Order! I now recognise the hon De Lange. According to my notes here, there has been some mistake. Please go ahead, hon De Lange.
I wasn't aware that I had been deposed, but, luckily, you seem to have reinstated me, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I rise on behalf of our committee which has unanimously supported both reports on the Department of Environment and the Department of Water Affairs. I want to start by first thanking publicly all the parties and all the members in the committee, particularly the leaders of other parties, for the very constructive and professional role that they all played.
I want to say to you that there is a very good working relationship in the committee - one that is based on professionalism and the understanding that each one of us has a mandate from our parties to fulfil, but we do it in a way in which we respect the dignity and the integrity of all members and make sure that, in our working relationship, we do our work in a way that ensures that we are acting in the best interests of the country and not only in the narrow self-interest of our parties or as individuals. So, I want to publicly acknowledge that role played by the leaders of the other parties, as well as the one played by those of the ANC.
Secondly, I want to make a general point about the Money Bill and the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report process. We, as the committee, have difficulty in trying to understand this process. However, we are fully supportive of the principles and intentions behind it.
But it is very difficult to work out what we are actually trying to achieve because what the Constitution enjoins us, as Parliament, to do is to play a meaningful and constructive role in deciding what the budget is. The problem that we have as a committee is that in February every year, we are quickly given the budget and we see it then for the first time - the actual budget of our department. There are 10 days to process this and then we adopt the budget based on the strategic plans, and so on.
But, then, as you are aware, we only have that short period to look at the budget. Then later in the year, in August, we receive the annual report of the department. By this stage, we are already past the budget for that particular year. Now we receive an annual report of the past year and we try to make sense of it.
We all know how the executive processes work. The executive decides by November each year what the budget for the following year will be. They then take that to Cabinet and Cabinet processes it. There is no process for us in the committee to look at the budget before February. When you try to raise this with the departments, they say that they are very worried about doing this because there is a process - and, obviously, it has to be like that - in which they confidentially give their inputs in the executive process. We are now asking them to state publicly what that is before the executive looks at the process.
So, again - and I'm doing this on behalf of the whole committee - we ask Parliament, as we have raised this before and are now looking at what the executive process is, to let us please look at what the executive process is and what it is we want to do in Parliament. Let's mesh these two together and draft a piece of legislation that gives effect to what we are trying to achieve. It just makes no sense to adopt the budget in February, after we have seen it for 10 days, and then start looking at performance for the rest of the year. We are actually not saying anything as Parliament about the next budget, which is now going to happen in November, as we stand here. So, in general, we would like to see a task team of both the executive and Parliament to look at those processes, harmonise them, and then create one process whereby we can have a more meaningful role in looking at the departmental budgets in Parliament.
Let me turn to the Department of Water Affairs. We have reported before this House that there have been big problems with the leadership in Water Affairs. This has now gone on for quite a while in terms of which all the top leadership are either suspended or facing serious disciplinary matters, mainly on issues of dishonesty. Some of them are now being replaced and there are processes to replace them. But you can imagine that for a year or two now there has been complete instability in the department.
Over and above that, we are supportive of the Minister's business review process that is taking place in the department. But that as well is taking some time and, of course, we can't really start changing things for the better until that process is finalised.
So, again, we want to say to Parliament that we are monitoring those two processes. We are trying to bring them to finalisation as soon as possible. Hopefully, by next time we report here, we will have more positive things to say about that.
The biggest problem we face in the department at the moment is the dysfunctionality of its financial management system. For two years in a row, the department has had qualified annual reports. Actually, the amount of qualifications are increasing, not decreasing. It's getting worse.
Furthermore, there is a water trading account which collects money for water used. That account has now received three disclaimers in a row. [Interjections.] We cannot account properly for the monies that we are getting in for the water that is being used. There have been disclaimers three years in a row now.
Now, there are a whole lot of steps that have to be taken to fix this. This has become the first priority of the committee: to help the department, through the Auditor-General's office and Treasury, to try to fix this system. We hope to achieve this in the same way as Home Affairs has done over a period of time.
In fact, one of the things that we have suggested in the committee is that it may be worthwhile that, as the committee and the department, we meet with the Department of Home Affairs to see some of the things that they did to turn around their strategy. We will, hopefully, pursue that. Furthermore, the new director-general is in the process of being appointed. The appointment of two chief financial officers is also in progress.
One of the other issues that we have raised, which we need to rectify quickly, is that we found out that the people that deal with finances in the department are not actually accountable to the chief financial officer. They are accountable to the head in their section. When you look at that, it's a recipe for disaster, because the same people that make political decisions about the money are also the ones that are telling the financial people how to deal with the issue. So we have asked the department to rectify this. There are many other projects and programmes that we are pursuing in the department, which we won't report on on this occasion. Some of these are in the report that we have agreed to.
The Department of Environmental Affairs is a different kettle of fish. It's a very exemplary child. It has unqualified reports, is very professional, the leadership is stable and has been so for years. To a large extent, they are a small department that deals with policy issues. So we are very fortunate with that department. There are no big issues to report to the House.
That is why it is also important to mention ...
Cheers! [Laughter.]
Cheers! I wish it was something stronger. I'm a bit nervous here. [Laughter.] But I will go with water at this stage.
This department is exceptionally well drilled, well versed and it produces work of a very professional standard. That is why we are very lucky as South Africa that the whole issue of climate change falls under this department. This means that we can take a leadership and an exemplary role in the world, particularly in the international negotiations on issues of climate change.
I wish that some of you could receive the reports that we receive and the quality of work that is produced by the Chief Negotiator of South Africa and his staff. We really want to commend very strongly the work that they are doing and we, as the committee, are very supportive of the positions that they are taking internationally. We know that they are going to do us proud at COP 17.
Furthermore, of course, since 2005 they have embarked on a policy process to adopt a policy on climate change. This policy has gone through many stages. It culminated in a Green Paper and we had public hearings on that Green Paper.
Madam Chair, on a point of order: I appreciate what the hon De Lange is telling us; it's very interesting. But, you know, we have read the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports and my understanding from the programming committee this morning is that there would have been five minutes allocated to each portfolio chairperson. [Interjections.] Now there are some who have not talked, but are you using that particular 110 minutes ... [Inaudible.]
If you listened ... I have two reports to give and they have been combined. Just try to listen sometimes, you know.
It's two reports, and it's not per chairperson; it is per committee. [Interjections.]
You are really being petty.
It is five minutes per committee. Continue, hon De Lange.
Thank you. So the second issue is that I really want to recommend to this House to actually read the White Paper. At the moment, we are busy with public hearings around the White Paper. It has had an exceptionally positive response from everyone. Obviously, there are small issues of detail where there is disagreement. But, to a large extent, South Africa and civil society are basically very much in agreement around where we are going with this White Paper. So this is a very, very important document. It's obviously one that we wanted to finalise before COP 17 so that we could take the kind of leadership role that we should be taking there and we would have done so by example. In some instances, this policy paper of ours is exceptionally progressive. In many instances, it gives direction and leadership on issues and we, as the committee, recommend very strongly that this Parliament engages with the paper.
Would you wind up, hon member?
Lastly, the other point that we want to make on the issue of the environment is that we are strongly supportive as the committee that more money be given by government to conservation. Very little money is given to conservation; most of it is actually generated by itself.
For us to be able to keep our heritage for our children, as a government, we should be giving more money to conservation, particularly to Isimangaliso in KwaZulu-Natal. I, therefore, refer and commend both reports on behalf of the whole committee to this House for adoption. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
The Chief Whip is now in the House, but I will have to finish this process. But, in case people think he has been overthrown, he is still the Chief Whip. [Laughter.] With regard to the two reports presented by the hon De Lange, we would like to take note of the closing comments on the first report about the process. We believe that a process to deal with the challenges that he raised will be put in place. So on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move:
That the two reports be adopted.
Thank you. [Applause.]
Motion agreed to.
Reports accordingly adopted.