International Relations & Cooperation Portfolio Committee Report on Budget Vote 5: Adoption

Meeting report

Ms R Magau (ANC) was elected as Acting Chairperson, since the permanent Chairperson of the Committee was attending an India-Brazil-South Africa meeting in Brazil.

Committee Report on Budget Vote 5
The Acting Chairperson tabled the Committee’s draft report on the Budget Vote 5 for International Relations and Cooperation, noting that this would be debated on 22 April 2010.

She also tabled a list of guiding points in formulating recommendations on Budget Vote-5.

Discussion
Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) pointed out an error on the figure stated on the guidelines and asked for a change to the amount, from R555.3 billion to R555.3 million, and that R4 824.4 billion be changed to R4.8 million.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked whether the Committee was satisfied with the budget allocation that was meant to ensure that the objectives of the Committee were carried out effectively. He stated that the allocation was meant to deal with issues that related to protocol, and there was little to do with public diplomacy. He felt that this approach gave an impression that foreign policy was an elitist type of activity. The impression would be further perpetuated when it was seen that Parliament was spending more money on protocol than public diplomacy. He suggested that the Committee should be considering making amendments, as it had the power to do so. The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act No. 9 of 2009 could assist the Ministry to carry out its mandate should the need arise for budget allocation adjustments for 2010/11.

Mr K Mubu (DA) differed from Mr Mokgalapa in his views. He referred to Page 3, Point No 3 of the Report, which dealt with the breakdown of funds. He cited points 3.6 and 3.7 in support of his suggestion and said that the reduction of the budget was not expected to affect service delivery.

Mr Ngonyama agreed with Mr Mubu. He stated that the Department had said nothing about the challenges of not meeting its obligations due to budget constraints. He stated that the Department claimed that it was prepared to work with a small budget. He said his concern on public diplomacy was based on the understanding of a democratic State as taking on the public foreign policy, rather than being an elitist exercise. He stated that the Department of International Affairs and Cooperation (the Department) did not “build houses” but was responsible with branding the country. He believed that branding the country could only be achieved by reaching the critical mass of the population. He said that if the masses were left behind, the country would be in serious trouble. He agreed with Mr Mubu on the emphasis on public diplomacy. He concurred that there was a need to involve the public in relation to International Relations. A cost and benefit analysis needed to be conducted on each country with whom South Africa was dealing. He also said that there was a need for the Department to take along even members of the opposition, as this would create collective ownership of foreign policy. He believed a contrary move would polarise the country rather than uniting it on its foreign policy. He also emphasised that the Department was expected to deliver on its objectives, as it had not indicated any problem with funds allocated.

Ms T Sunduza (ANC) agreed with Mr Ngonyama on the importance of public diplomacy. However, she was not happy with the manner in which it was presented on the report. She referred to the process of establishing a White Paper on public diplomacy by the Department. She recalled that the Director General of the Department had alluded to limited resources by referring to with the little that had been made available, but that there was no indication, upfront, where the Department had a problem with funds. She said that it would be preferred to have a surplus than experiencing shortfalls in the Department. She said that the surplus funds would be useful should be there a need for expansion of public diplomacy.  She expressed difficulty and a problem of having to deal with programmes that the Committee had never seen nor had oversight over. She also expressed her difficulty in supporting programmes where she was not aware what was happening. She mentioned, as an example, the refurbishment of offices.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) expressed his concern about the refurbishment of offices with no time frames given.  He also expressed concerns over funds alluded to in the report, without any indication of where those funds would emanate.

Mr Ngonyama answered by referring to point 3.5 on page 3 of the report, indicating that this was where the savings from foreign exchange rates gains were expected. This explained why the department was not worried over shortages.  He asked that the Department should take the Committee along in order to understand this. He recommended that the public diplomacy, in the light of the information available, must be given the importance it deserved.

Mr Mubu raised his concern over the input from Ms T Sunduza. He said that the Committee was encouraging the Department to seek more funding. However, the Portfolio Committee was not the fundraising arm, but could be asked to assist the Ministry should there be a need. The Committee could only ascertain whether the Ministry would be able to carry out its work with the funds allocated, but should not raise that later after there might have been a failure to carry out the mandate. He expressed his concern over the Committee’s intended approach of fundraising for the Department.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) asked the Committee not to round up the budget reductions. He said that the actual reduction was not R1 billion but R700million. He suggested that the Department to be encouraged to establish whether it could carry out its work with the allocated budget. If it discovered that it would not be able to do so, then it must be encouraged to approach the Committee to assist the Department. He said that this point had emerged in the Committee’s report, and it had been indicated that this could happen. In regard to the time frames, Dr Koornhof said that the onus should be on the Department to report to the Committee about the progress and the timeframes of those refurbishment projects. He said that there must be property management and the asset registry in place for the property portfolio.

Mr Ngonyama agreed that it would be important for time frames to be set and adhered to, as South Africa got into agreements with other countries regarding the Pan African Parliament. He said that the failure to do so would impact negatively on the integrity of the country.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed on the importance of prioritising public diplomacy. He alluded to the expected decrease in expenditure and asked the Committee to make a provision for itself should a need arise for intense public diplomacy work.  He recommended that the Committee do oversight work in order to monitor the work of the Ministry, to justify budget allocations. He cited the call by the Auditor-General for the Committee to check whether the reports related to work that existed and was justifiable. The Committee was relying largely on hearsay.

The Acting Chairperson then read out the recommendations in the Report. These were to the effect, firstly, that the Committee agreed that the public diplomacy issue was non negotiable and was prepared to adopt the principle of viability to carry it through. Secondly, the Committee acknowledged the shortfall of the budget in this current year but would ascertain that the Department would be able to meet it objectives as set out in its strategic plan of 2010/15. Thirdly, in relation to the refurbishment, the Committee agreed that in areas where there were plans without time frames, the Department would provide progress reports and the details of what needed to happen by when. The Department would also be questioned by the Committee to explain what was a reasonable time concerning the Pan African Parliament. The Department would have to give a report on the next quarter, and the Committee must ensure that it was tabled in the next quarter.

The Acting Chairperson noted that in relation to International Relations it was agreed that the budget for development and monitoring for bilateral relations would be affected by rand fluctuation. For the moment, there could only be speculation how much it would cost to conduct that work. It was realised that was beyond the control of the Department and the government.

In relation to the property portfolio, the Department was asked to look at all the concerns raised by the Committee such as asset registry. The Committee wanted to know what the total value of the property was. The Department was also expected to furnish the asset registry within a month in writing, or before the parliament rose in May.

The Chairperson asked the Members to capture the recommendations and ensure that they were included during the budget speech.

The Committee’s Report was adopted, with the recommendations.
 
The meeting was adjourned.