model. All the issues that Members raise about constituency offices fall within the ambiance of Parliament's funding model. We can do that. We can say this is the kind of constituency office we want to have. They must be declared national key points. There must be this, security, and whatever imagination or impression you can have of the best model of a constituency office. But if that is not commensurate with the funding model, it’s just a castle in the sky. Let's engage whoever matters and see how we can improve Parliament's funding model.

Speaker’s response

I want to start with where you ended, because I think the issues that you have just raised, indeed, in my view, are very important for this committee. And I think this is where, in our view, we will have to bounce some of these proposals, maybe before we can go broader into the two houses on the issue of regulations. Indeed, it's what we are working on. The Speaker’s Forum also confirmed that we need to be quicker. I also want to indicate that in the last administration, there was also a proposal for the review of the Act, but we have agreed that while that work is going on, regulations are very important so that it creates certainty.

Regarding the shifts, I think the issues raised about what legal framework we now need to have, I would like to take us back to the work led by the LOGB in the last year, if not a year before. And I know at that time, all of us thought the issue of coalitions was a matter for municipalities. But he was raising the point that we should re-imagine what type of framework we will legally need. At any time, at the provincial and national levels, we have coalitions, and it was interesting that there was a lot of work that was done from various perspectives. I think it will be important for this administration, in my view, to really have certainty on that matter, so we can’t leave it to chance. We just need to have a legal framework that would be very clear: if you know you have a coalition government, how does it manifest? What thresholds, if any, because that had not also been decided, and how does that impact the work of the legislature and other arms of the state? So I think we need to take on that work as Parliament and for the necessary committee to drive the process. And I would say it will be the Constitutional Review Committee that would have to do that work.

On the issue of how we might creatively work on our oversight, side by side with public participation. I think it's a matter that other Members have raised. In my view, it is about time that we really have to ask ourselves, if we say as part of our outcome we want meaningful and adequate participation, what does that mean in real sense, and therefore, how does that relate to the best funding proposition? I want to show Members that we have started the engagement with National Treasury and just used one element, law making. We told them that if you bring legislation, one of the things we'll have to do is to actually have the committee first look at the legislation and then determine how they would want to work on it. Part of that process is oversight, either people coming in or Members of Parliament going to the nine provinces. So if you calculate that cost to include the flights of 11 Members, the accommodation of those 11 Members, even if you have the government rate in a particular hotel or a BNB and so on. You come back, you work on that legislation. There might be a need to engage further with society, so you do that. So if you really look at how much it takes just to have one piece of legislation…section 67 involves all the provinces so the situation is replicated. So when the Treasury sits and reflects on funding parliamentary work, you need to consider whether we really want to have meaningful participation from our citizens. But I agree that the funding model would also, in my view, and this is my personal view, will require us as Members of Parliament to really ask ourselves when we pass that budget, do we actually ensure that the resources that go are adequate, have been utilised, are justifiable? A lot of us here around October and November. We sit with the BRRRs and see that this line budget item has been there for three years. When you look at the spending, it's 2%, and we need to ask ourselves whether that budget line is really required or if we are just putting it there to shelve and park the money. As departments, who approves the budget? It's us. But the unfortunate thing that happens when it comes to passing the budget is that we go to party positions and then object. We call for a division. So we don't deal with these matters that come from committees, where we're all convinced that five budget lines in the department of basic education, for instance, have not been moving. Yet, you're complaining that you don't have money for infrastructure and dealing with the toilets and additional classes. Why are you not moving this money from this allocation to that allocation? And be able to say, as Parliament, if that doesn't change, we are not passing these budget items. I don't think we've reached that point, in my view, because equally, if we were to be able to do that when it comes to Parliament’s budget, all of us, collectively as Members of Parliament, we can be able to say no, the budget of Parliament needs to increase, because we vote. We've not yet used our power. We outsource it. It becomes even more obvious when it comes to Parliament. I always laugh inwardly, because it's a piece of legislation of Parliament so that we can decide, but all the time we sit and cry as though we've got no power.

Regarding Parmed, that board is our creation. If you look at the membership of the Parmed board, it is Members of Parliament and Members of the Provincial Legislature, nobody else. The Executive actually has nothing to do with Parmed. There's no Minister actually responsible for Parmed. It's us. But all the time when it comes to this legislation, we pussy foot, similarly with the parliamentary villages board. So at some stage in the life of this Parliament, before this one, there was a decision that creating a facility for parliamentarians when they are not in their homes will be developed and given to the Minister of Public Works. So the question is about the budget, the budget of the villages, and the budget for the transportation you use. So if there's a leak we can't do anything, we'll cry with you. If a bus doesn't have an ablution facility, we'll also cry with you. We'll try to meet with the Minister of Public Works. We can't deal with it, and yet this is a facility that affects Members. So at the end, the Minister of Public Works will stand there and say, this thing takes too much of my money, but the money follows the function, that the budget goes to him. It doesn't come to Parliament. So it's a matter that I think we will have to debate. Anyone who has been here since 1994, each term of office, all of us always complain about the service we receive from Public Works in terms of maintenance, in terms of this and this, but we don't come with an alternative. When a bus has not arrived, some of you call the STP, but it is basically a function of public works, and I think it's something we need to reflect on.

It is correct to reflect on the value of money for the villages, or we should look at an alternative. In the fifth administration, I just want to say that the recommendation of having a housing allowance, or even having a block of flats closer to Parliament which Parliament can use to hire out, was raised with the Commission for Remuneration of Public Office Bearers. So it's not like the matter was not raised, but unfortunately they've not yet made a determination. However, those recommendations were raised with the Commission.

Concerning committees and space, I must say that we have tried also to get committee rooms from Chapter Nine institutions. That's where some of the committee rooms are. We will continue to explore engaging with the province and municipality, but I would say it might also require the programming committees to work with the chairperson so that there is a kind of rotation. I just want to tell Members that we didn't have enough committee rooms even when Parliament was active. However, what would happen is that committees knew the schedule of clusters for the week, so there would be an understanding of how to ensure adequate committee rooms and space. Suppose there was an extraordinary committee meeting and there was no space. In that case, we might use the Town House Hotel as it was the closest, and the Parliamentary Hotel was used interchangeably when there was a problem with space. But most of the time, that process was managed in the programming.

I'm sure the Secretary will be able to give a briefing on the fire investigation. The process is not yet complete, but certain work was done on the rebuild programme.

Concerning the role of the protection services vis-à-vis the police, Parliament is a key national point, which means there's a particular obligation that the police services have in protecting Parliament. They are on the perimeter so that they will be at the gates. There are also static police at the entrances but they are not involved in protecting Members and other facilities inside. Some members here in the fifth administration will recall that members of Parliament were very vociferous about what the police were doing inside the precinct because that was not their job. Members who stay in villages know that even when they've got a problem with theft, the police in the villages don’t deal with such cases. They will tell you to go to your nearest police station. Actually, I remember in the fifth administration, when we met with the police service, they actually said having the static police in the villages was just a favour because the security of the villages is Parliament’s own responsibility and not that of the police. However, through the engagement with Parliament early on, even before ‘94, there was agreement that at least the static unit would be the police service. So that process led to Parliament having to develop a protection service, the men and ladies in white shirts, to actually deal with issues of disorderly conduct and other issues of Parliament, safety and security issues, so on a daily basis, they do that kind of work that they are supposed to do as per their mandate. And it was very specific as to what they were expected to do. It’s very clear that as Parliament is a National Key Point, the police are only on the perimeter and not on the precinct. And it's not something that is unique to South Africa. All parliaments, you will find that there will be the sergeant at arms. In some parliaments, your sergeant at arms will be former military people and so on, but you will never see actual policemen in the precinct of Parliament.

Concerning the rebuilding, I think we would already recall that after the fire, it took time for investigations to really see the extent of the burning, because I remember the first team, which was appointed by public works at the time, they went in, they had to go out because the fire was continuing immediately. So, in the end, when that work was done, demolition needed to happen after whatever contractual arrangements were decided. But because part of Parliament’s heritage, you cannot demolish without the presence of the South African heritage authority, and that's where a lot of time has actually been wasted, because for every little demolition, it has to be checked whether or not this artifact is still of use or not use, whether it is heritage or no heritage.

I'm sure that the secretary will speak about this when he presents the issue on the rebuilding details and how the decision was made. Still, there was consultation between Parliament, Public Works and National Treasury. A decision was taken as to why Parliament needed to drive this process independently, and why an implementing agent, DBSA, was appointed. I'm sure we will then, through the Secretary, share the contractual arrangements between Parliament and DBSA, but also what is the steering committee that does the monitoring and supervision and engaging with DBSA, which includes Public Works and Parliament.

Looking at the outcomes of Parliament and how to ensure these indicators are realised, like the improving quality of life, we will have indicators to say, this is the work done by the small team representing parties in working on the priorities in terms of the impact. I would actually say it's also about monitoring what the executive brings to us. For instance, if the Executive says we will build a dam in two years, I'm making a hypothetical example, it must be our concern to say who will be serviced by this dam, in terms of the impact to the community and how do we make sure that when that dam happens, that realisation of having accessible water to community happens and is our legal framework enabling that to happen. And I'm raising this because if you were to take Limpopo as an example, many dams can be counted if you look at where the communities are, there's no water. So the resource as water is there, but its reticulation is not happening. And I think it is incumbent upon us as Parliament to see whether our legal framework in terms of that function is done so that quality of life is realised. You have districts with water service authorities, while the municipality is supposed to do the reticulation, but how are they funded? How is it enabling this thing that we're talking about? So it may not be whether there is no resource in terms of money, it may not be that there is no resource in terms of water, but the constraint is because of how our legal architect is currently not enabling so some of the issues might need us to go back to the laws that we have passed, to the frameworks that we have agreed to, to ask, are they really enabling improving the quality of life? Or are there certain things that we have to change? Housing, for instance, you have other spheres, like the metro, which can provide housing, but when a person applies for a house, they have to go to the department of housing, so how that person gets a house becomes someone else’s responsibility. There are grants for services but there is no interoperability. So what leverage does national legislation have? So those are some of the issues we must reflect on. You can also look at the informal settlements that burn around Camps Bay every year and those communities have been there for years so what does this say about the integration of our cities in real sense, and how does our legal framework allows us to do that so that that meaningful quality of life is realised for all. So, I think there's a lot of work that we have to do as parliamentarians to ensure that our presence here in this Parliament changes the quality of lives of our citizens. Laws, resources, oversight, accountability, in my view, are all important, but we will have to really be thorough in the examination of how we ensure that what we do here finally improves the quality of life.

So what will be our indicators? The President, for instance, in the State of the Nation Address, highlighted the issue of water, and we all agreed it is important. But what will it take to look at the current water architecture delivered in South Africa, and where are the gaps? How can lawmakers enable that to be realised by others making laws or repealing some of those instruments? The issue of operational budget, it is indeed very little, and that includes the support staff, which is why we were saying there is a need to have a transparent budget, so that when a committee plans, they indeed know that for 2025/26, as a portfolio committee or a select committee, I've got R5 million in my budget, then they can plan to say, year we will have two oversight this year, we will have public participation. But if they plan as you are doing now, you plan in the dark, and then the Chair of Chairs indeed would look and say you can't go. So that's what we have committed to relook, actually, not to relook at, we've taken a decision at Exco that we're going to change it, and we'll present it here to you so that we can be at one and you can advise us whether it's helping or not.

On the issue of the elephant in the room, which all of you have discussed, the non-government organisations and their role, I just want to take us back to the first administration. A lot of NGOs and community-based organisations were funded externally. Before 1994, those donors stopped the funding because they assumed that the new democratic state would be able to support CPOs or NGOs that have to do work complementary to the state. That is why you have the National Development Agency within social development, which funds CBOs and NGOs. But indeed, our lived experience is that we have a gap in terms of regulation. And I think all of us have said there is a misnomer, and that will go for churches as well, where overnight, somebody can wake up and open a church or an NGO, and nobody actually knows. And I think 30 years on, I think we need to sit back and reflect on what we need. And I don't think regulation means suppression, but regulation means there must be a clear framework for all to understand. The same transparency demanded of the state and Parliament must be the same transparency demanded from everyone so that we don't fall over each other in not knowing who does what. Because my understanding is that the work must be complementary in raising the quality of life, so that we don't end up where Parliament appropriates budget for this, but there is an NGO that goes outside the appropriate funding for the same function, but nobody knows the impact that it has in society. So it's something that, unfortunately, as Speaker, I will delegate to Members because I think it's something that we need to reflect on. And maybe the dialogue of our 30-year journey is important, not only to celebrate but at the same time to say that these were the conditions in 1994 when the democratic state took over. These were the institutions that were set up. These were the laws to support a particular ideal in our Constitution, but our experience of 30 years requires us to make particular changes, and how do we do those? And I would say, without going into all of the detail, in my view, there are those political questions that will require Members of Parliament to really engage on in evaluating the moment we are in, informed by the journey we have traversed.

It's a very interesting story regarding the discussion and the debate on relocation. It started in ‘94 when the Minister of Public Works then did a study very well. And I think at the end, it weighed whether, given our country's challenges and the needs of resources, it would be an appropriate decision to make at that particular time, and that's why it didn't proceed. The matter came up again many times over the years but did not proceed. And I think again, the priority was, where do you put the balance? And I think there is merit in us reflecting rather than suspending the matter, because whether you put Parliament in Gauteng, whether in KZN or the Free State, you will still require the same infrastructure of supporting Members who don't come from that province. So, in my view, it will be to really say, let's discuss this matter without emotion, because in other countries where parliaments have moved one direction or the other, they have been a particular stimulus. If you look at Brazil for instance, Brazil was very deliberate that they were moving parliament to Brasilia, one, because of congestion within Sao Paulo, but two, it was a development objective. If you recall in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam was the administrative and legislative capital, but they took a decision in the fifth parliament, which has been realised in the sixth parliament, to move to Dodoma, again, a development objective. So I think we will need to be dispassionate in engaging in this debate to say what we want to realise. I remember at some stage the Minister of Defence at the time, he really argued for the Free State, because he said it was central, but also it would help to it will help to develop the economy of the Free State, there will be tourism, there will be embassies that would come there. There were various factors. And I think with Gauteng, the argument was you will have both the Executive and the legislature in one, so it will reduce costs for the Executive in flying down to Parliament. Other people might say today that debate may be moot because of technology. So, do you still need to move in any way, or can you actually interact with those departments online? But I'm just saying, when we discuss this matter, maybe we must say our intended objective? Will it just be cost cutting for the Executive, or will we use it as a development agenda, and if so, where will be the best location?

The Chairperson allowed for a 10 min break.

Briefing by the Secretary to Parliament

Mr Xolile George, STP, took Members through his presentation. The areas I will focus on would be complementing the overall outlook that the Speaker has covered largely, and in those instances, where the slides have already been emphasised, I would jump on those areas. For instance, this slide has largely been well canvassed, including the one on the overview of the work since 1994 but essentially to preempt what will be covered on Friday, the Seventh Parliament priorities really present a turning point in the shift of Parliament from the work that has largely been activity-based, activity-focused, but with an aspirational intent to move to outcomes and impacts. So when all of the Members asked earlier how we would measure the impact of Parliament on citizens, on the aspect of raising the quality of life for citizens, the macro framework of the Seventh Parliament already captures the approach to dealing with that. One of the frameworks we have developed last year, which is part of the components of intervention areas for the strategic plan of Parliament, is around developing what we call a country outcomes indicator dashboard - that dashboard will be for Parliament to measure the laws that it passed and sent to the Executive with the outline and preamble for each law. We can now measure and ask if the NHI, for example, is working. Is the law protecting farm workers working? So our parliament can track national growth indicators, social intervention, and so on. So, that country's national indicator dashboard is one of the interventions Parliament is currently working on based on the framework we completed last year. At an appropriate time, it will then be shared as part of the quarterly reports once we develop data analytics that would allow work done in each committee to be tracked and to track the impact of oversight, public participation and so on. So that's broadly the focus of how we will shift to the impact and outcome.

I think the budget has been covered overall by the Speaker. I would like to emphasise the performance of expenditure more. Members will see that overall, as at the end of quarter three, the performance of that overall budget is consistent with our planned projections, save for only the last leg, where you see the rebuilding that we have been lagging significantly. That lag will be covered in the rebuild presentation. The presentation will go into more detail about delays that have been occasioned since the actual start of the project. That start has many iterations that we will outline in detail as to why, so far, we have not broken ground on the rebuilding, but rather focused on the demolition work. So that's the only budget line item where you will see that it hobbled the overall performance of Parliament’s budget but the rest of the items are in line with 70% to 79% spend which by the end of March, we project the budget of Parliament would have performed consistent with the projections made. Some of the budget pressures that the Speaker outlined speak largely to a cumulative impact that Parliament has suffered, similar to other departments, but more heavy knocks on the side of Parliament, especially on its work. If you look at the last three financial years, we have had budget cuts of 214, 261, and this has happened at a time when the cumulative knock on from 2016 to date amounts to R2.2 billion. So for nine years, you will see that the cuts became much more aggressive during the COVID period, where Parliament was not the only one affected but was the reality of the country's budget. But what it did, it visited us with a cumulative impact of R2.2 billion. And correspondingly, we then had to redirect funds from different divisions to fund the operations of Parliament and where we had impacts out of the national revenue fund, such as the issue of Parmed. This involves Parliament covering its obligation around the annual adjustments for Members and the Treasury refund involved. So the rethinking of the funding model of Parliament will then respond adequately to these issues, because we will now be able to do activity-based costing. What does it take for a bill to be championed, whether a section 74, 75 or 76 bill, across nine provinces, using the sampling of three districts in a province? Our provinces, on average, have six districts. Others even have 10, like KZN. So if we assemble three, our courts are saying to us, you are failing the test of meaningful and adequate participation, and for us to be able to determine that, it means we must be able to cost every aspect of our budget. So the funding model is being re-worked. Currently we are working with the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC), so that by June, we must have a draft funding model, which, when it has been canvassed internally, the Executive Authority will then guide further work on how it is taken forward. So it's work that is being done.

Just to emphasise, we're dealing with the area of Parmed. As the Speaker indicated, from 1994, the first five years began to show the relationship between the determination of the annual increase of medical aid, and it's done by a body called the Board of Funders of Healthcare. Some factors go into this determination and affect the technical solvency ratio. Once it has been reviewed, as indicated, it will have to respond to those going concern issues that we are raising on the performance of the budget over the MTEF overall. For instance, R521 million is currently underfunded. You can see in the breakdown for each year that we request a certain amount. So, the three elements that constitute R521 million are the cost of employment, goods and services, and capital underfunding. These areas are all underfunded by R521m for this year, based on what we have received and the estimated national expenditure. So this funding model would underpin those engagements that the Speaker has outlined with the Minister of Finance. So, not only is underspending, but the extent of the underspending is great for the overall performance as indicated already for this financial year. For 2024/25, we have verified performance for three quarters until December, at 70%. We project that we will be able to meet these indicators by the end of the financial year, save for a target of the rebuilding, which we have fallen behind because of the time it has taken to drive the demolition project. The human capital status will be detailed tomorrow by the presentation on the human capital, except to highlight that this is our current staff complement, 1,095, and we currently sit at a vacancy rate of 22%. We need to move with speed to fill vacancies, especially in those critical areas like interpretation services, language services, in general, and legal services. We have started to fill the capacity of legal services in areas where it has been under-capacitated. However, we are also looking at ensuring capacity for every committee, including the additional ones, to fill all critical vacancies of researchers and committee secretaries. We are also looking at capacity-building interventions for both members and staff. The Speaker indicated that with the current profile for both Houses, you see that you have an average of 54% [new Members]. Still, the approach is generally for all Members for capacity building to be the main focus area, which, over the next two years, we will continue doing through funding of the European Union programme.

Regarding Members enrolled for studies, the programme is such that there's a learner agreement between Parliament and a Member. The Member gets funded. There are instances where a Member will be supported, but for whatever reason, the Member cannot sit for exams. So in those instances, they will ask for either supplementary or a new date, depending on the justified reasons. If a Member hasn't passed the programme, the Member will then self-fund that course. But in other instances, we can pay for Members in good time. And we would encourage, in instances where no Members are funded, in the office for legislative sector support, a manager is dealing with all tertiary institutions, and we will be able to deal with that. So that can either go through me or the relevant staff handling that. More information on this will be presented tomorrow.

In terms of stabilisation, the institution is fairly stable, even in areas with restlessness. There is now relative harmony with established structures for engagement with organised labour, engagement with staff, or regular update on many things, and we don't envisage difficulties. Regarding staff working from home, we currently have three approaches, occasioned by the reality of the fire damage to offices - 410 of our staff are here full time. We lost offices for both members and staff. So out of those 409 staff, 442 work on a hybrid system where they work from home and certain days from the office. There are about 160 staff members who work full time from home. So with the combination of all those factors, we are now reprioritising which staff must be full time, so that the work of committees does not depend on a committee secretary who works from home, but to be here when Members are here full time. To respond to the fullness of return, we are upgrading 90 Plein Street. We started with Members for two floors. We will now focus from this month of March on starting preparatory work for the further offices on 90 Plein Street. We will start with three more offices to prioritise members who currently don't have offices (54 members) and deal with the staff. So the return will be gradualised in the first three months, when we'll start the rebuild. So, all the staff members of Parliament are back at work to serve the members. So that's the overarching status of the human capital regarding the organisational realignment. We have started filling vacant positions at the senior level. We have given ourselves a timeline for the end of March, and members will see the progress made on this in the slides. It is a five-stage project, and we have completed stage three so far. We are left with stage four, which will start in April in terms of implementation and the project's conclusion. It's an all-encompassing project, with full labour participation, but we need to complement staff for both Houses. So we have given ourselves as at the end of March, focusing on 22 departments of Parliament, but also ensuring that we can conclude by 31 March, and the go live date incrementally for each division to start is 1 April. The details will be given to Members when the full project is presented tomorrow.

Regarding the rebuild project, as indicated, the Development Bank of Southern Africa is the implementation agent appointed by Parliament in 2022 as the state's infrastructure funding and implementing agent. Parliament appointed DBSA to be able to ensure that it's able to implement this project, given its strong track record on infrastructure development delivery, but also strategically, that they interface directly as a bank with full accountability in terms of the Auditor-General, with oversight on financial management and accountability, but also the fact that National Treasury fully funds this project, so they account to National Treasury around that project. The details will be presented to Members and the tripartite agreement of the institutions involved (Public Works, National Treasury and Parliament) will be outlined. We have a project steering committee comprising those three departments, so everyone can see what is happening. And DBSA then accounts for project progress around that at a hierarchy level. In terms of governance oversight, Parliament determined in the Sixth Parliament that the Joint Standing Committee is the committee that has responsibility relevant in terms of accountability for us to present around this area. Regarding the asset register, as we progress going forward, Public Works will be active in every area of the project. So far, the project has two work streams – stream one involved the New Assembly and the second stream is the Old Assembly. So, a contractor has been appointed for the New Assembly and will start the construction work on Monday. And why it is only starting now is because the whole of last year, the demolition project had to be painstakingly done under the national heritage regulations. So, every stage is permit-based, and the government can apply its laws to determine what must be broken and what should not be broken. Regarding the items picked up at the site, we had to comply with heritage regulations to collect each and every piece of rubble and determine, to the best standards, whether there's anything salvageable or if everything falls under ruins. This will be presented to members in more detail to show how each thing is packaged with a determination of the financial value and whether it can be utilised elsewhere in line with heritage. So nothing has been disposed except if it is ashes, but if it's an item picked up, even if it was a chair, we must determine its heritage status and so on. So all of that material has been packaged in line with the standards.

Regarding the delay of the contractors, there is a penalty regime applicable for all stages of the project, and that is timeline-based as per the committed dates. If the contractor is not performing, the penalty regime is inherent in the contract, guided by the Convention of Penalties Act, which governs determining the delay's impact and cost. If a contractor has not done anything, a daily charge will be imposed for the delay. So that work of the New Assembly is starting, and we will detail the work once they start. Work stream number two (Old Assembly) is scheduled to start by April. So, this coming, 28 February, the tender will be out as issued by the DBSA for the Old Assembly, and we envisage that they will be able to make sure that by March, the second stream contractor is in place. So, the ideally difference between the two sites must be three months. But what we did in the overall project, the timeline given for them to complete is 20 months to complete the entirety of Parliament. So by September 2026, the project ought to be completed. Overall, the issue of the Dome has been indicated by the Speaker, and work is being done. The only issue I would like to highlight is that by March, the Department of Public Works would like access to the dome. So, we will look at it in relation to the National Assembly and NCOP schedule. So if programmes must be reworked, the impact is that they would need full access, so that they start determining the acquisitions of items, which is called supportive infrastructure, the enabling works, meaning the floors and other things for the sittings. So far, the infrastructure has been hired so the DPWI is supposed to provide us with full infrastructure to dress up the facility. So in discussion between the EA and the Minister, the issues of the provision of infrastructure that will be utilised for the full period of the 20 months will require acquisition. On our side, we are responsible for broadcasting and audio visual equipment, and we are in the process of dealing with some of the challenges we face. I think the Speaker has covered the question of budget constraints, the remedies, the funding model, and the issue of revamping our obsolete infrastructure.

We currently have 15 committee venues here and hire other committee rooms when needed. We have approached other governmental departments. We currently have ten more venues outside, and those ten more are secured from other state agency offices. We have been in discussion with the City of Cape Town and other entities like the NYDA and so on. So those additional ten are available. The only limitation we sometimes suffer from is the size of the venues. On average, we need a 30 to 45 size committee room. And in others, we will find that the AV broadcasting infrastructure is not there. So out of the 15, we have nine of those here in the precinct, which are hybrid enabled, and the investment we are making on the AV would enable us to activate more of our committees on the digitised approach. So, overall, the recommendation is for the Joint Standing Committee to note the overview, acknowledging that the details will come from the engagements tomorrow.

Regarding constituency offices, we currently have a budget of R571 million. That covers three components: what we call a leadership allowance, a constituency admin support allowance, and general administration, done under Parliament's funding policy. I would like to leave it there. If I've missed anything, Honorable court chairperson, we will be able to deal with that tomorrow. Thank you very much.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms Neale-May: thank you very much for the presentation. And it gives us a good idea of where everything is. The only thing that I wanted us to monitor very carefully is that when the construction starts, specifically here in the Western Cape, there will be a lot of challenges and delays with the construction mafia. The only thing that, and I know from my other lifetime when I was in public safety, we had a working relationship between the City of Cape Town and that on crime and the construction mafia extortion, you name it. There is a challenge here. So I think it should stick to its timelines with regard to the construction going ahead. The security area, which is good from the precinct, has security, and there are police. One would just be mindful that that kind of situation does not interfere with the progress of the building of our Parliament.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much. I want to propose that we don't discuss this presentation. Let's allow the units tomorrow, under the leadership of the STP, to make their presentations because in those presentations, we might find that there is an overlap with this presentation that the STP has just made. Now, let's take the discussions tomorrow after the presentation. Thanks.

Chairperson Lekganyane: Ja, unfortunately, we have come to the end of today's business. Tomorrow, we will meet with the divisions.

Speaker: Thank you very much. I put aside the whole week because of my experience while on the other side. So I will not be presenting but will sit in [all week] to support the team. Thanks. No.

Chairperson Lekganyane: That is welcome. We welcome that gesture. It shows leadership, and we will be with you for the whole week until Friday.

Mr Dugmore: regarding Friday, I just wanted to ask, maybe to the Committee Secretary, whether we have secured a venue that allows hybrid. That was just one idea I had, so people could join if they were not around. But if the committee is still busy securing that, it's just a request: Could Friday's meeting be available for hybrid, if there's a venue, but not for discussion in the meeting?

Chairperson Lekganyane: Yeah, the Committee Secretary will inform us in due course. Unfortunately, today's engagement has come to an end.

The meeting was adjourned.