Parliament strongly rejects reports by two Sunday newspapers maliciously claiming that “Parliament blows R1m on a jaunt to London” as sensational, baseless and calculated to besmirch and damage the name of the institution, its administration and the good names of the officials cited.
The article is reckless and reduces a benchmarking exercise and attendance of an inter-Parliamentary union (IPU) meeting by a delegation to a ‘jaunt, a journey made for pleasure.’ It cynically links the benchmarking visit, without any evidence, to the Rugby World Cup which took place in London at the same time to cast aspersions on the officials involved and unfairly impute nefarious motives. The article unfairly, maliciously and grossly misinterprets the implementation of an approved Parliament strategy, budget and annual performance plan by narrowly focusing on a jaundiced view and shallow perspective of what is otherwise a critical strategic function.
The article desperately attempts to link what is clearly a management function namely, the implementation on an institutional strategy with what is purely a collective bargaining matter. Agreements signed with the National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) last year were made public. None of these state that “the Union and Parliament’s management would conduct benchmarking together”, even on matters outside the purview and scope of shop floor matters as the article incorrectly claims. As a matter of fact the benchmarking exercise and the IPU meeting occurred before the illegal strike of last year. Benchmarking is not an outcome of a negotiation process nor is benchmarking a subject for bargaining. It is a necessary and strategic management tool.
It is quite clear, as the article opines, that it relied on unauthorised documents sourced from people who either could not explain them, or the activity was outside of their scope and level, and/or grossly overstated their knowledge and authority. At an inquiry level, Parliament comprehensively answered the questions asked and even offered an interview with the Secretary to Parliament which was side stepped by the journalist concerned. In this regard, it would seem that good journalistic standard gave way to expediency and gutter journalism paving the route to baseless, negative agenda that this article seeks to canvass.
A number of damaging allegations in the article are baseless and unfounded. No Parliamentary official attended a Rugby match during the benchmarking exercise. Authorisation for the trip was obtained from the Executive Authority as part of the approval of the strategy which was tabled as required by law. The signature on the travel documentation by a manager in the Office of the Secretary was done as part of administrative accounting. The article confuses management reports with Portfolio or Select committee reports which are tabled as a matter of course. Management reports are dealt with in management structures as was the case with the benchmarking report.
It is disconcerting when a journalist, as in this instance, relies on gossip and innuendo as the preferred source of news. The Press Ombudsman has recently ruled, twice, in favour of Parliament on similar instances. The article also follows persistent inquiries about the Secretary to Parliament having “resigned, been fired and/or suspended” and pursues the same negative narrative.
For the record, Parliament implements its operations according to the approved strategy, budget and Annual Performance Plan. The Financial Management of Parliament and Provincial Legislators Act (FMPPLA) prescribes the roles and scope for the Executive Authority (the Speaker of National Assembly and Chairperson of the NCOP, acting jointly) and the Accounting Officer. Parliament’s policies and applicable legislation provide further mechanisms such as fraud prevention policy framework and other instruments to ensure good governance. There are additional oversight mechanisms in support of good governance including Internal Audit function, an independent Audit Committee and the Auditor General. The report wholly ignores these in its attempt to create a negative narrative which suggests lack of leadership, disorder and anarchy. This it seeks to achieve through innuendo gossip and gross and deliberate misrepresentation.
In its strategy for 2015/16, Parliament recognises several shortcomings in its previous strategies, policies, systems and mechanisms. The strategy for 2015/16 proposed measures of turning around the situation and improving institutional output. Specifically, it provided for mechanism that would ensure that Parliament benchmarked its strategies, policies and practices against other Parliaments and Organs of State in other countries and best practice globally. This is done through desktop research, bilateral and multilateral relations with institutions such as Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, SADCPF and the IPU of which Parliament is a member. There are targeted benchmarking visits such as the ones cited in the newspaper report where specific institutions that are known to excel in good practices are engaged.
This is acceptable and expected leadership and management behavior from any professionally run institution. This on its own cannot be a source of concern unless there is, at worst, malice and ulterior motives or, at best, poor understanding of strategy implementation.
A question that must be asked is whether there was value for money and/or there was a return on investment. The selection of the benchmarking team firmly underscored the strategic nature of the exercise and the intention to foster and affirm a common vision at the top of the administration. The areas covered by the study are strategic, relate to high level organisational remodeling and straddle broadly between branches in the administration.
The team looked at governance measures, strategy planning, monitoring and evaluation, core business processes of law making oversight & public participation, research, language services, human resources, precinct management, communications, security and members support services. The team also engaged with both strategic level of management operations and observed some activities.
There are clear benefits that have been derived from these visits and some are currently being implemented in the governance, core and support services areas. These include:
1. Governance:
- Establishment of a comprehensive bill to manage Parliament and the Legislatures Services.
- Alignment of planning to ISO standards.
- Revision of performance indicators to focus more on results based tools and instruments. This is done internally.
- Concretisation of cost saving and efficiency measures. The initiative is now being adopted by the entire legislative sector in the country. These measures respond to the President and Finance Minister’s call for cost saving. This started already last year. Our recent encounter with Treasury on these matters was when the DG of National Treasury, who represented the Minister at the Speakers Forum meeting held on 29 March 2016.
2. Core business:
- Significant reduction of external printing and accelerated transformation towards paperless operations. The Order Paper is already being printed internally. Savings in this regard including the printing of the minutes of the two Houses, the ATC & Z-list will result in huge efficiencies still to be quantified in terms of their monetary value. Parliament currently spends over R12 million on printing
- Improved effectiveness and efficiency in the management of tools of trade.
- Introduction of quality measures that were observed in core business, including ICT solutions. The measures are being included in the documents being developed on setting operational standards. We were particularly impressed by the models used for providing support to Committees, management support thereof, including what sometimes is an issue for us of making a difference between content advisors and researchers. These measures will be factored in an organisational development project called Back to Basics that is aimed at streamlining our systems. These changes will make it possible for us to effectively implement Oversight Model effectively.
3. Support Services
- Improvement in the support to members including a proposal to create a Member-centric nerve center that aims to provide a single frontline service to Members.
- The importance of ICT as catalyzer, facilitator & enable of strategy was underscored. We benefitted from the approach that was followed in the various Parliaments visited namely: - develop– implement- improve approach and system that delivers IT solutions quicker to Members. This approach meant that you do not wait for perfection before launching a product. The use and intergration of social media in the body fabric of ICT, Research, Committees and Communication functions for the benefit of our core business and Members was underscored. This is being integrated in our ICT Steering Committee work and Core Business and Members affairs model of providing services that is currently underway
- Clarity regarding what the Back to Basics project must achieve from a Human Resources point of view.
It is very clear from the points noted above that there is clear value derived and huge savings to be realised. So, if the issue was genuinely on checking and ensuring that there is return on investment on the benchmarking exercises undertaken, then the article would not have adopted a shallow focus aimed at sensationalising and grossly misinterpreting facts and matters of strategic leadership and management.
The outcomes of this exercise, which have been integrated into Parliament’s strategy will be scrutinised by the Executive Authority who have the leadership responsibility for Parliament. All relevant, independent and credible constitutional and professional agencies and actors who will weigh in on the effective management of resources.
Our responsibility as management and staff is to give effect to the directives provided by Executive Authority, the spirit and letter of the strategy and budget as approved by Parliament. We have to do this with necessary commitment focus, zest and zeal. Our approach is to learn from other organs of the State and other Legislatures worldwide. We must also innovate in order to ensure that we support Members in the exercise of the Constitutional obligations. It is incumbent upon all staff who seek to fulfill their responsibilities as officials of Parliament to integrate themselves into the transformation agenda
Parliament urges those resisting change to focus their energies on positive institutional processes that will make Parliament an effective organisation that supports Members and eventually benefit the citizens. In this regard we urge those focused and engaged at resisting change and the necessary transformation to join Parliament’s leadership in its positive endeavours. Ensuring value for money and utilising resources provided effectively starts with us.
