Foreign Service Bill: DIRCO briefing; Risks to SA Foreign Policy

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

11 September 2019
Chairperson: Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

SC Trade Report on Foreign Service Bill

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) briefed the Committee on the Foreign Service Bill (FSB). Members were given insight into the rationale for the FSB. Members were also given an explanatory overview of what each of the clauses of the FSB covered.

Clause 2(2) was identified as the most contentious clause as it indicated that the Bill had primacy if there was any conflict with other legislation. Implications of the FSB included that DIRCO would for the first time be required by legislation to take full responsibility for the obligations attributed to it and would be audited by the Auditor General of SA on the basis of these obligations. DIRCO also would have to comply with the FSB in its daily activities. The DIRCO furthermore needed to develop regulations; codes and directives for the FSB to be ready for implementation as soon as possible after the FSB had been signed by the President. On the way forward some of the things that the DIRCO had to do were that human resources policies had to be adapted into regulations for negotiating of the Foreign Service Code. Regulations were needed for enhanced coordination of SA’s international engagements. Training requirements were also required both for heads of missions and for all members of the foreign service. The DIRCO had to also assess the functionality of its organisational structure to be fit for purpose.

Members stated that the Bill was needed and should be revived. The purpose of the FSB had been sufficiently explored. The Chairperson was pleased that members had no problems with Clause 2 as it was captured in the FSB. She remarked that the rejection by the NCOP was a surprise to the National Assembly (NA).

The Parliamentary Legal Advisor explained that there were two ways to revive the bill. The first was where the Executive initiated the process. This was where the relevant Minister did it by way of motion in the NA. The second way was that the Committee could approach the Speaker of the House by way of letter copied to the Chief Whip for the Bill to be revived. This too was by way of motion in the NA. Once these processes had been followed the FSB would be referred back to the Committee to be dealt with.

The Committee agreed for the Chairperson to start the Committee’s process on the revival of the FSB and also agreed that the process could run concurrently with the process initiated by the Minister. The Chairperson was confident that there would be no conflict between the Committee and the Minister over the matter. She would consult with the Minister over the matter in due course.    

The Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD) provided the Committee with insights into risks and opportunities for SA globally.

South Africa was in the process of transitioning from the African Renaissance Fund to the Southern African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) but was grappling with the modalities that SADPA would take on. Even though SA was one of the first countries to come up with a development agency like SADPA, other countries had overtaken SA.

The African Continent Free Trade Area (FTA) was expected to have great opportunities and to be a game changer. The problem was that there were low levels of intra Africa trade.  As the discussion was on the free movement of goods in Africa there also had to be a discussion around the free movement of people in Africa. What would the implications be? The African Continent FTA was expected to open up this discussion. There was also growing foreign engagement in Africa. External challenges that had an impact was the trade war between China and the US which was happening outside the confines of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The new war between China and the US was around digitisation. Data was the new oil. There were new gateways and avenues in Africa. SA had to ensure that it was not left behind on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Besides the likes of India and China, SA had to look at new opportunities for trade with countries like Turkey. Members were informed that there was chatter that China was re-indebting African countries. The narrative was that China was going to be the new debtor of Africa. The challenge was around how Africa would be positioned on trade with the rest of the world. Africa looked to be the place for increased economic interest.  Brexit ie the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union could have opportunities and risks. How SA engaged with the UK was important. SA and the UK were close to coming to an agreement on post Brexit trade relations. SA should not get caught up between the tensions of China and the US. If SA was good at diplomacy it could further its own interests. On BRICS the New Development Bank had its offices in Johannesburg and was operational. SA and Brazil had the least loans from the New Development Bank. Other BRICS countries had more bankable projects approved. China was moving up the value chain on high technology equipment which meant that it would push out its factories. The urgency was for countries engaging with China to choose projects that were more productive. The Asia – Africa Growth Corridor was also an opportunity. Africa seemed to be rife with geopolitical economic activity. There was a need for SA to build capacity. More research needed to be done. On the China-US trade war, Brexit and on BRICS there was a very interesting dynamic emerging on security and development. The observation related to how development was being securitised. SA could not ignore the securitisation issue and the role that it played in development. Government needed to think of security and development in the same narrative. There was also a big role for parliamentary diplomacy. What were parliamentary committees in Africa up to?

The Committee noted that some of the elements covered in the presentation were part of the Committee’s agenda. One such element was the formation of the Southern African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA). The Committee was looking forward to the establishment of the SADPA.

Members noted that the geopolitical landscape in Africa had changed. World powers were trying to stamp their influence in Africa.

Meeting report

The Committee received apologies from the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and from both Deputy Ministers of International Relations and Cooperation who were unable to attend the meeting.

The Chairperson said that the presentation by the Institute for Global Dialogue would speak to the risks to SA’s foreign policy. The information imparted should assist the Committee. Further, the Committee would be briefed on the Foreign Service Bill, which it wished to revive. She however observed that the IGD had not provided the Committee with a presentation document but urged the IGD to do so at a later time.

Briefing by Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD) on risks to SA’s foreign policy
Dr Philani Mthembu, Executive Director, IGD, apologised for not providing the Committee with the presentation and promised to do so the following day.

He explained that the IGD is a think tank and was founded in 1995. Its work covered foreign policy and diplomacy and much of its work was done with civil society. The IGD had observed that there were many more actors on the international relations stage. The challenge was to coordinate all the actors. Every 2-3 years the IGD published a foreign policy review, the third volume had just been published.

His presentation would provide an overview on risks and opportunities for SA globally. SA had 126 missions abroad. There was a large diplomatic presence in SA with a total of 160 foreign representatives in the country.  Besides the US, SA had one of the highest numbers of foreign representatives. This made the job of scholars that more important. There was important work to be done on international relations and it should go beyond the state actors that were in the forefront. How much did South Africans really know about the role of SA in Africa? SA was a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. SA would also chair the African Union in 2020. SA focused its work on development diplomacy. The linkages between peace and development were close. The issue was about how SA could assist countries in Africa to achieve their development goals. One of SA’s vehicles for development was the African Renaissance Fund. It was however not the sole body for SA’s development engagements. SA had a diverse developmental agenda in Africa.

From 2003 to 2015, R4bn was allocated to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) for development. Expenditure was R3.2bn. Annual Reports shed light on why in certain years more was spent whilst in others less was spent. Since the global crisis in 2008 allocations to the ARF had not been that much. It was also partly due to the efforts to establish the Southern African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA). Where was SA in establishing the SADPA? There were many models that the SADPA could take on. Other countries in the global north and in the global south had made changes in international development frameworks. Some of the countries included India, China and Brazil. With the sustainable development goals taking SA to 2030, SA would play a bigger role on development to assist countries to shape development policies.

Ms Sanusha Naidu, Senior Research Fellow, IDG, said that SA’s foreign policy focus was largely on countries in the global south. There needed to be a shift in thinking on development cooperation. The value, effectiveness and promotion of south–south cooperation had changed. The traditional donors from developed economies like the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) countries had moved the narrative to millennium development goals/ sustainable development goals which called for greater cooperation globally for development. There was a need to bring the global south in on financial disbursements. China and India wished to have greater impact in development cooperation. Of greater importance was trilateral development cooperation which was being seen more of. Say for instance there was a donor country that wished to assist with development in Lesotho but did not wish to be directly involved in implementation. That donor country then brings in SA as a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to do the implementation in Lesotho. SA would handle implementation whilst Lesotho was the recipient of the funds. One of the challenges identified in such an arrangement was a lack of transfer of skills from the implementer ie SA to the recipient country ie Lesotho. SA should think about the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) arrangement as the development landscape was changing. Should SA give funds to countries or should capacity be built? These are the questions that should be asked. When SADPA eventually gets legislated the question is what would its mandate be. How would SADPA together with its purpose fit into the global development agenda? In 2015, at a Financing for Development Conference held in Addis Ababa, it was stated that there was an ever increasing role for the private sector to be played. It was no longer just about finances but also about investment. SA needed to also consider the role of the SADPA at domestic level, in particular where funds needed to go to the sub-national level.

Dr Mthembu pointed out that as SA was still grappling with the modalities of SADPA the rest of the world was moving ahead forming their own roles on development. Even though SA was one of the first countries to come up with a development agency like SADPA, other countries had overtaken SA. The Foreign Service Bill would professionalise SA’s foreign service. It would also beef up SA’s diplomatic service. SA needed to have the required skills at all its missions. There was of course the importance of Track 1 diplomacy which was government to government but there was a need for acknowledgement of think-tank to think- tank as Track 2 diplomacy where research could be shared across various areas. He reiterated that international relations involved more actors. He emphasised the importance of economic diplomacy for the current and future administrations given SA’s domestic challenges of unemployment, poverty, lack of growth etc. A great deal of SA’s trade was within the SADC region. Important markets like Nigeria, Angola and Senegal were outside the SADC region. SA’s top exports were to China, Germany and the US but there were also exports to Botswana, Namibia and Japan. Out of the top ten export countries for SA, three were in the SADC region. On imports, the top countries were China, Germany, the US, India, the UK and Nigeria. SA’s exports to Africa largely speak to southern Africa. There was a need to look beyond the SADC countries. There was a SADC Free Trade Area (FTA). It was important to take into consideration what was happening in Africa. Economic growth was not slowing down. There was also population growth. He felt that SA, Nigeria and Angola dragged the growth of the continent. It was impressive to note that half of the worlds growing economies came from Africa. One however had to take into consideration rising debt levels of African countries. There were 14 countries in Africa that were in high risk distress. The African Continent FTA was expected to have great opportunities. It was expected to be a game changer. The problem was that there were low levels of intra Africa trade. As the discussion was on the free movement of goods in Africa there also had to be a discussion around the free movement of people in Africa. What would the implications be? The African Continent FTA was expected to open up this discussion.  There was also growing foreign engagement in Africa. Major powers were meeting with African counterparts.

Ms Naidu stated that by July 2019 20 to 22 countries had ratified the African Continent. The African Continent FTA had consequently taken effect. The challenge was around how to institutionalise instruments ie the tariff and non-tariff barriers of the African Continent FTA. An external challenge was that the trade war between China and the US was happening outside the confines of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The new war between China and the US was around digitisation. Data was the new oil. There were new gateways and avenues in the African continent. SA had to ensure that it was not left behind on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Much was said about partnering with China and India. But what about countries like Turkey? There was chatter about China re-indebting African countries. The narrative was that China was going to be the new debtor of Africa.  The challenge was around how Africa would be positioned on trade with the rest of the world. Actors like the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Israel had come into Africa to open up market space for their corporates. The African continent looks to be the place for increased economic interest. The challenge for African states was how to navigate these outside partnerships. Africa had to consider existing regional memberships like the SADC and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). For SA it was about how the SACU market could play a role on SA’s trade patterns in Africa.

Dr Mthembu continued with an overview of global risks and opportunities. Brexit ie the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union was considered one such area. Discussions were ongoing between the UK, the SACU and Mozambique around the post Brexit trade landscape. Brexit carried its own risks but there were also opportunities. The UK wished to show the world that it was an open trade partner. There were thus opportunities for SA. How SA engaged with the UK was important. SA and the UK were close to coming to an agreement. SA should not get caught up between the China and the US tensions. If SA was good at diplomacy it could further its own interests. On BRICS, the New Development Bank had its offices in Johannesburg and was operational. SA and Brazil had the least loans from the New Development Bank. Other BRICS countries had more bankable projects approved. The Belt and Road Initiative was a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese government. China had committed $1trillion to the Initiative which would link sixty five countries. China had strategic partners in Central and South Asia. As China moved up the value chain on high technology equipment it would push out its factories. The urgency was for countries engaging with China to choose projects that were more productive. He added that the Asia – Africa Growth Corridor was also an opportunity. Africa seemed to be rife with geopolitical economic activity. He felt that there was a need for SA to build capacity. More research needed to be done. He also felt that there was a big role for parliamentary diplomacy. What were parliamentary committees in Africa up to? If surveys were done in SA it could shed light on what South Africans thought about foreign policy. The issue was around to what extent South Africans understood the importance of international relations.

Ms Naidu said that in relation to the China – US trade war, Brexit and on BRICS there was a very interesting dynamic emerging on security and development. The observation was around how development was being securitised. SA could not ignore the securitisation issue and the role that it played in development. Government needed to think of security and development in the same narrative.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the presentation was very lengthy but at the same time informative. It was an eye opener to Members. Some of the elements covered in the presentation were part of the Committee’s agenda. One such element was the formation of SADPA. The Committee was looking forward to the establishment of SADPA. Things were on track. She felt that the US and China had to resolve their trade war themselves. SA had its own problems to deal with. The recent criminal activity under the guise of xenophobia against fellow Africans in Gauteng Province had to be addressed.

Mr D Bergman (DA) was pleased everyone was on the same page regarding the trade war between the US and China. He urged Members to read the book, “The Continental Shift” by Kevin Bloom and Richard Poplak. The book spoke about when development took place in Africa one had to be careful because Africa had already been victims of colonialism. China for instance when it won tenders in Africa would bring in its own labour from China. He emphasised that SA’s foreign policy should be internally focussed first. China should not be downplayed as a threat. SA should be cautious.

Ms Naidu, on external actors in Africa, said that the issue of China had to be looked at in a non-partisan way. It was all about how China exerted its influence globally and the impact that it had. She understood that perhaps SA should not get involved. On the US-China trade war, China was part of the world trading system. The challenge was that the continental shift was always in motion and that it was not static. She had read the book that was suggested together with other books. The issue was around keeping a pulse point on the continental shift that was taking place. There were many shifts. The issue was about getting the African Union (AU) front and centre. There was a need to look at how issues were aligned to where SA wished to be. She conceded that on the China space there were competing narratives.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) said that SA’s model of intervention to assist in Africa was largely based upon its government of national unity. Whilst it was a good model it was not always applicable to all countries. There was geopolitics and threats that SA had to face. The geopolitical landscape in Africa had changed. World powers were trying to stamp their influence in Africa. Some of these powers included the US, Israel and Japan.

Dr Mthembu, on SA’s model of conflict resolution in Africa, said that there had in recent years been critique on it. SA seemed to look too narrowly at the model and exported it to Africa. The key thing was the idea of dialogue. SA should rather be a facilitator of dialogue. The African countries themselves should come up with structures that were sustainable. One of the issues to consider was what had happened in past conflicts. There had to be incentives to get a country moving and have development institutions. The economy and peace were a key linkage. It was important to approach things with an open mind. Countries in Africa needed to design their own peace arrangements. The issue was not only about national sovereignty but also about continental sovereignty. When foreign actors engaged with the continent there should be a unified continent. 

Ms T Msane (EFF) asked how much – in monetary terms - damage foreign aid had done to Africa. What plans did Africa have to develop its own technology in order to stay clear of the US and China?

Ms Naidu, on e-commerce and how it impacts on Africa, said that it was important for Africa to develop technologies. There was also a need to create ownership of data. Everyone lived in a gigabyte economy. It was about how economic transactions were taking place. Multilateral processes had to be recognised in policy and decision making. She had a colleague who had done research on the Fourth Industrial Revolution and on the AU and technology. There had to be duality on how things were looked at.  It was about how the domestic shaped the international and how the international shaped the domestic

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) pointed out that the creation of SADPA was part of the Foreign Service Bill. The issue was around the domestic role that SADPA could play. There were problems around how the ARF functioned. The ARF was outbound looking and did not look at the interest of SA. The ARF assisted countries outside of SA. The establishment of the SADPA should be fast tracked. The presentation had spoken about building capacity with the international community on research. How did the IGD envisage this to happen? 

Dr Mthembu responded that capacity building with the international community should be done through partnerships. Interactions between the research community and the Committee were helpful. There was a need to ensure that the research should not only be consumed by the research community but also by the Committee and stakeholders. Policy makers and the research community should work together. The gap needed to be closed.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had its own capacity which was why it was so ahead of things. The research capacity of Parliament was on another level. She asked what was wrong with China asserting itself in the global sphere. She believed it to be fallacious that China only asserted itself in Africa. Africa should not be seen as the victims of China. Africa needed the money and capacity that China was bringing in. One should not even consider the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. One should rather look towards the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) Development Bank. Unobservable market forces or the “invisible hand” was at play with the IMF and the World Bank. 

In the interests of time, she asked DIRCO to focus its presentation on the rationale for the Bill and zoom into new clauses or clauses that had caused confusion.

Briefing by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on the Foreign Service Bill (FSB)
Adv Sandra de Wet State Law Advisor, DIRCO, spoke to the rationale for the FSB.

SA did not have a legislative mechanism to optimally support the mandate of the DIRCO to achieve SA’s foreign policy objectives optimally. South African representation abroad included career diplomats within DIRCO, employees from other departments and appointees from outside the public service. At present the management of the practical and administrative challenges of the current foreign services system was dealt with within the confines of legislation aimed at regulating the public service and lead to concerns raised by the Auditor General of SA. Research had shown that the majority of foreign services abroad had legislative frameworks in place that the FSB was providing for.

The briefing continued with an explanatory overview of what each of the clauses of the FSB covered.
Clause 1
Set out definitions to assist with the interpretation of the provisions of the FSB.
Clause 2
Clarified the application of the FSB and that in case of conflict with other legislation this Act would apply.

Mr Nathi Mjenxane, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, informed the Committee that the contentious clause was Clause 2(2) which provided that members of the foreign service who fell under for argument sake under the Police Services Act would be subject to the FSB in the event of a conflict. He further explained that the clause was a deeming provision and that both the constitutional court and high courts had found that such a rule was not offensive in law.

Adv de Wet added that the FSB was specific legislation for a specific matter.

Clause 3
Defined the foreign service as all South African missions and those who served in the missions that were accredited to the foreign state for the period of their service abroad. The foreign service consisted of all transferred officials from all departments including heads of missions.
Clause 4
Provided for the requirements to serve as members of the foreign service.

Adv de Wet pointed out that the 5th parliament Committee had amended the Clause. She added that it was the President of SA that appointed heads of missions.
Clause 5
Regulated the responsibilities of heads of missions to inter alia manage and administer the mission. It also set out the requirements to be heads of missions.
Clause 6
Dealt with the recall of members of the foreign service under specific circumstances.
Clause 7
Dealt with the responsibilities of the diplomatic academy.
Clause 8
Provided that consultative, coordination and other mechanisms as the Minister may deem necessary for the execution of the FSB may be established.
Clause 9
Provided the Minister with the powers to acquire, manage, dispose, lease or rent the immovable assets of the DIRCO within or outside the Republic of SA.
Clause 10
Stipulated that any person, including South African citizens, who were authorised to work in terms of the laws of a foreign state may be employed as locally recruited personnel at a South African mission in that foreign state.
Clause 11
Provided for codes and directives that the Minister may make to assist with the proper management and administration of the foreign service.
Clause 12
Provided for delegation of powers by the Minister and the Director General.
Clause 13
Dealt with offences
Clause 14
Provided that the Minister may make regulations for the proper implementation of the FSB.
Clause 15
Provided for short title and commencement.

Implications of the FSB for the DIRCO
DIRCO would for the first time be required by legislation to take full responsibility for the obligations        attributed to it and would be audited by the Auditor General of SA on the basis of these obligations. DIRCO also would have to comply with the FSB in its daily activities. DIRCO furthermore needed to develop regulations; codes and directives for the FSB to be ready for implementation as soon as possible after the FSB had been signed by the President.

On the way forward for the DIRCO
There were human resources policies that had to be adapted into regulations for negotiating of the Foreign Service Code. Regulations were needed for enhanced coordination of SA’s international engagements. Training requirements were also required both for heads of missions and for all members of the foreign service. DIRCO had to assess the functionality of its organisational structure to be fit for purpose. It was essential that the DIRCO internalise the implications of the legislative mandate and function that the DIRCO would be responsible for in terms of the FSB. A task team led by the Director General of DIRCO had been established in order to start preparing for the implementation of the FSB.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked DIRCO for the briefing on the FSB.

Mr M Chetty (DA) said that interactions between himself and DIRCO officials seemed to always come down to the point that the FSB was needed. He had read the report of the Select Committee on Trade and International Relations of the 5th parliament and inputs of stakeholders around the FSB. It would seem that the purpose of the FSB was clearly explored. What were the concerns around two clauses in the FSB? He felt that the Committee needed to ensure that the FSB be revived as soon as possible. The Committee needed to consider the two clauses and whether they were relevant enough or whether the FSB should be revived as is.

The Chairperson asked Mr Chetty to clarify what he was proposing.

Mr Chetty responded that he was proposing that the FSB be revived.

Mr Nkosi agreed that the FSB should be revived. The Committee need not focus on the entire FSB but only on the two clauses rejected by the Select Committee on Trade and International Relations.

Adv de Wet explained that there was only one sub-clause in contention ie Clause 2(2) and it was about conflict of legislation and about which legislation would apply. She pointed out that Clause 2(1) had been approved by the Select Committee on Trade and International Relations.

Ms Suraya Williams, State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, addressed the question about the conflict of laws provision and explained that there was a presumption in law that a specific provision would trump general provisions. The trumping would only be applicable when there was conflict. Specific law trumps general law.

Mr Bergman, having served on the Committee in the 5th Parliament, said that due diligence had been done on the Bill. The rejection was around the ambiguity, that the Department of Public Works (DPW) should be responsible for properties abroad. The Committee had already done everything that it needed to do on the Bill. The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) approval was not needed. The FSB was a section 75 bill.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) said that it would be useful if the Committee could have an example of legislation that was in conflict with the FSB. Referring to protocol matters, he asked what the diplomatic passport was all about. He pointed out that some people used diplomatic passports whilst others used official passports.

Adv de Wet replied that the provision was a precautionary measure. The Public Service Act spoke about the transfer of staff from one department to another department. With the FSB, something more specific was needed. Clarity was needed on which legislation would apply. On passports for members and the judiciary etc there was a policy that needed to be looked at. It would form part of regulations.  

Mr Mpanza agreed that the FSB should be revived. He said that the State Law Advisers Office needed to assure the Committee that there were no constitutional issues around the FSB. He asked that the Committee be given direction on the process going forward.

Ms Williams stated that the FSB was certified to be constitutional.

Mr Mjenxane explained that National Assembly (NA) Rule 333 read with Rule 335 was applicable. The way forward could be in two ways. The first was where the Executive initiated the process. This was where the relevant Minister did it by way of motion in the NA. The second way was that the Committee could approach the Speaker of the House by way of letter copied to the Chief Whip for the Bill to be revived. This too was by way of motion in the NA. Once these processes had been followed the FSB would be referred back to the Committee to be dealt with.

Ms Msane pointed out that Clause 9 of the FSB provided that the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation was the caretaker of DIRCO’s immoveable assets and must acquire and manage such immoveable assets as contemplated in section 13(1) and (2) of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA). This should be done in consultation with the Ministers of Public Works and Finance. Who had the final word? Who was the true custodian of immovable assets? She said that Clause 5 spoke about a person needing to be a “fit and proper” person. What does “fit and proper” mean? She further asked whether the FSB would curtail the duplication of visits by municipalities, provinces and departments abroad. When Department of Home Affairs staff was seconded to the DIRCO missions abroad which department did they fall under?

Mr Mjehxahe explained that a “fit and proper” person was not outlined in legislation. A “fit and proper” person was a value judgement by the courts. It was to judge whether a person was fit to hold office. The relevant case law was Ngwenya v Society of Advocates, 2005.

Adv de Wet, on Clause 9, explained that the wheel would not be reinvented. GIAMA was extensive and additions would be made. The custodian of immovable assets was the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation. There would be consultations with the Departments of Public Works and Finance. Thereafter the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation would make a decision. The proceeds from the sale of properties abroad would go into the national fiscus. There would be strict guidelines to follow. She clarified that nobody would be seconded to the DIRCO. Each official would remain with his/her department.

The Chairperson observed that the general view of members was that the FSB needed to be revived.

Dr C Mulder (FF Plus) said that the Committee was in agreement that the FSB should be revived. There were however two ways in which the FSB could be revived. Would the Committee not be discussing the two options to revive the FSB?
 
The Chairperson said that the discussion would take place once the State Law Advisers were excused from the meeting.

The State Law Advisers were excused from the meeting.

The Chairperson reiterated that the general feeling in the Committee was to revive the FSB. Which way would the FSB be revived? She was already aware that the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had already started the process of reviving the FSB. She pointed out that the two processes of reviving were not in conflict with one another. The Committee could start its own process by way of writing a letter to the Speaker of the House. The Committee needed to make a decision.

Dr Mulder was aware that the Minister had started the process with the leader of government business on reviving the FSB. He felt that before the Committee took a decision it should consult with the Minister or alternatively allow the Minister to proceed.

The Chairperson responded that the process of the leader of government business was not a process that hindered the Committee’s process. Both processes could run concurrently and would strengthen the revival of the FSB. She was pleased that there was no disagreement on Clause 2 of the FSB. The rejection by the National Council of Provinces was a surprise to the NA. The Committee would prioritise the FSB. The focus of the Committee should be that the FSB be processed through the proper channels. The processes would run concurrently and the Parliamentary Liaison Officer of the Minister, Mr Luyanda Frans, would liaise with the Minister on the matter. Thereafter the Committee would brief the Minister.

Mr Chetty concurred with the sentiments of the Chairperson. If the processes ran concurrently it would assist with the urgency of reviving the FSB.

Mr Mpanza felt that timeframes needed to be set. He proposed a minimum of one week for Mr Frans to consult with the Minister.

The Chairperson stated that she would write a letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly before the end of the day. She would consult with the Minister on the matter once she was available. She reiterated that the processes would run concurrently and did not matter whether the Minister agreed or not. Besides, the Minister was in favour of the FSB being revived. She was confident that there would be no conflict between the Committee and the Minister on the matter. If the Committee agreed to it then she would write a letter to the Speaker of the House.

The Committee agreed to the Chairperson writing a letter to the Speaker of the House and in so doing start the Committee’s process around the revival of the FSB.

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: