Committee Report on International Study Tour to Mexico; Committee Report on Diagnostic Overview of the National Planning Commission; Preparations for Tourism Indaba 2012

Meeting report

Committee Report on the International Study Tour to Mexico
The Chairperson proceeded to take the Committee through the Report page by page encouraging Members to comment and make changes where they felt appropriate.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) referred to page 3 asked whether reference was being made to the tourism industry in South Africa or the tourism industry in Mexico.

Mr R Shah (DA) agreed that clarity was needed on this.

Ms Joyce Ntuli, Committee Researcher, clarified that reference was being made to the tourism industry in South Africa.

The Chairperson and Mr Shah asked whether the paragraph in question was not best suited to be placed elsewhere in the Report.

Mr Shah suggested that perhaps it should be placed in the Report where a comparison was being made between South Africa and Mexico.

The Chairperson proposed that it be included under the recommendations of the Committee. He pointed out that there was an actual report on the study tour as well as an analysis document.

Ms Ntuli noted that what members were referring to at present formed part of the analysis. It was setting out what the situation in the country was compared to that in Mexico. The recommendations were found further on in the document.

Mr Shah agreed with the Chairperson that the provision should be placed with the recommendations or even in the conclusion at the end.

The Chairperson on second glance noted that it should stay where it was.

Continuing on page 3 members effected further grammatical changes to the Report.
Mr F Bhengu (ANC) felt it inappropriate to use the term “it would be interesting” in a report to be forwarded to Parliament.

Mr S Farrow (DA) suggested the following; “It would be important for the Portfolio Committee to interact with the Department of Tourism.”

Ms Ntuli responded that it was written the way it was because it formed part of the analysis and was not written as a report. The analysis would lead to recommendations which would be included in the Report.

Mr Shah stated that the analysis should be included in the Report.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had been given sufficient time within which to raise concerns over the Report. He suggested the addition of the word “very” which would make the phrase read: “it would be very interesting.”

Members moved on.

On page 6 which was part of the actual Report, Ms Njobe appealed to the drafters to proof read documents before handing it out to Members. Small spelling and grammatical mistakes should be rectified beforehand. She did not wish to point out all the mistakes as it was time consuming.

Mr Jerry Boltina, Committee Secretary, stated that Members needed to point out mistakes in order for them to be rectified.

The Chairperson agreed that mistakes should be corrected in the meeting.

Mr Shah disagreed and stated that it was not the task of Members to correct grammatical and spelling mistakes. Members should correct the content of reports.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Shah was correct and pointed out that even the Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATC) Reports had small grammatical and spelling mistakes.

Mr Bhengu felt that small spelling and grammatical mistakes should be corrected by the Committee Section. Members needed to look at the content of reports and not waste time correcting spelling and grammar. He added that if spelling and grammatical mistakes appeared on ATC Reports then it should be raised with the Rules Committee.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee overlook some of the spelling mistakes as it did not change the meaning of sentences.

Ms Njobe referred to page 8 and stated that the provisions should be more specific on what Members experienced in Mexico. For example, Members were impressed with the work done on assisting Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) in Mexico.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee flag the provisions on page 8. He noted that there were actual structures in place to assist SMMEs in Mexico.

On page 9, Mr Shah stated that in paragraph 5.6 there was a sentence that was too long.

Mr Johan Durandt, Parliamentary Liaison Officer for the National Department of Tourism, suggested that the long sentence be broken down into two sentences. The first sentence could state that Mexico developed a brand and the second sentence could state that Mexico embarked on a marketing campaign to make the brand known.

Ms Nzoma (ANC) stressed that the new formulations should not omit the fact that the Mexican brand had evolved.

Mr Farrow came up with a formulation and presented it to Members.

The Committee agreed to it.

Under the “Observations of the Committee” on page 10, Members effected grammatical changes.

On page 11, Mr Shah referred to paragraph 2.1.2 and said that he could not understand what the paragraph was trying to say. Persons reading the paragraph should understand what was being said. The paragraph should be more specific.

The Chairperson pointed out that Mexico had an integrated approach.

Mr Farrow had a suggestion which would place the paragraph in context.

The Chairperson asked Mr Farrow to forward his formulation to the Committee Secretary.

Mr Shah emphasised that the Committee needed to maintain a certain standard with its documents.
He referred to paragraph 2.1.6 as well and said he did not understand what was being said. Reference was made to an organisation in Mexico but it did not state what the organisation did.

Ms Ntuli stated that the organisation mentioned provided funding and advice on tourism development. The organisation in question did not deal with SMMEs.

Mr Shah reformulated the paragraph which the Committee accepted.
He referred to paragraph 2.2.3 and said it was saying the same thing over and over again.

Mr Farrow asked if the Mexican government raised funding and if it did how did it do it.

The Chairperson noted that government came up with funding from local government, states as well as from the private sector.

Mr Farrow suggested that the term to be used should be “contributed” as opposed to “raise funding” which was currently used.

Ms Ntuli said that the funding contributed was for tourism marketing.

Mr Shah referred to the heading of paragraph 2.3 and suggested deleting the word “government” from it. If the word “government” remained it meant that only government made contributions.

The Chairperson agreed to the suggestion.

Ms Ntuli also agreed.

Mr Shah felt that paragraph 2.3 needed a total overhaul. Paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 needed to be reconfigured.

The Chairperson suggested that the contents of paragraphs 2.3.2; 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 could be made into a single paragraph. The way the different spheres of government in Mexico worked was admirable.

Mr Farrow referred to paragraph 2.3.5 and asked who did quality control in Mexico

Ms Ntuli responded that it was the Mexican tourism department.

Mr Farrow noted that the paragraph should state that quality control was done by the Mexican tourism department.

Ms Ntuli pointed out that the modernisation programme was not a quality control programme. The modernisation programme dealt with business ethics and on how to run your business.

Ms Njobe agreed that the paragraph needed to be redrafted.

Mr Farrow noted that the Report was factual it just needed some editing. He suggested that a subcommittee of members and the committee section be formed to finalise the editing of the Report. He even volunteered to be on the subcommittee. The gist of the visit to Mexico was contained in the Report- it just needed to be made more readable. The Report could be finalised by the following week when the Committee could adopt it.

Ms Njobe and Mr Shah supported Mr Farrow’s suggestion.

Mr Durandt stated that the rationale of the trip was to see what South Africa could learn from Mexico regarding tourism.

The Chairperson agreed that the Report needed to be reworked as it lacked clarity.
He noted that Members could also make submissions on the various issues raised on pages 11-14. This was not withstanding the fact that members had already made submissions on the Report.

Mr Farrow stated that it seemed that Members who had gone on the trip were happy with the content; it was only the way in which the Report was drafted that needed to be re-looked at in order for an outsider to understand its contents. He once again offered his services to rework the Report with committee section; thereafter it would be circulated to members for consideration.

The Chairperson stated that other Members should feel free to make inputs on the Report. The findings of the Committee should be correct in order for members to make recommendations.

Draft Committee Report on the Diagnostic Overview of the National Planning Commission
Mr Boltina stated that the Committee had already dealt with the matter. All that was needed was ratification of the Report. He noted that there was a new suggestion that the National Planning Commission (NPC) did not address parliamentary committees individually on issues but rather to address committee clusters. It was considered more expedient. He proposed that the Committee agree to submit the Report to the House Chairperson of Parliament.

The Committee considered the Report page by page.

Mr Shah on page 1 effected grammatical and spelling changes. He pointed out that of critical importance was the issue of energy which was not in the Report. He also asked where mention was made of infrastructure what type of infrastructure was being spoken about.

The Chairperson stated that six drivers of change had been mentioned in the briefing. He did not recall energy and water being mentioned. The energy issue was separate from the drivers of change issue.

Mr Shah on page 2 suggested that points 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 be merged into one sentence.

The Chairperson agreed.

Mr Shah referred to paragraph 2.5 and asked whether the challenges listed really were challenges in the true sense of the word given the way it was captured. There were no explanations of what the challenges were.

Ms Njobe responded that it was the challenges of the NPC and not the Committee. She noted that the Committee had a role to play in as far as the recommendations it made.

The Chairperson disagreed with Mr Shah and said that it was challenges.

Mr Shah conceded that perhaps they were challenges but the challenges needed to be elaborated upon.

Mr Farrow responded that the challenges needed to state what mitigating actions should be taken.

The Chairperson said that the matter was solved.

Mr Shah suggested a grammatical change to the paragraph containing the Committee’s recommendations. 

Mr Boltina stated what Mr Shah was referring to were issues of concern to members which the NPC briefing had been silent on.

The Chairperson referring to page 4 noted that the previous Bantustans were under resourced and their infrastructure was poor. Infrastructure was also being under utilised. This should be expanded upon in the Report.

Mr Farrow noted that there were two main issues, the first was underutilised infrastructure that was not being used and the second was the huge backlog in roads, electricity and water infrastructure that was needed.

Mr Shah noted that paragraph 3.4 and 3.5 needed to be reformulated.

Ms Njobe agreed that paragraph 3.5 needed to be reformulated. The issue of prior learning also needed to be addressed.

The Chairperson said that the issue was about prior learning being recognised.

Mr Durandt stated that recognition should be given for experience by giving the individual a formal qualification.

The Report was adopted as amended.

Preparations for Tourism Indaba 2012
The Chairperson stated that members had agreed to cover their own provinces plus an additional province at the Indaba. For oversight it was necessary for Members to touch base with provinces.

Mr Boltina said that arrangements were underway. He needed to know which Members were attending the Indaba and whether hotel accommodation would be needed. He had received a detailed programme of the Indaba from the NDT and would be forwarding it to Members after the meeting. 
He added that the Committee had obtained permission to attend the Indaba provided that the Committee left after the Extended Public Committees on Friday 11 May 2012.

Members discussed and agreed which provinces would be covered by whom.

Ms Nzoma and Mr L Khorai (ANC) would not be attending the Indaba.

Mr Durandt stated that the Committee would be attending the Indaba until Monday 14 May 2012 but the Indaba was officially ending on Tuesday 15 May 2012.

The meeting was adjourned.