Sunday, 4 June 2017 – In her presentation of Parliament’s Budget Vote 2 on Tuesday, National Assembly Speaker Ms Baleka Mbete bemoaned the current funding model under which the budget of Parliament is appropriated, due to its dire consequences on the ability of the institution to sufficiently discharge its functions. In terms of the existing model, Parliament is erroneously regarded as a government department, despite it being an independent arm of the state as per the Constitution of the Republic. This has resulted in gross underfunding, which in the recent years has been compounded by substantial cuts in the budget of Parliament due to the declining national fiscus.

For instance, for the 2016/17 financial year, Parliament requested R3 145 833 but was only allocated R2 189 429 – resulting in a shortfall of R956 404. For the current 2017/18 financial year, Parliament requested  R3 352 463 but was allocated only R2 268 235 – resulting in a shortfall of R1 084 228. With only R2 268 235 budget, Parliament is required by the Constitution to exercise effective oversight over 39 government departments, hundreds of state parastatals and agencies and a national budget of R1.4 trillion for the 2017-18 financial year.

This anomalous funding model is a matter that is a subject of ongoing discussion between Parliament and the Executive, and we are hopeful that it would be resolved soon.

The 2017/18 cut in the budget allocation, in particular, has had a disastrous effect on Parliament’s compensation fund – a category of budget allotment from which staff remuneration is paid. This has resulted in the freezing of over 300 posts and putting the annual staff salary increase in a perilous state.

The prevailing financial challenges notwithstanding, Parliament remains unwavering in its commitment to ensuring that the current difficult situation is salvaged and that a salary increment is realised. This commitment was further affirmed by the Presiding Officers recently, including during their budget vote presentations.

In this regard, any insinuation that Parliament has decided against salary increments is erroneous and without any factual basis. The prevailing financial challenges confronting the institution cannot be solved by one party alone. We remain confident that, with a constructive union that has an appetite for meaningful engagement, we will surmount these challenges. In this vein, we once again appeal to the staff representatives to return to the negotiating table so that we can, through collective wisdom, explore creative means to salvage the situation. It is a standard and common practice anywhere that parties to the bargaining process sit down, thoroughly scrutinise and unpack the finances, and agree on a workable solution.

While we respect the union’s constitutionally-enshrined rights to assemble, picket and lobby for support from press and political role-players, this alone cannot be a solution to the existing problems. Issues of collective bargaining belong to the bargaining council; it is where issues are thrashed out and resolved.

It is unfortunate that the union leadership has thus far not demonstrated any desire for constructive and meaningful engagement, despite Parliament’s efforts to reach out. Instead, it has resorted to distortions, character assassinations and falsehoods in the media.

Serious and damaging allegations of corruption and maladministration have been directed at the management, yet no shred of evidence has been produced to back up such allegations or demonstrate violation of policy. Central to the union’s malicious allegations is a claim that the current financial difficulty is caused by financial mismanagement and/or corruption. This is a deliberately misleading, baseless and unnecessary propagation of untruths. The financial management of Parliament is regularly checked by the multiparty joint standing committee on financial management of Parliament and annually by the Auditor-General, who granted the institution a clean audit in its last report.

We wish to respond to some of the spurious allegations:

The often-repeated falsehood that the Secretary to Parliament has granted himself an ex gratia payment or bonus of R70 000, which the union has relentlessly propagated to imply irregularity or greed on his part. This simply misleading and disingenuous.

The ex gratia was paid to all staff members as part of a settlement agreement relating to the 2015 dispute between Parliament and Nehawu. In line with the agreement, which was signed by management and Nehawu and then approved by the presiding officers, the amount was paid on a sliding scale to all employees, with the lowest paid category of staff receiving 8% of their annual package and the highest, management, receiving 3% of their annual package. Isolating one manager out of the plus 1300 staff members who were paid the amount in line with the agreement for public attack is unfortunate.

The union has also alleged that Parliament put out tenders “worth R6m, R15m and R10m” for services that Parliament has capacity to render. This is an outrageous lie, and Nehawu must produce evidence to back its spurious claims. Consistent with the legislative and policy prescripts, Parliament only engages outside companies only where imperatives of professional objectivity and independence must be attained to safeguard the integrity of the service rendered.

The High Level Panel on Assessment of Key Legislation and Acceleration of Fundamental Change, the Ipsos Markinor survey on public perceptions of Parliament, legal counsels to represent the institution in Courts, the “Back to Basics” to re-engineer and modernise the parliamentary service, for instance, are some of functions sought externally which will, through the expertise and independence of the service providers, benefit Parliament and public representatives to better serve the public. Best practice elsewhere would show that such services cannot be performed internally.

For a while now, the Secretary to Parliament has suffered unfair and baseless public crucifixion regarding his overseas travels. The Secretary to Parliament’s business trips have always been strictly undertaken in line with the institution’s travel policy, the Financial Management of Parliament Act and other relevant policies. At no point has he ever violated any of these policy or legislative prescripts, and the union or any other critic are yet to point to any policy transgression or illegality committed in the course of his travels. Parliament’s Reviewed Policy on Travel, Accommodation and Subsistence and Travel Allowance (S&T), which was adopted in 2009, long before the current Secretary to Parliament’s term, governs all institutional travels and applies to all staff. Once again, it is unfortunate that one staff member would be isolated for such malicious attack for only following the letter and spirit of the policy provisions, as all staff are required to do.

  • Another untruth is that Parliament’s senior managers, the Secretary to Parliament included, are prioritising themselves in the allocation of bursaries to the detriment of ordinary staff. Parliament’s training and development policy is firmly in line with best practices anywhere, whether in the private or public sector, and does not discriminate according to staff hierarchy. There is no bursary policy anywhere in the world that excludes certain categories of employees from benefiting. Irrefutable facts show that in the last four years, for instance, the great majority of those benefitted from the bursary scheme were ordinary staff. The above statistics show that out of a total of 270 bursaries allocated between 2014 and 2017, only 3 went to senior managers. Although the allocation criteria is firmly based on the principles of inclusiveness and does not discriminate against certain levels of staff, the allocation in the last 4 years shows strong bias in favour of ordinary staff. This once again proves the blatant falsehoods of those who have made it their mission to relentlessly disparage some members of staff and the institution.
  • The criteria for bursary allocation is also fair and rational; it ensures that staff members benefit equally and that preference is given to new applicants who have not previously benefited and who meet basic requirements.

The following table indicates statistics in the last 4 years regarding allocation of bursaries:

Having stated these facts, we wish to condemn in the strongest terms the relentless and carefully orchestrated onslaught against members of the management collective, which has often assumed the form of isolating and assassinating their character under the guise of advancing labour rights. The peddling of false and misleading information, deliberately to harm and defame fellow colleagues, would only strain employee relations and toxify the entire institution. We note that some of these allegations are the subject of formal investigation. The investigation will serve as important platform where these claims are independently scrutinised and evidence tested so that they can be put to rest.

ISSUED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA