Chairperson, hon members and hon Minister, are we helping South Africa's workers and the unemployed? When we look at how the Labour department is performing, there is some good, there is some bad and there is some really ugly.
This year the good, in our view, is the work of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the CCMA and Nedlac. They are performing their functions well, and we get very little by way of complaint about their service generally, and the DA says well done. We always know that when my inbox gets full, the department of that particular entity is not working well.
The bad at this stage must be the Compensation Fund, Productivity SA and the Labour Inspectorate. Productivity SA is too small, and has too few real experts and staff in the field to make a serious difference to productivity in this country. They seem to lack the energy and clout to take the industry in general to the levels that we are seeing in country like Brazil.
The Compensation Fund is still in the doldrums, as my colleague has already pointed out in extensive detail. The Labour Inspectorate is languishing as it always has without vehicles, without uniforms and without a sufficient number of staff. Approximately 1 000 inspectors are required to police labour practices in every one of South Africa's mines, factories and offices.
And now, we come to the ugly. Of course, Mr Jimmy Manyi, the Director- General of Labour, has asked for more money from Parliament. To put it in perspective: together with the annual increase, the Labour department has proposed a budget of R1,8 billion, roughly. It is just less than R1,8 billion.
Mr Manyi, however, suddenly told the portfolio committee the other day that he needed an extra billion rand to run this department. He couldn't, at that point, give us the full details. Why not? Well, because his staff had never requested these large sums from Treasury. Only after he requested from us, as the committee, the additional billion, did he pressurise his staff in e-mails sent at the last minute to come up with budgets that they did not need. I will read an extract from all of these e-mails.
Colleagues
As you all know that I have asked for R1 billion from the fiscus as of 1 April 2010. Tina would have already written to all of you. However, I sit here with no response from anyone. I need to have a detailed requirement list by 12:00 on Tuesday, 23 March ... That's the next morning -
... to send to Parliament. The honorouble chair is waiting for it. Just to remind you: Labour Market Programmes R500 million Admin R300 million Public Employment Services R100 million IES R100 million ...
- and so on.
So, let's put this in perspective. He asks for another billion, then he tells his staff to create these budgets that equal another billion and then he expects Parliament to fall for this trick. Hon Minister, how is it acceptable to ask for additional money if you have no idea how it's going to be spent?
When the staff did agree to create these additional large budgets, our director-general didn't even check the details. He placed the document before Parliament, which I have here in my blue file, on Friday, 26 March, calling for an additional R1 billion to give to them to run the Labour department properly.
Of course, the supporting documents, also here in the blue file, have details of items totalling R900 million. So, in addition to everything else, this begs the question: Where is the missing R100 million? I mean, it's hardly lunch money that he has mislaid in the calculation. It says he needs a new computer system for R135 million. Why?
As pointed out by my colleague over here, the hon Makhubela-Mashele, he is committed to the Siemens contract of R1,7 billion for a further two years to supply both computer hardware and software. So, why does he need an extra R135 million suddenly? He says he needs R300 million for labour law reform and related costs. The most expensive lawyers and advocates in Sandton will not charge us R300 million in one year for legal fees to draft about three or four amendments. Although, the Minister now tells us he is going to change and amend all of the labour laws. So, I'll have to see what he intends.
Even if we include the public hearings, that's an astronomical amount - R300 million! The Labour portfolio committee members have been doing some research into Mr Manyi's figures and, quite frankly, it's a circus.
Let's begin with the financial year that has just ended. Mr Manyi asked the entities in the Labour department to economise owing to the poor financial and economical conditions. We agree with that.
He, however, does the opposite in arranging a lavish end-of-year party in a hotel in Irene, apparently, in December. He flies departmental heads from the four corners of the country to attend. The problem with this is that these same people were actually in Gauteng for meetings the week before, the Friday before that. Why couldn't the end-of-year function have been held then? The seminar apparently, I'm told, ended at three in the afternoon. No, Mr Manyi flies them up again a week later, just for a party, at the taxpayers' expense.
How much did it cost? I don't know. I've asked questions, and am still waiting for the hon Minister to answer the written parliamentary question in this regard. I don't know how much it cost. I would like to know.
Not only did Mr Manyi pay for the party out of last year's budget, but he also had to hand back approximately R50 million to the Treasury in unspent funds at the end of the financial year. [Interjections.] Parliament then increases his budget by a couple of percentage points to R1,8 billion, and now - now - after all that he wants us to add another billion rand to his budget. Why? Does he need more parties? Where is the end-of-year function going to be this year ... in the Bahamas?
We don't need the computers. We don't need the expensive lawyers. The amounts don't even add up to a billion rand; they only add up to R900 million in his table. How is this not lying to Parliament to get more taxpayers' money, to fly more staff, to bigger parties? And Mr Manyi - he is not here, I notice - the answer is a resounding "No to this request. As my father used to say, this is a case of "Gimme, gimme, gimme; my name is Jimmy". Thank you very much. [Applause.]