DIRCO Budgetary Review Recommendations Report; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson requested Committee Secretary to display the meeting agenda.

The meeting agenda was duly adopted.

The Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation

The Chairperson suggested the Committee to deal with the recommendations first. The report covered some of the key issues this Committee had raised in previous meetings.

She said the Committee need not go through the report page-by-page as Members had received the report prior to this meeting and she assumed they would have read already. She suggested the Committee exclusively deal with the report’s recommendations. Then if Members still have some issues in the report, it could be dealt with after the recommendation part.

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) supported the Chairperson’s proposal and added the Committee should also discuss the Department’s responses.

The Chairperson’s proposal was duly adopted.

The Committee Content Advisor took Members through the recommendations.

Mr D Bergman (DA) expressed his disappointment in the Department. He felt embarrassed for the Department and the embarrassment got more intense as he started reading the report. The issue with the report lies with the Accounting Officer for the Department’s financial statements who was the Chief Financial Officer. He commented on the organisational structure of the Department and reminded Members about the integrity of the investigations if the Director-General or CFO were themselves investigated. He questioned how the integrity and fairness of the investigations would be secured since the human resource department, legal department and internal audit and risk committee all answer to the CFO.

Mr Bergman said that none of the recommendations in the BRRR report made any meaningful reference to address that challenge. Further, each time a Minister was appointed, a report would be commissioned. He wondered whether those reports could be shared with the Committee and help the Committee in performing its oversight in terms of the Department’s organisational structure.

Mr Bergman believed that the Committee report understated the challenge in cybersecurity. The current IT system was outdated and the reliance on streaming information from abroad could pose a risk to many aspects of the national security information. The current IT system relies heavily on foreign servers. The protection of national security information should be the number one priority.  The current approach adopted by the Department was a failed approach. 

Mr Bergman commented on South Africa’s extended footprint in the world but its ill-prepared nature. The footprint of South Africa was second only to America. COVID-19 has shown how this footprint has failed South Africans and some of the missions were ill-prepared. He noted just how a few weeks ago, at a meeting, some of the officials in the Department had thrown their own colleagues under the bus. The Director explained in the reply to the Committee that a Consular Commissioner could not find accommodation due to the fault of the Department’s corporate service. The blame game is not conducive to the work environment. There needed to be an oversight structure over the various missions abroad – this has not been mentioned in the Committee report. He emphasised that this point needs to be reaffirmed and strengthened in the report. Further, so much budget has been spent on missions that had no relevance to South Africa, that South Africa had no trading relationships with - government should perhaps consider closing off some of those missions.

Ms T Msane (EFF) remarked that one of the missions that should be closed is the one in Israel.

Ms Msane highlighted the irregular situation of the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) on page 16 of the report. The money was disbursed for election observers in Malawi, however, South Africa did not have delegates to go and observe. Also, in reference to page 20, she noted the Department had awarded tenders without requesting tax clearance certificates from the South African Revenue Services from those tenders. Further, the Auditor-General’s finding also indicates that declaration, forms which ought to have been submitted, were outstanding in these documents.

Ms Msane noted that those independent investigations taking place in the Department is going to cost it millions. Thus, she was wondering what was the logic behind the Department spending millions of Rands to investigate cases where millions had been allegedly looted. She noted that the Auditor-General had flagged the missing million in the Department and that the Committee recommendation needs to flag the issue. The Committee is not happy with anything this Department has done as far as looting of funds and the amount of unauthorised expenditure, which has increased over the years.

Ms Msane said the reduction of missions needs to be discussed in the Committee first. The Committee needs to strategise and to look at missions which are not on the African continent.

Ms Msane noted that the recommendation made in the meetings of 25 and 26 November was that this Department needs to be taken to Standing Committee of Public Accounts (SCOPA) but the Committee report has not captured this.  

Mr Mpanza said that with regards to taking the Department to SCOPA, it has been included in the report, although it is not phrased in the same manner as Ms Msane had referred to.

Mr Mpanza proposed that when the Committee resumed its work next year, it should use those recommendations as well as the Department’s responses as a checklist to hold the Department accountable. He was of the view that the Committee should get a monthly report from the Department in order for the Committee to monitor the Department’s progress in implementing these recommendations.

The report was adopted with amendments.

Ms Msane rejected the adoption of the report on behalf of the Economic Freedom Fighters.

Mr Bergman reserved the Democratic Alliance’s right to adopt the report until he has consulted with his party.

The meeting minutes of 7 October, 20 October, 12 November, 25 November and 26 November 2020 were adopted.

Meeting was adjourned.