Foreign Service Bill: National Treasury & National Health Education and Allied Workers Union input

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

29 March 2017
Chairperson: Mr M Masango (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

National Treasury had done an appraisal of the Bill within the context of existing legislative and policy frameworks of government. Consideration was given to align the Bill with the Public Service Act and the Public Finance Management Act. Issues of concurrency on conditions of service, acquisition and disposal of state assets were identified.

Clause 2: Foreign Service

National Treasury felt that members of the Foreign Service were first and foremost employees of the Government of the Republic of SA as provided for in the Public Service Act. The conditions of employment were therefore primarily prescribed and defined in terms of the Public Service Act. The definition of such employees in the Foreign Service should encompass the definition as envisaged in the Public Service Act. There should also be alignment with existing legislative and policy frameworks of government.

Clause 3: Requirements for members of Foreign Service

Clause 3(2) implied that only the Director General of the DIRCO would approve any person to take up a position at a South African mission. The posting of persons at a mission was the prerogative of respective line departments who served at the full discretion of their respective Executive Authorities. To confer such responsibility to the Director General of International Relations and Cooperation relegated the responsibility of constitutional mandated portfolios. Such a provision carried a potential conflict with the Public Finance Management Act on matters relating to accountability and management of resources. Officials posted in missions abroad remained the responsibility of their relevant department.

Clause 5: Recall of member of Foreign Service

National Treasury felt that the provisions in the Clause should be withdrawn. The Bill should not create a parallel code of conduct provision. Disciplinary codes and processes of dealing with alleged misconduct should be coherent and consistent with existing statutory frameworks, prescripts and regulations generally applicable in the South African public service. The recall of a member of the Foreign Service should follow a consultative process that included the respective Executive Authority responsible for the original posting of the official. 

Clause 9: Policies, codes or directives

It was submitted that the Bill should not create a parallel public service regime. For members of the Foreign Service who were already employed in the public service their conditions of service were currently regulated in terms of the Public Service Act and all its prescripts or by sectoral employment legislation eg the South African Police Services (SAPS), Defence and Intelligence Services. National Treasury proposed that where the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation  issued any instrument concerning conditions of service or personnel or employment related matters the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation  should do so in consultation with the Minister of Public Service and Administration. While consultation with the Minister of Finance was mentioned the provision did not create binding effects on matters of fiscal prudence. As a result this may give rise to fiscal risks as the DIRCO could unilaterally decide on generous conditions for those posted abroad. In terms of standard operating procedures, conditions of service for employees generally or categories of employees had historically been determined at the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC). The provisions of the Bill effectively removed this responsibility away from the Mandating Committee to one Minister who would decide on these. The rationale behind giving the powers to the Mister of International Relations and Cooperation was not clear. Currently the Foreign Service Dispensation was pursuant to the collective bargaining process issued as a determination under the Public Service Act by the Minister of Public Service and Administration. The Bill seemed to create concurrent powers with regard to employment related matters.

Clause 12: Regulations

Many of the issues dealt with in Clause 12(1) were matters already regulated in the public service in terms of the Public Service Act and also in terms of various sector employment pieces of legislation. This Clause seemed to enable the creation of a special regime. National Treasury advised that the provisions of the Clause should be made subject to any collective agreement applicable to the Foreign Service and to avoid conflicting regimes, in consultation with the Minister of Public Service and Administration.

In conclusion National Treasury felt the Bill to be silent on the budgeting and financial governance arrangements. This included the treatment of revenue collection in foreign missions, repatriation of funds from the DIRCO and the treatment of foreign exchange fluctuations ie gains and losses.

Members were surprised that National Treasury had made such a comprehensive submission on the Bill given that it should have been part of the consultative process on the Bill. Most of the issues raised should have been ironed out. Was consultation properly done? The fact that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and the South African Police Services (SAPS) had their own special dispensations members asked whether it was not high time that the DIRCO had its own. Members were in agreement that SA’s Foreign Service needed to be regulated. The essence of the Bill was to regulate diplomats. Members strongly felt that South African diplomats needed to undergo diplomatic training. The problem was that when a deployed person did something wrong there were huge implications. The ANC as a political party did not feel that the Bill went far enough. Countries like China had made huge strides in the training of their diplomats on diplomacy. Sadly, SA had not yet reached that point. Members pointed out that SA’s diplomats were always embroiled in some sort of controversy. Members were concerned about SA’s trade attaches possibly selling valuable information to competing countries. What happened to an official deployed at a mission who had committed an act of misconduct and was recalled? These were the types of issues that members felt the Bill needed to address. Should SA not have a special dispensation for its diplomats? It was evident that proper consultation on the Bill was needed.

NEHAWU noted the tabling of the Bill but was disappointed that it was never tabled nor consulted with the PSCBC and with the National Economic Development Labour Council (NEDLAC). The NEHAWU still maintained that the Bill should go through the NEDLAC and the PSCBC as the Bill radically altered the conditions of employment of NEHAWU’s members and seemed to give the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation powers over bargaining rights as well as rendering Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) services.

Clause 2: Foreign Service

NEHAWU was opposed to subclause 2(3) particularly 2(3)(d) which usurped the duties of the DHA and other departments and gave them to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation. The Bill seemed to be concentrating on the powers of the Minister and the Director General of the DIRCO without making provision for the Minister to consult with other affected departments in the Foreign Service.  

Clause 5: Recall of member of Foreign Service

NEHAWU felt that the Clause did not provide for what happened in a situation where an employee had been recalled - whether such employee would still be entitled to draw the benefits that the employee was entitled to as if the employee was still employed by the mission. What happened in a situation where the official had school going kids in that mission? There was a need for clarity as the employee having been recalled was still presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. The NEHAWU felt that these types of issues should be referred to the PSCBC.

Clause 6: Diplomatic Academy

NEHAWU questioned the need for the Diplomatic Academy when there was the National School of Government that could provide diplomatic training. Diplomatic training could take place at the National School of Government and could do away with the need for a Diplomatic Academy. It could save costs.

Clause 7: Establishment of coordination and other mechanisms

Clauses 7(1) and 7(2) gave discretionary powers to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation without instructing the Minister to consult with other Ministries. It was essentially rendering the PSCBC redundant despite the fact that most of the employees in the affected departments were employed under the Public Service Act. The Minister was creating a parallel labour regime.

Clause 8: Assets

NEHAWU was opposed to the Clause as the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation was given wider powers than was necessary. The NEHAWU preferred that the Minister should rather be seen as a “custodian” of assets in the context of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA).

Clause 9: Policies, codes and directives

NEHAWU was violently opposed to this formulation as it may give rise to a constitutional challenge because it gave wider powers to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation to encroach on the powers of other Ministers. It undermined the need for the Minister to consult with trade unions and other social partners.

Clause 12: Regulations

The Clause was rejected because the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation was given powers to make regulations without consulting labour and other government departments.

In conclusion the NEHAWU demanded that parliament refer the Bill back to the PSCBC and the NEDLAC for further engagement. Failure to do so would force the union to consider all its options at its disposal which included a legal challenge or going on strike.

The Committee appreciated the robustness of the NEHAWU input on the Bill. Members agreed with the NEHAWU that consultation on the Bill should have taken place with the PSCBC and with the NEDLAC. Members reiterated that the Bill was groundbreaking legislation and if need be could be referred back. Members did not agree with sentiments of the NEHAWU that where an official had been recalled from a mission such official should be entitled to allowances/benefits that he/she had received based on holding the post abroad. Members felt that such official was no longer based abroad and was not entitled to those allowances/benefits. This was especially appropriate where the official had been recalled on allegations of misconduct. Perhaps a separate Foreign Service regime was needed from the Public Service regime. It became apparent to members that greater engagement and consultation over the issue was required. The NEHAWU was asked whether the National School of Government offered courses on diplomatic training. Members informed the NEHAWU that the training offered at the Diplomatic Academy was far more specialised. The NEHAWU being an affiliate of the COSATU was asked whether the COSATU had been consulted. If the COSATU had been consulted then the COSATU could have in turn discussed the Bill with its affiliates. Members observed that a bone of contention seemed to be when it came to the relationship between the DIRCO and its shareholder departments. It once again became apparent to members that if consultation on the Bill had taken place it must have been very limited consultation. The major gripe that the NEHAWU had on the Bill was the lack of consultation. Given that the NEHAWU demanded that the Bill be referred back members asked the NEHAWU whether the Committee was expected to halt the process on the Bill or should it continue whilst issues raised were being addressed. The Chairperson stated that the Bill would not be referred back. The Bill was running its course in terms of a process.

The Committee noted six of its outstanding draft reports and agreed that members could make recommendations on them during the period of recess. After recess the Committee would consider and adopt them. The Committee also looked at its programme post recess. The international study tour planned for the Committee was from 19-30 June 2017. The Committee would visit one country each, one that had Foreign Service legislation and one that did not have Foreign Service legislation. The intention was to get an idea of best international practise. Germany and China were the countries which the Committee considered to visit.  

Meeting report

Political parties expressed their heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of ANC stalwart Mr Ahmed Kathrada who passed away earlier in the week.

The Chairperson provided a brief background on the life and work of Mr Kathrada.

Briefing by National Treasury on the Foreign Service Bill
The delegation comprised of Ms Gillian Wilson, Chief Director: Public Finance, Mr Alwei Mulaudzi, Director: Fiscal and Intergovernmental Legislation and Ms Gcobisa Matshaya, Senior Budget Analyst: DIRCO.

Ms Wilson kicked off the briefing with an overview of what National Treasury had done on the Bill. National Treasury had done an appraisal of the Bill within the context of existing legislative and policy frameworks of government. Consideration was given to align the Bill with the Public Service Act and the Public Finance Management Act. Issues of concurrency on conditions of service, acquisition and disposal of state assets were identified. The Bill also had financial implications with specific reference to Clause 9, regarding policies, codes or directives.

Mr Mulaudzi spoke to the actual clauses of the Bill.

Clause 2: Foreign Service
National Treasury felt that members of the Foreign Service were first and foremost employees of the Government of the Republic of SA as provided for in the Public Service Act. Their conditions of employment were therefore primarily prescribed and defined in terms of the Public Service Act. The definition of such employees in the Foreign Service should encompass the definition as envisaged in the Public Service Act. There should also be alignment with existing legislative and policy frameworks of government.

Clause 3: Requirements for members of Foreign Service
Clause 3(2) implied that only the Director General of the DIRCO would approve any person to take up a position at a South African mission. The posting of persons at a mission was the prerogative of respective line departments who served at the full discretion of their respective Executive Authorities. To confer such responsibility to the Director General of International Relations and Cooperation relegated the responsibility of constitutional mandated portfolios. Such a provision carried a potential conflict with the Public Finance Management Act on matters relating to accountability and management of resources. Officials posted in missions abroad remained the responsibility of their relevant department.

Clause 5: Recall of member of Foreign Service
National Treasury felt that the provisions here should be withdrawn. The Bill should not create a parallel code of conduct. Disciplinary codes and processes of dealing with alleged misconduct should be coherent and consistent with existing statutory frameworks, prescripts and regulations generally applicable in the South African public service. The recall of a member of the Foreign Service should follow a consultative process that included the respective Executive Authority responsible for the original posting of the official. 

Clause 9: Policies, codes or directives
It was submitted that the Bill should not create a parallel public service regime. For members of the Foreign Service who were already employed in the public service their conditions of service were currently regulated in terms of the Public Service Act and all its prescripts or by sectoral employment legislation eg the South African Police Services (SAPS), Defence and Intelligence Services. National Treasury proposed that where the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation  issued any instrument concerning conditions of service or personnel or employment related matters the Minister should do so in consultation with the Minister of Public Service and Administration. While consultation with the Minister of Finance was mentioned the provision did not create binding effects on matters of fiscal prudence. As a result this may give rise to fiscal risks as the DIRCO could unilaterally decide on generous conditions for those posted abroad. In terms of standard operating procedures, conditions of service for employees generally or categories of employees had historically been determined at the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC). The provisions of the Bill effectively removed this responsibility away from the Mandating Committee to one Minister who would decide on these. The rationale behind giving the powers to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation was not clear. Currently the Foreign Service Dispensation was pursuant to the collective bargaining process issued as a determination under the Public Service Act by the Minister of Public Service and Administration. The Bill seemed to create concurrent powers with regard to employment related matters.

Clause 12: Regulations
Many of the issues dealt with in Clause 12(1) were matters already regulated in the public service in terms of the Public Service Act and also in terms of various sector employment pieces of legislation. This Clause seemed to enable the creation of a special regime. National Treasury advised that the provisions of the Clause should be made subject to any collective agreement applicable to the Foreign Service and to avoid conflicting regimes, in consultation with the Minister of Public Service and Administration.
           
In conclusion National Treasury felt the Bill to be silent on the budgeting and financial governance arrangements. This included the treatment of revenue collection in foreign missions, repatriation of funds from the DIRCO and the treatment of foreign exchange fluctuations ie gains and losses.

Discussion
Mr B Radebe (ANC) was surprised that even though National Treasury had consulted with the DIRCO they still had views on the Bill as members had heard. Was consultation not properly done? National Treasury was aware that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and the South African Police Services (SAPS) had special dispensations. Was it not high time that the DIRCO should have a special dispensation? He noted that when a deployed DIRCO person did something wrong then there were huge implications. The ANC as a political party did not feel that the Bill went far enough. He pointed out that China identified bright government officials early on and trained them in diplomacy at universities. A delegation from China had met with the Committee and members were astonished by the answers to political questions that the young Chinese officials were able to provide. Sadly South Africa’s diplomats were not on par. SA’s diplomats faked their qualifications and were guilty of other contraventions as well. Should SA not have a special dispensation for diplomats? He noted that in Germany’s Parliament, international relations issues were not discussed in open. He agreed that proper consultation on the Bill needed to be done. On the issue of recalling officials he said that at missions only DIRCO had a presence. No other departments had a presence.  Officials were not transferred to missions they were only seconded to the DIRCO. The concern was that SA’s trade attaches could sell valuable information to competing countries. What happens when a person was declared a persona non grata by the host country? When an official was sent to a mission the Vienna Convention stipulated that such person became a trade or military attaché. It came with privileges such as diplomatic immunity. It became problematic when the official commits an act of misconduct. These were the types of issues that the Bill needed to address.

Mr Mulaudzi noted the comments made on consultation. He acknowledged that there was perhaps a need for a special regime. However existing frameworks needed to be taken into account. National Treasury cautioned about this. The issue was about how to harmonise and align where necessary. On recalling, he explained that there was a disciplinary process that applied. When special disciplinary processes were developed it had to be ensured that there was no conflict with existing ones. When a person was recalled then there needed to be engagement between the Minister of the DIRCO and the Minister of the department from whence the person was seconded from.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) agreed that the Foreign Service needed to be regulated. The issue was about the brand and image of SA. The reality was that most of SA’s diplomats were found to be wanting. It seemed as if the DIRCO had not yet had consultations with stakeholders. If there had been consultations then most of the issues raised by National Treasury should have been covered and consulted upon. He was not convinced that consultation between the DIRCO and National Treasury had taken place. He recalled that the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had highlighted the issue of revenue collection abroad. What was National Treasury’s take on it? Should the DIRCO or the DHA be in charge of revenue collection abroad? The essence of the Bill was to regulate diplomats. He understood National Treasury’s point that the Public Service Act should take precedence. The Bill was not introducing a new regime. The issue was about how to handle diplomacy of employees of stakeholder departments. It was about the collective brand or image of SA. Everyone needed to find each other on this. He was aware of the issue of assets as the Department of Public Works had also raised it. National Treasury and the DIRCO needed to come together to sort out issues.

Ms Mashaya noted that the issue of revenue collection abroad had been discussed with the DHA. On the expatriation of revenue from missions there was no policy change as yet. It worked on a Principle-Agency arrangement. DIRCO as revenue collector was an agent of the DHA. Accountability and responsibility still lied with the DHA. The funds collected would be surrendered to the National Revenue Fund. There was no change in the arrangement.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) said that everybody’s expertise was needed to fine tune the Bill. SA’s young democracy had its faults and gaps were present. The Bill came at an opportune time. Diplomats who could defend SA abroad were needed. Persons deployed abroad needed to undergo diplomatic training on dos and don’ts. Discipline was of paramount importance. Any person representing SA should undergo diplomacy training. It was evident that greater consultation was needed.

The Chairperson referred to page 3 of the presentation and asked what the difference in the use of the words “shall” and “must” was. What effect did their use have?  On Clause 6 National Treasury stated that the National School of Government would suffice to train officials. The problem was that seconded officials would also be covered by the Vienna Convention. He felt that officials needed some training at the Diplomatic Academy in Pretoria. National Treasury was asked why it had not spoken about Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the DIRCO and Ministers of respective departments that would clarify things. He urged National Treasury to heed the comments made by members.

Mr Mulaudzi thanked members for their useful comments and said that National Treasury was now better educated than it was before. On the use of “shall” and “must” he explained that legally there was not much difference. He agreed with sentiments of members that specific diplomatic training was needed. 

The Chairperson stated that the Bill was the first of its kind. The Committee intended to undertake study tours to countries that had legislation of the sort as well as countries that had no legislation in place. The idea was to learn from best practices.

Briefing by the National Health Education and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)
The delegation comprised of Mr Casper Nanto National Organiser, Mr Sidney Kgara, Head of Policy Unit and Mr Tengo Tengewa, Parliamentary Officer.

Mr Tengewa undertook the briefing. Many of the issues that the NEHAWU had with the Bill had been raised by National Treasury. NEHAWU noted the tabling of the Bill but was disappointed that it was never tabled or consulted with the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) and at the National Economic Development Labour Council (NEDLAC). The Bill radically altered the conditions of employment of NEHAWU’s members and seemed to give the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation powers over bargaining rights as well as rendering Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) services.

Clause 2: Foreign Service
NEHAWU was opposed to subclause 2(3) particularly 2(3)(d) which usurped the duties of the DHA and other departments and gave them to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation. The Bill seemed to be concentrating on the powers of the Minister and the Director General of the DIRCO without making provision for the Minister to consult with other affected departments in the Foreign Service.
  
Clause 5: Recall of member of Foreign Service
NEHAWU felt that the Clause did not provide for what happened in a situation where an employee had been recalled - whether such employee would still be entitled to draw the benefits that he/she was entitled to as if the employee was still employed by the mission. What happened in a situation where the official had school going kids in that mission? There was a need for clarity as the employee having been recalled was still presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. The NEHAWU felt that these types of issues should be referred to the PSCBC.

Clause 6: Diplomatic Academy
NEHAWU questioned the need for the Diplomatic Academy when there was the National School of Government that could provide diplomatic training. Diplomatic training could take place at the National School of Government and could do away with the need for a Diplomatic Academy. It could save costs.

Clause 7: Establishment of coordination and other mechanisms
Clauses 7(1) and 7(2) gave discretionary powers to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation without instructing the Minister to consult with other Ministries. It was essentially rendering the PSCBC redundant despite the fact that most of the employees in the affected departments were employed under the Public Service Act. The Minister was creating a parallel labour regime.

Clause 8: Assets
NEHAWU was opposed to the Clause as the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation was given wider powers than was necessary. NEHAWU preferred that the Minister should rather be seen as a “custodian” of assets in the context of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA).

Clause 9: Policies, codes and directives
NEHAWU was violently opposed to this formulation as it may give rise to a constitutional challenge because it gave wider powers to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation to encroach on the powers of other Ministers. It undermined the need for the Minister to consult with trade unions and other social partners.

Clause 12: Regulations
The Clause was rejected because the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation was given powers to make regulations without consulting labour and other government departments.

In conclusion the NEHAWU demanded that Parliament refer the Bill back to the PSCBC and NEDLAC for further engagement. Failure to do so would force the union to consider all its options at its disposal which included a legal challenge or going on strike.

Discussion
Mr Radebe appreciated the robustness of the NEHAWU presentation. The Bill was however all encompassing and would go beyond NEHAWU. He agreed with NEHAWU’s sentiments that consultation with the PSCBC should have taken place. The Bill was groundbreaking legislation and if needs be could be referred back. He reiterated that before any person was seconded to a mission and appointed by the Director General of the DIRCO such person needed to undergo diplomatic training. He had concerns over the point made by the NEHAWU that a person recalled should be entitled to his/benefits as they might have children who were schooling abroad. SA had too many diplomats abroad who embarrassed the country. When a person was recalled he/she went back to their respective department and was not automatically fired. Benefits such as medical aid and pension would still be in place. In his view, it was wrong for a person to still get his/her allowance for working abroad if they were no longer posted abroad. The Vienna Convention stipulated that the receiving host country needed to accept the attaché that was being deployed. If the host country asked an attaché to leave its country due to some wrongdoing then the person should have considered their kids before perpetrating the wrongful act. With rights came responsibilities. On parallel leveraging the matter still had to be discussed at the PSCBC. A separate Foreign Service regime was needed from the Public Service regime. Engagement was needed even with unions.

Mr Nanto, on whether a person recalled was still entitled to benefits, said that even if the person was not abroad it was a contractual obligation and should be payable to the person.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) agreed with the NEHAWU that consultation with the PSCBC and NEDLAC should have been done. Consultation was critical. She noted that the issue of assets had also been raised by other stakeholders. She understood the concern of NEHAWU regarding the unilateral powers of the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation on regulations. The Diplomatic Academy in Pretoria specialised in the training of diplomats. NEHAWU was asked whether the National School of Government offered diplomatic training. Did it cater for international activities?  NEHAWU being an affiliate of the COSATU was asked whether the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) had been consulted.  If the NEHAWU had consulted the COSATU then the COSATU could have in turn discussed the Bill with its other affiliates.

Mr Nanto responded that COSATU also sat on the PSCBC.

The Chairperson said that other unions whether or not affiliated to COSATU were welcome to make submissions on the Bill.

Ms Raphuti agreed that where persons were guilty of misconduct then they should be recalled. She felt that obtaining training from the Diplomatic Academy should be a prerequisite even if the National School of Government was there. On assets, she felt that the Bill helped with the issue of fruitless expenditure. She agreed with members that perhaps further consultation was needed.

Mr Mokgalapa reiterated that consultation was important. Rather be safe than sorry. Perhaps the Bill needed to be referred back. The purpose of the Bill after all was to regulate diplomats. There seemed to be a bone of contention when it came to shareholder departments. If consultation had taken place then it was very limited consultation. On training at the Diplomatic Academy versus a cheaper alternative like the National School of Government the decision was that of the DIRCO. It was the DIRCO that appointed diplomats. Diplomats were required to go for six months training before they were deployed. Perhaps the courses on offer at the Diplomatic Academy could be diversified. On recalling of officials he provided an example of a DHA official that had been recalled. The person had received a foreign allowance and stipends. When the DHA recalled the official these amounts were no longer paid. The matter ended up before the Public Protector who determined that the official was entitled to the amounts even though he was recalled. The DHA took the matter to court and the case was ongoing. In his view, it was wrong for the official to get the foreign allowance when the person was no longer abroad. This was the fundamental point to consider. It was evident that most of the NEHAWU’s concern was about the lack of consultation.

Mr Nanto was pleased that members were in agreement that the DIRCO needed to consult with labour over the Bill. Consultation with the PSCBC was needed. The concern was about moving workers into a new dispensation.

Mr M Maila (ANC) was pleased that NEHAWU had engaged with the Bill. It showed commitment on their part. NEHAWU at the end of its presentation demanded that the Bill be referred back. He asked whether the Committee was expected to halt the process on the Bill or should it continue whilst issues raised were being addressed.

The Chairperson, addressing Ms Tania Steenkamp from Chief State Law Adviser seconded to the DIRCO, asked what was the usual practise where a diplomat was recalled to SA or was declared by the host country as a persona non grata but his/her children were still enrolled at a school abroad. What happened to the children?

Ms Steenkamp responded that she did not have personal experience on the matter but said that children at missions were always an issue. Schooling cycles abroad were in June and September. If a term of a diplomat was near its ending a motivation could be given to extend the term for the sake of the children’s schooling. Where a person was declared a persona non grata then the entire family had to leave and in some cases within 24 hours. It all depended on the circumstances. DIRCO tried to be accommodative where possible. She did point out that there was a High Court case where a ruling was made that a person was only entitled to allowances where the person was posted abroad and not where the person was recalled back to SA.

Mr Serake Matsebe, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, DIRCO, added that when a person was posted to a country this country had to accept the person and provide accreditation. If the person’s accreditation was terminated then so too was the family’s accreditation. The accreditation of the family was linked to that of the person to whom it was given.

The Chairperson added that certain immunities and privileges belonged to the incumbency that one occupied ie heads of missions. Persons got allowances for cars, housing etc. It had to be remembered that SA’s labour laws did not apply abroad. He explained that the training offered at the Diplomatic Academy was more specialised. The Diplomatic Academy was one of the best in Africa. There were even members of parliament that had been deployed as diplomats. NEHAWU had alerted the Committee to the issues pertaining to workers. Another issue highlighted was about the mandate of the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation versus the mandates of ministers of other departments. He said that the Bill could not be referred back the entire bill. The Bill was running its course in terms of a process. The Committee was at present tasked with dealing with the Bill and was calling for submissions on it from stakeholders. DIRCO would thereafter take all submissions into account. The Bill would be referred to Parliament where the Committee would deal with it clause by clause. 

Mr Nanto heard what the Committee was saying about the Diplomatic Academy. He noted that workers had their own reservations about the Academy and on the DIRCO as a whole. Issues had been raised with the DIRCO.

Mr Kgari emphasised that engagement with labour had to take place. Parliament had to ensure that proper steps had to be followed. Was DIRCO being moved out of the Foreign Service? He said that every time when there was a problem of coordination between departments then there were plans to create a new entity. He noted that the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) would lose the gains that it had made with the NEHAWU at the PSCBC. NEHAWU was confident that engagement would have an impact on the Bill when it was passed. He added that the COSATU was a coordinator of affiliates. He pointed out that the National School of Government had similar elements as what was being offered at the Diplomatic Academy. NEHAWU was concerned that the Bill did not speak to cost estimates.

Consideration of Draft Committee Reports
The Chairperson stated that the Committee had a plethora of Draft Reports to consider. There were six Draft Reports in total. The Committee had in its previous meeting agreed that members should make recommendations on the Draft Reports. He asked how many recommendations had the Committee received from members.

Mr Mokgalapa said that it seemed as if the Committee Secretary had not received any recommendations from members. He proposed that members be given an opportunity to come up with recommendations and when the Committee returned from recess it could adopt the Draft Reports.

The Chairperson placed the suggestion by Mr Mokgalapa before the Committee for consideration.

Ms Kenye asked that the Committee Secretary be given an opportunity to speak. She added that Mr Mokgalapa assumed that no recommendations had been received from members.

Mr Lubabalo Sigwela, Committee Secretary, said that there was only one submission from the ANC.

The Chairperson said that if only one submission was received then Mr Mokgalapa’s suggestion made sense.

Mr Maila pointed out that the submission was from the ANC. The ANC comprised of many members in the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the recess could be used by members to refine and enrich the recommendations to the Draft Reports. After the recess the Committee could deal with the Draft Reports.

Ms Raphuti said that the Committee only needed to note some of the Draft Reports whilst others could be debated.

Mr Radebe said that members needed to apply their minds on some of the Draft Reports He supported Mr Mokgalapa’s suggestion. The Committee lacked a quorum in any case. The Committee could presently just note the Draft Reports.

Mr Maila agreed that the Committee note the Draft Reports and during recess work on recommendations.  After recess the Committee could deal with them.

The Committee agreed to note the Draft Reports and for members to submit recommendations on them to the Committee Secretary by the 20-25 April 2017.  After recess the Committee would consider the Draft Reports inclusive of recommendations.

Mr Sigwela spoke to the Committee’s Programme after the recess. The international study tour planned for the Committee was from 19-30 June 2017.

The Chairperson stated that he had tried to meet up with the House Chairperson to discuss the matter of the international study tour but had been unsuccessful. He would try to get hold of the House Chairperson over the upcoming weekend. He suggested that the Committee visit one country with Foreign Service legislation and one without. The two countries that he had in mind were Germany and China.

The meeting was adjourned.



 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: