Meeting with Namibian Members of Parliament; Committee fourth term programme: discussion

Meeting report

The Chairperson raised the issue of Members’ attendance, noting there were six absentees at the present meeting. This was a constant problem and genuine source of concern for as no alternates were provided as well. This matter would have to be escalated to the chief whips of all parties if it persisted.

Committee Fourth Term Programme: discussion
The Chairperson tabled the Committee’s fourth term programme for consideration and highlighted some of the planned activities and meetings.

The Chairperson highlighted that the Committee would focus on the Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) in the final term as part of the oversight on the executive. He suggested that the presentation by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on its annual report should be preceded by expert analysis so that various experts in the field were brought in to analyse the annual report. In some instances there was no in depth analysis of past departmental briefings.

The Chairperson indicated that there would be workshops on the Middle East as well as the Southern African Development Countries (SADC), notably the Democratic Republic of Congo, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe, during this period.

The Chairperson mentioned that the BRRR Report would be what flowed from the adoption of the annual report, and this opportunity could be used to engage on Cuba since it had been a major policy issue. Cuba was one of the cases where geographically Cuba was in the north but in terms of the country’s foreign policy it was located in the political south and therefore there was a need to engage on this relationship by interrogating bilateral national commissions on the issue of doctor training, and since many Cuban engineers were now used by the Department of Public Works (DPW).

There was also a proposal for a symposium on Western Sahara, as it was viewed as the last colony on the African continent, and within the context of the Arab Spring it was absolutely necessary to engage on this issue and choose a position, in particular since Minister Nkosanzana Dlamini-Zuma was elected Chairperson of the African Union (AU).

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked for clarification on meeting dates and the workshop on the Middle East.

The Chairperson clarified that the workshop shifted to 31 September and noted the issue of time conflict with other meetings. There would be a presentation by DIRCO on 10 October 2012, the annual report would be dealt with on the 16 October 2012, and the adoption of the BRRR proposal would be on the 17 October 2012.

Ms C September (ANC) raised the issue of meeting conflicts observing that members often sat on more than one committee.

The Chairperson said that he would bring this issue to the attention of the Committee of Chairs. The 19^th of September would be used to bring in experts across the board on the annual report (operational, political, financial), the 24^th would be the symposium on Western Sahara, the 31st would be the Middle East workshop. The Middle East was such a spaghetti bowl of issues that there was no clear understanding of the issues contained there. One example is a country like Syria where there was a need to have broad based understanding due to the linkages inherent in the region and not simply each country on its own.

Ms September requested that community organisations be brought in to participate on the debate.

The Chairperson asked Members to issue a list of persons and organisations they would like to invite to assist in selecting experts on the Middle East for the workshop with the Committee as there was a need to facilitate the workshop in a proficient manner.

The Chairperson indicated that from 6-9 of November 2012, the Committee would deal with outreach and oversight as there were a couple of issues requiring departmental oversight such as Durban COP17 on climate change, OR Tambo airport, community outreach on issues such as what constituted South Africa’s national security and engaging municipalities and provinces in their conduct of South Africa’s foreign policy. Although there was a coordinating mechanism in place it was very effective until now.

The Chairperson noted that the Palestine-Israeli issues still needed resolution and would come in the form of a study tour. The tour would need cooperation from both Israeli and Palestinian authorities to organise and plan travel and meetings. It was said the ANC had strong views on the issue while the DA was split over the issue due to the makeup of its Muslim/Jewish constituencies.

Ms September said that there was a need to get a sense of the implementation of international treaties to achieve a global picture for the committee’s insight on the matter. She thought it would be beneficial to have an international link up with a similar committee in another country or international institution to discuss the deepening poverty levels and the economic crisis. She also had a desire to go to Swaziland on a fact finding mission. She also wanted a briefing on the Commonwealth Summit to be held in South Africa to have feedback on the preparations and state of readiness for the meeting.

Mr Erlof said the Committee should look at outstanding treaties that could not be settled or must be renegotiated in order to move forward.

The Chairperson said there had been an attempt to visit Zimbabwe in 2010, but the Minister of Home Affairs in Zimbabwe had refused permission for the Committee’s proposed visit.

The meetings scheduled for the 14 and 21 November 2012 would be departmental briefings on the DRC, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe and it was noted that there was a strong desire to conclude issues and make recommendations rather than simply process information.

The Committee did not have any plans for on 27 November 2012, but this day could potentially be used for an oversight visit and could even be used to apply for a study visit to Swaziland. He reminded Members that all dates were subject to change should a scheduling conflict or other matter arise.

Meeting with Namibian MPs
The Chairperson led the meeting with the Namibian delegates and began by saying that today leaders often spoke of regional integration and yet despite a high number of forums for Heads of State it was rare for parliamentarians to have this kind of opportunity to discuss issues of oversight and legislation. It was an experience to cherish and an opportunity to share experiences with colleagues in other countries and to learn about best practices on both sides.

The leader of the delegation Mr Festus Ueitele, deputy chairperson parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and security, introduced himself and the other members of the Namibian delegation which included Ms Clara Gowases, MP, Mr Ignatius Shixwameni, MP and Ms Dorothy Alawi, secretary for the delegates.

Mr Ueitele thanked the Committee for readjusting its programme to accommodate the Namibian delegation. He noted the Namibian standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and security had been established under article 59 of the Namibian Constitution, to supervise home affairs and immigration, veteran affairs, defence and security, intelligence, and foreign affairs. The delegation wished to be briefed on the oversight function of the Committee, the relationship between Parliamentarians and staff members, as well as the serving of the Committees in terms of effective and efficient service delivery and protocol arrangements; the capacity building and skills development initiated for Parliamentarians and staff members; ways of ensuring practical implementation of Committees’ recommendations by the Executive after being adopted by Parliament; and finally the procedures with regard to referral of Bills and Motions to relevant Committees by the House.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee dealt with foreign affairs, and functioned on the basis of the committee system, where its role and function were located within the broader legal and political framework. Broadly speaking this was to build a Parliament responsive to the needs of the people. This in fact emulated the Namibian model of independence which had come just before South Africa’s own return to majority rule in 1994. The main strategic objective was for Parliament to build an efficient process of effective scrutiny over government, mandated by law. Parliament was seen as representing people and ensuring government by the people, and as well represented the provinces so that provincial issues were heard and expressed at the national level.

Core objectives of the Parliament were to pass legislation, scrutinise and oversee executive action, and to ensure public participation in the legislative process via the cooperative governance clause. This meant it was necessary to seek a cooperative rather than litigious resolution of issues between different spheres of government.

The parliamentary committees mirrored and reflected government departments and therefore all issues in the national sphere found expression in committees. Known as the engine room of Parliament, committees were provided with the provision that they did not only focus on government but may investigate any matter which was an issue of national or local interest. An example would be that of the Marikana miners’ strike which started as a labour issue overseen by a single committee but then expanded and became applicable to more than one committee. Committees were also set up by a resolution of the house to investigate the 2008 xenophobic attacks and engaged on issues of public interest.

The Committee oversaw DIRCO which included the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) that had been set up under the Department to assist African countries and countries of the African diaspora with developmental projects, disaster relief, and humanitarian crises. In Zimbabwe this fund was used to assist in agricultural training and the acquisition of hardware and seeds. It had also spent R100 million for training troops in the DRC and for relief aid to South Sudan. The fund would be wound up next year and would be replaced by the South African Development Agency, a body that would be responsible for creating and maintaining development partnerships.

The Committee was also responsible for monitoring the work of embassies, accountability issues, finance, staffing, oversee accounts, consider bills as part of the legislative process, where there was a separate process to consider private members bills. Another key function was to look at treaties that government entered into, as parliamentary approval was necessary; this required the committee to look at a treaty’s consistency with values, to make sure that it advanced the national interests as a country. Parliamentary approval was attained through a resolution of the House.

The Committee also had the power to summon anyone before it on any issue it deemed necessary and the summons carried the same weight as a court summons and for which a person could be held criminally liable if ignored although this power was rarely used.

The Committee was empowered by law to hold government accountable in the conduct of foreign relations and the committee consisted of 13 members of which the ANC majority party made up 7 of 13 members, 2 from the DA, and 1 from all the other parties.

The Committee had to be effective in ensuring that foreign policy was based on national interests, through a policy which helped to achieve or resolve domestic issues that continued to afflict South Africa like high levels of poverty and unemployment. This also meant ensuring that DIRCO enhanced and developed partnerships through the pursuit of a peaceful world order; considered treaties and reviewed the Cotonou Agreement with the EU; considered the budget allocation of DIRCO, and exercised parliamentary diplomacy as there was a need for a single, unified foreign policy.

With the Money Bills Amendment Act, Parliament had given itself the power to amend the budget of a department, which was implemented by the overseeing committee via a BRRR, the Committee would consider and look at in particular performance issues of a department. A committee may then recommend increasing or decreasing the budget of a department; this was a power new to Parliament in the past 2 years and allowed Parliament to be taken seriously by the executive.

The issue of workshops providing parliamentary diplomacy training was raised. There were also some courses that were given for MPs, such as a workshop with the South African Revenue Services (SARS) on members own tax dealings, trainings through the University of Cape Town (UCT) for MPs and for provincial MPLs; such as a course on political economy.

Mr Erlof said that all parties agreed on the need to improve service delivery, and emphasised that there was no open hostility between parties within committees. He went on to detail a governance and public leadership course available to MPs. The latest course had been run by the University of the Witswatersrand in Johannesburg. When completed an MP would then have a degree.

Ms Dudley said that there was always a difficulty around convincing the speaker of Parliament to agree to oversight visits to other countries as there were very restrictive policies around international travel. She expressed concern that committee work had come to a grinding halt as an oversight committee, and that as long as the committee was keeping busy there was no concern over what it was actually doing.

Mr Shixwameni said that problems existed with groups in the Namibian parliament, and there was always a difficulty over how to manage and under whose direction they fell. He asked who decided on budgeting for committees and the budget of Parliament. On degrees for MPs he wished to know how formal was the degree if for instance you stopped being an MP would that degree be recognised? On the separation of powers and the positions of ministers were they MPs?

Mr Ueitele asked if there were no opposition members present could it constitute a meeting and wondered if the chairperson must be from the ruling party.

The Chairperson said that budgets were drawn up for committees by the executive authority of Parliament which was the same for Parliament’s budget. It was drawn up by the Speaker, the Chairperson of the NCOP, and the Secretary to parliament, these three officials made up the executive committee (ExCom). 

Under the national qualifications framework degrees obtained by MPs were equivalent with all normal degrees, and although it was a specialised course it was then absorbed into the educational system and had full standing like any other course.

Generally ministers were members of Parliament but the Constitution allowed for the President to appoint no more than 2 ministers who were not MPs. Currently this was Pravin Gordhan, Minister of Finance, who was not an MP but regarded as a Member of the House as a cabinet minister and Ebrahim Patel, Minister of Economic Development.

On the membership of committees and the chairpersonship, the chair was elected by the committee which could technically elect any of its members and any member of Parliament attending the committee could vote for anyone but the existing convention was that the ANC would announce a chair and usually the opposition would vote with the ANC to elect a chair. However on SCOPA committee, the opposition chaired the committee.

The Chairperson noted that in Namibia the NCOP/NA had a good working relationship but there were also tensions between the upper and lower house. The NA was seen as the senior house, and the NCOP was genuinely seen as the lower house but in legal terms both houses were in equal standing and that was what made Parliament. The NA was bigger and the nature of issues different, for example the NA elected the President.

Mr Erlof said that the National Assembly and the NCOP had different priorities, although sometimes on matters relating to health or the police an overlap arose leading to confusion over who took the lead on certain issues.

Ms September said that Parliament was about to review its own rules as it was still sitting with some rules that came out of the old colonial days. This would lead to the improved functioning of Parliament. She also noted that the NCOP had smaller capacity as it had fewer members and therefore less specialisation meaning that more areas were lumped together in fewer committees.

Mr Ueitele thanked the Chairperson and committee members for their presentation and the ‘goldmine of information’. He also hoped for regular exchanges which could lead to mutual benefits for both countries.

The meeting was adjourned.