DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPEAKS IT'S OWN LANGUAGE
Introduction
In a previous story InsidePolitics discussed the failure of the Parliamentary Questions Unit to properly carry out its tasks and duties.
The story mentioned that the unit had accepted and then subsequently removed a series of questions that requested the details about sponsorships received by government departments without good reason (it had allowed the question the year before) and then failed to notify departments that the question had been removed from the order paper.
It is clear that the unit still hasn’t informed parties of this removal because this past Wednesday the DA received a reply to a sponsorship question from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The fact that the Questions Unit has still not informed government departments about its decision is an issue in itself, but of real interest is the reply received from Foreign Affairs – which makes for curious reading.
Foreign affairs reply
This was the question submitted (and subsequently rejected by the Questions Unit) by the DA to all the departments in July this year:
Whether, in respect of each of the past two years including 2007, his department has obtained any sponsorships; if so, with regard to each sponsorship obtained, (a) which (i) company and (ii) parastatal were they received from, (b) what was the amount received and (c) what was it used for?
Below is the reply received from the Department of Foreign Affairs:
Mr W J Seremane (DA) to ask the Minister of Foreign affairs:
Whether the Department obtained scholarships in 2007
REPLY:
Yes.
So completely and utterly deformed and mangled is the DA’s original question that one would be forgiven for thinking it’s a different question all together.
“Scholarships?”
Where on earth did that come from?
And what happened to the detailed, thorough question about Sponsorships, companies and parastatals the DA originally submitted?
The short answer is: who on earth knows.
One thing is certain though, the DA never submitted the question replied to above.
Somewhere, somehow, the department took a perfectly decent question, changed it completely, shortened it and then replied with a one word answer.
And in case you were wondering, they took three months to do so.
Conclusion
The Foreign Affairs department’s track record, when it comes to answering questions, is pretty dismal. At the close of parliament last year (the deadline for all questions to be submitted by departments) it still had eight replies outstanding, one of these dating back to June 2007.
As of today, the department has failed to answer four questions posed before June this year which include questions on:
• The number of vacancies that exist in the department;
• Whether members of the department were requested to attend the ANC policy held in June and whether the department paid for their travel expenses; and
• The number of Ambassadors and Foreign Heads of mission who requested to meet with the Director-General of the department and who are still waiting for an appointment
That goes to efficiency. But, judging from the reply above, there is clearly a massive problem with quality as well.
And if the department – tasked with fostering relations with other countries and governments – cannot answer a simple question without fundamentally changing its meaning, then you have to wonder how it expects to conduct complex negotiations at say, the UN with people who speak entirely different languages.
It doesn’t bode well at all.
This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author – www.insidepolitics.org.za - the views expressed in the article are not necessarily shared by the Democratic Alliance
If you have any comments on this story
| Posted on 26/10/2007
 |  | |