Foreign Service Bill: DHET, DoT; DTPS; DEA & Department of Energy input

Meeting report

Apologies were received for Mr B Radebe (ANC), Ms S Kalyan (DA), Mr S Mokgalapa (DA), Ms C Dudley (ACDP) and Dr B Holomisa (UDM).

The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on the Foreign Services Bill

Mr Eben Boshoff, Acting Deputy Director General: Planning Head of Legal Services, DHET, said the Foreign Services Bill was satisfactory in all aspects, except for clause 6. The purpose of the presentation was to deal with the provisions in the Bill, specifically in relation to clause 6. Section 97 of the Constitution will also be incorporated in the presentation, along with clause 6 of the Bill; and Sectionsections 5, 7 and 8 of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Act. It will also deal with Section 6C of the Skills Development Act (SDA).

Section 97 of the Constitution gives the Minister of Higher Education and Training the power to draft any legislation that falls within his or her scope of duty. The functional area related the administration of the NQF which was assigned to the Minister. This affected clause 6 of the Bill, as it relates to the offering of training and issuing of qualifications to members of the Foreign Service, in order to be deployed as Diplomats.

Clause 6 of the Bill provided for the establishment of a training academy. It also states that the Diplomatic Academy may offer diplomas or certificates, and conduct examinations or tests. Furthermore, it stated that the accreditation and recognition of the Diplomatic Academy’s qualifications must be done in accordance with the provisions of the NQF and the SDA.

The NQF provided for a single national framework for learning achievements and the enhancement of quality of education and training. The Bill also proclaimed that the Minister has overall executive responsibility of the NQF, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO).

Chapter 6C of the SDA provided for the establishment and functions of the QCTO, which was essentially responsible for qualifications emanating from the SDA.

A confusing element in the Bill was that there was no clear distinction between certificates and diplomas. The Bill gave powers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs whilst giving the Minister of Higher Education and Training the responsibility to make regulations regarding many factors. There are prevailing clauses too, that ruled that if there was any conflicting information in the different pieces of legislation, the NQF must always prevail.

Discussion:

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) noted that Mr Boshoff brought many problems but offered no solutions. He wanted a comment on the Diplomatic Academy as it was a specialised academy. It was specialised because not all of the training provided was written down, but some of it was executed only verbally. In the past, there were spies and today there are diplomats. He asked if it was necessary for suggestions to be made to the changing of the Act.

Mr M Maila (ANC) echoed Mr Mpumlwana’s sentiments about the Department’s failure to provide solutions. On the prevailing clause and the fact that where there was conflicting information, the NQF would prevail, he asked how would this prevailing affect the Bill directly. Mr Maila further went on to ask who would be responsible for the Academy, the Minister of Higher Education and Training or the Minister of International Relations. He wanted clarity whether Mr Boshoff said certificates should be scrapped and the focus should be solely on diplomas or not.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) also was disappointed that solutions were not provided with the challenges that were listed by Mr Boshoff. She was of the view that it was not only DHET that provided skills and training to the diplomats, but DIRCO also contributed since they knew what they wanted from the training. Seeing that specialised training will be done, both departments must work together.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) also expected proposals to the problems.

Mr Mpumlwana asked if clause 6(1) (4) was correct, or if it should be amended.

The Chairperson alluded to the ‘bogus training schemes’ that were detrimental to the legitimate and legal training done. He suggested that recommendations should be formulated by DHET and those recommendations needed to be clear and succinct.

Mr Boshoff highlighted the importance of the intention of DHET in terms of the Bill and that was to provide qualifications. He noted the differences between training and qualifications and said DHET’s solution to the problems was to have the problematic sections amended or changed by the Minister of Higher Education and Training or by any department that has jurisdiction to do so.

The Chairperson ruled that due to time constraints, Mr Boshoff should send additional information, recommendations and or answers in writing.

Mr Mpumlwana expressed his dissatisfaction with the adequateness of the responses provided as they were “too broad”.

Department of Transport (DOT) on the Foreign Services Bill

Mr Tankiso Molekang, Chief Director: International Relations, DOT, began by apologising for not having a presentation document available. DOT supported the Bill and will provide inputs later, which would not change the overall objective of said Bill. The first input was in regard to chapter 2; subsection 2, which defined members of foreign services. The input is that this must also include people appointed by state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as maritime and aviation are specialised fields.

The second input was under section 5A and B. These excluded the Minister of Transport in recalling officials that have been deployed, but they have been appointed by the Minister.

Ms Kenye interrupted to seek clarification as to whether the presenter spoke about chapter 2 or 3 of the Bill, before he continued.

Mr Molekang clarified that it was chapter 2.

Discussion:

Mr Maila wanted DOT’s stance on clause 4 of the Bill, as it also linked to clause 5.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would like an email from Mr Molekang on the points he made.

Department of Energy (DOE) on the Foreign Services Bill

Mr Garrith Bezuidenhout, Chief Director: International Coordination, DOE, apologised for not having a presentation but would submit the inputs to the Secretariat. DOE supported the Bill, but had generic issues, which had come through earlier in the meeting. Clarity in the encroachment of mandate was sought, as to when they would be issued and under what circumstances.

The Bill was restrictive and it should flexible, seeing that it dealstwith foreign situations. When issues arise, solutions should be within it as it would be generic.

There was an objection to the definition of ‘foreign service’. The definition should include SOEs and there was no mention of provinces in the definitions. For instance, renewable energy programmes are predominantly performed in the Northern Cape, and the major countries are China and other European countries.

Another issue was the members of the foreign services. These people are normally kept in secret, as they are diplomats. The Bill responded o the White Paper on South Africa’s foreign policy, and made DIRCO the centre for foreign relations, which was fully supported. On the issue of coordination, there was currently no prescribed consultation with other stakeholders and this should be changed. Also, the wording should change from ‘must be consultation’ instead of ‘may consult’.

There is a complication in section 3 where there was no attempt to align the Bill with the Public Services Act and it seemed that the two are in conflict.

Discussion:

Mr Mpumlwana said that he did not see how transport fitted into the Bill and he thanked both presenters for their presentations. He also urged the presenters to bring or provide physical documents next time they present to the Committee and they should send their inputs to the Committee Secretary.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would call on the National Educational, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (NEHAWU), once all the departments are pleased with the Bill to ensure that they are also happy with the particulars of the Bill. This will happen before the end of the year.

The Committee discussed upcoming meetings.

Meeting was adjourned.