Cost analysis demanded for parliamentary sittings

As Parliament pushes ahead with the construction of the dome for its sittings, some parties want a cost analysis on the use of the facility and others such as the marquee and online services.

This emerged when the National Assembly programme met on Thursday, with the EFF wanting an assurance that the dome would be ready when they return from the constituency period towards the end of next month, and other parties including the UDM and ActionSA wanting a cost analysis of options for an alternative venue.

Parliament has been using the Cape Town City Hall and the Good Hope Chamber with hybrid functionality for some sittings since the Chamber was gutted by fire two years ago.

On Tuesday, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza said they were considering using the state-owned dome that was utilised during the burial of former president Nelson Mandela in 2013.

Didiza was scheduled to lead a parliamentary delegation to meet Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson over the construction of the dome on Thursday.

A marquee was erected this week for the sittings in a parking lot opposite Parliament.

ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip said whatever venue was chosen, there should be an informed decision.

“We have to get a cost-benefit analysis,” Trollip said.

He also said he did not know the cost implications for the dome as a presentation at the chief whips’ forum indicated there would be acquisition of furniture.

“Until we have had a presentation on what it will cost and how it is going to work, I can’t support having a dome by the time we come back here. It just does not work like that,” Trollip added.

Didiza said the matter had been raised in the last Parliament because MPs had felt the prolonged use of hybrid sessions did not enable full engagement by members.

“There were various proposals made on alternatives that can be looked at, which obviously will have to be cost effective.

“It was in that spirit Parliament engaged Public Works,” she said.

Didiza also said they have agreed that the dome will be as basic as possible so that it was a basic meeting structure.

“You are not to have a gallery. We will have an option like we had in the City Hall, ICC and the marquee we have had.”

She said the cost of the dome would be available after engagement with Macpherson.

“That is a state-owned facility. It is not like we are to hire a dome from someone else,” said Didiza.

EFF chief whip Floyd Shivambu said there was no question about the dome as an option.

“The issue we raise is that when we come back from recess it must be in place and must have parliamentary functions and its set up must appear like Parliament.

“Let’s stop the City Hall, the ICC and let’s have something that is solid,” Shivambu said.

UDM chief whip Nqabayomzi Kwankwa said the chief whips’ forum had agreed on comparative cost analysis.

“It must make financial sense for Parliament. We have to have this comparative analysis so that we know all the hidden costs,” Kwankwa said.

Didiza said they would give the necessary details to all the MPs in terms of the cost for the dome, marquee and the hybrid sessions.

“I appeal we try to finalise this matter because it has just been ongoing and we change again. It does create difficulty for all of us to move forward,” she said.

Didiza said their interest was to have a temporary structure when they return from the constituency period.

“The choice of venue even was to make sure we are closer to offices to enable functionality. I would also say it is important that we have a venue that can be semi-permanent while we refurbish Parliament.”

She added that it was important to have physical meetings, particularly for new members.

“We will try as best we can to have a functional institution albeit under these circumstances,” added Didiza.

Cape Times