The Department of Social Development guaranteed that there would be enough shelters. The number of shelters was based on the number of current victims unless statistics indicated differently. The regulations were 50% ready because there was a draft available. There was no accreditation system in place yet but it would be ready by March 2012. R1.5 million would be needed as a start up. The criteria for the accreditation would be finalised by October 2011. The monitoring and development framework would be finalised subject to the enactment of the Bill and R700 000 was budgeted for this. The wisdom in having shelters in provinces where there were few occurrences of trafficking was questioned by the Committee.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation had dealt with human trafficking in terms of assisting distressed victims and was 100% ready for the implementation of the Bill. The challenge was that DIRCO did not have a budget for the logistical support of victims as well as funds for repatriation purposes. The state of readiness of the Department of Health was 100% and they would be able to assist victims.
The South African Police Service had engaged in extensive consultations. The National Instructions were 60% ready as these had already been prepared for the Children’s and Sexual Offences Acts. Approximately R10 million would be needed for training. The Department of Home Affairs noted that R42 500 was budgeted for the issuing of certificates. The Department of Home Affairs was 100% ready in terms of facilitating and accepting residents who were victims of trafficking. Verification of travel and identity documents was 100% operational.
The National Prosecuting Authority explained that prosecutors, asset forfeiture investigators and witness protection officers had to be trained. Prosecutors had already been trained in terms of the Sexual Offences Act. Training for prosecutors began in July 2008 for the purposes of the Bill. Currently the National Prosecuting Authority had seven certified trainers. The training would be on the existing budget because the Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit had set aside funding for the Trafficking Bill.
The total cost of implementation was R113.5 million based on the cluster departments inputs. This figure was for the implementation period as well as year one, two and three of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework.
The Committee asked if Department of Justice staff had been trained. The Integrated Information System (IIS) came under heavy scrutiny as the Committee’s view was that it had battled to extract statistics from the Department of Justice and yet there was a case management system in place. The Committee complained there was trafficking legislation in the form of the Sexual Offences Act of 2007 and yet statistics were not forthcoming for the legislature to determine the extent of the problem. The Committee was asked if the shelters of the Department of Social Development were specifically for trafficking victims or victims in general. It was concerning that South Africa had to pay repatriation expenses for non-citizens as opposed to their country of origin. The Committee wondered about access to health funding for foreign victims and asked SAPS asked the rank of the officials managing the dedicated human trafficking desks in each province. The Committee asked about Home Affairs initiatives to combat trafficking due to porous borders and collusion of corrupt officials. It was noted that training for border control officials to spot trafficking was not provided for in the readiness plan. The Committee also pointed to the absence of the Department of Labour in the report and at the meeting.
State of Readiness Report By the Role Player Departments
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD)
Ms Praise Kambula, Chief Director: Promotion of Rights and Vulnerable Groups, DOJ&CD, explained that each stakeholder department would present from the consolidated document addressing all the complaints that had been raised previously. This would be followed by a costing report.
The Stakeholder Process Flow involved all the departments and indicated how a victim would be referred from one stakeholder department to the next. The Minister of Justice had to table the National Policy Framework (NPF) and the Directives before Parliament. Both of these could not be tabled until the enactment of the Bill.
Mr Jeffery interrupted and said that the Committee did not have to be told what was happening with a Bill. The Department has just re-done the document so the focus should be on the Committee’s concerns. The Chairperson requested the Department to focus only on the concerns.
Mr Jeffery asked how the Department arrived at a figure of R488 600 for the submission and publication of the Directives.
Ms Kambula said that the costing would be part of the costing presentation that would follow and the figures would be explained then.
The Chairperson said that this was the first time Ms Kambula was presenting in Parliament and she should be treated thus.
Mr Jeffery said that Ms Kambula was not a parliamentarian and if she was not at the last meeting then somebody who was should present. This was wasting time.
The Chairperson agreed and asked if there was another presenter who could pick up from the last meeting.
Mr S Ntapane (UDM) said that the presentation should continue but Ms Kambula must be mindful of not presenting content from the previous meeting.
Ms Kambula said that the content in the document was different in some areas from the previous presentation. The costs involved were highlighted in the costing presentation and the state of readiness was quantified as it was lacking in the previous presentation at the last meeting. One of the concerns from the previous meeting was the additional staff that would be needed by the DOJ&CD. The additional staff would be an administrator, a manager and policy developer. Training was necessary for everybody to know what trafficking entailed. Training would cost R4.5 million. There was an Integrated Information System (IIS) that tracked cases. This would provide information as to the extent of trafficking in South Africa. R249 284 would be necessary to upgrade the system in order to accommodate trafficking. All the concerns raised in the previous meeting involving DOJ&CD had now been presented.
Ms D Schäfer (DA) said that in the document it indicated 2 029 officials needed training but later on it said “not yet ready”. Had these officials been trained at all? Under Time frames, it said “Awaiting the enactment of the Bill”, did this mean that nothing would be done before the Bill was enacted?
Mr Jeffery noted the Department said it would have to wait until the Bill was enacted so that it could know about what the officials needed training. It was not clear what the department was saying. What would be interesting to know was the extent of the interdepartmental work now? On page 3, was the additional staff budgeted for? And how was it decided that an administrator, a manager and a policy developer was needed? In the document it said that the IIS was 70% ready. Why was this the case as trafficking was already a crime under the Sexual Offences Act? Would the IIS be ready in time? What were the existing mechanisms that recorded trafficking crimes in their various stages?
Mr G Ndabandaba asked if the training manual had been developed and if so what did it look like? How did the department arrive at a figure of 70% readiness?
Ms Kambula replied that 2 029 officials had been earmarked for training including magistrates. The 70% readiness related to the development of the learning material; the Department would change that to indicate that some training had already been done. It was now a matter of ensuring that when the Bill was enacted, the training and learning material would have been done. The IIS was piloted last year and this year it was implemented in all courts. It tracked the development of a case from its inception in the criminal justice system. The IIS focused on specific offences, these were crimes that were derived from the common law as well as statutes. The offences created in the Bill could not form part of the system, as the legislation had not been enacted yet. This was why the Department was saying that it was 70% ready.
Mr Jeffery asked how Ms Kambula could say the system was 70% ready as trafficking was already a crime in terms of the Sexual Offences Act. The Committee was battling to get current statistics out of the Department and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). If the statistics were available why were they not provided six months ago?
Ms Kambula said that her responses focused on the offences that were already in the ISS such as sexual offences. The offences that were not included were the ones contained in the Bill. All that was left was for the ISS to be upgraded so as to respond to the offences contained in the Bill once it was enacted.
Ms Kamogele Lekubu-Wilderson, Director for Victim Support and Specialist Services, DOJ&CD, said that the offences that the department had captured could not be used to determine whether the cases were trafficking cases except for those that related to the Sexual Offences Act. DOJ&CD did not have the report on this matter at the meeting, as this was a more involved exercise. It would require the department to undertake a procurement process for an external auditor who would go through all the cases to ascertain which cases dealt with trafficking. The IIS indicated that there were seven or eight plausible offences from which the department could check if these were cases that related to trafficking.
Mr Jeffery said that since 2007 when the Sexual Offences Act was on the statute books, trafficking had been an offence. There was a stopgap measure put in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that trafficking was made a crime, this was envisaged as a temporary measure. If the system was up and running then why could not the Committee be told how many persons had been prosecuted for that crime? It was shocking to hear that the Department was now going to procure external consultants. This should have been done a long time ago because the Bill was going to be finalised now. Outsourcing was a waste of money. Was the Department communicating with the NPA? This approach was not satisfactory.
Ms Kambula replied that at the last meeting concerns were raised about statistics and the Department was instructed to collect statistics. The Department was aware that the NPA was collecting statistics on trafficking. The statistics would be presented at the meeting tomorrow.
Ms Schäfer asked if the Committee would be getting the Sexual Offences statistics from the IIS.
Ms Lekubu-Wilderson replied in the affirmative.
Ms Schäfer asked what was on the Department’s system?
Ms Lekubu-Wilderson replied that the Department’s exercise included a holistic approach. The Department could ask IIS for statistics from as far back as 2002. However the focus was on the request by the Committee about statistics since the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act.
Mr Jeffery said that the problem was the nature of the Department’s report. If the IIS was working, what were the statistics for trafficking, the Department was unable to provide this information and it seemed as if the IIS system was not working.
Ms Kambula said that the system was up and running and it included statistics for trafficking related to Sexual Offences, these would be presented tomorrow.
Mr Jeffery clarified that the statistics would be from the Department and not the NPA.
Department of Social Development (DSD)
Ms Conny Nxumalo Chief Director: Families and Social Crime Prevention, noted the concerns raised by the Committee at the last meeting was whether there would be enough social workers when the Bill came into operation. There would be enough shelters because the number of shelters was based on the number of current victims. Concerns were also raised about training, costing and accreditation. She would explain what was meant in the document by DSD indicating that it was 50% ready. The Regulations were 50% ready because there was a draft available. There was no accreditation system in place as yet. The accreditation system would be ready by March 2012. R1.5 million would be needed as a start up. The criteria for the accreditation would be finalised by October 2011. No extra budget was required for this as this was an internal process. The draft of the Norms and Standards was at an advanced stage. The monitoring and development framework would be finalised subject to the enactment of the Bill, R700 000 was budgeted for this. Victims of trafficking were already being assisted. DSD was of the view that the 13 shelters were sufficient unless the statistics presented tomorrow proved contrary to this. The shelters had been upgraded via assistance from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). There was a unit within DSD that was dealing with international social services hence the readiness for assisting foreign victims. There was a DSD guideline for dealing with victims of trafficking, but there was need for a learning programme and materials. More staff needed to be trained hence the need for 270 Master Trainers. The number of social workers had been revised but additional social workers could not be employed. Nine data capturers plus a data analyst would be employed for the purposes of data collection and verification.
Mr S Swart (ACDP) asked if the shelters were general shelters or if they were specifically for victims of trafficking. How many child victim escorts had already been carried out by DSD. How did DSD arrive at the figure of R960 000 for child victim escorts? How was the figure of R10 million for the development of training material arrived at?
Mr Ntapane said that there was no indication of readiness on slide 2 for Monitoring and Evaluation. Did this mean that nothing had been done? Was it really necessary to wait for the enactment of the Bill before expanding the shelters?
Ms Schäfer asked on what basis were the existing shelters accredited if there was no accreditation system up and running.
Ms Nxumalo replied that the 13 shelters were not for victims of human trafficking. Each shelter though was willing to accommodate up to 20 victims. The statistics could not be used to determine whether to build shelters or not. The shelters were identified and upgraded to assist victims. It was correct that there was no accreditation system and the 13 shelters were not accredited,
Ms Musa Mbege, Director at DSD, added that child victims fell under the category of children who were exploited. The child protection register had no statistics for children who were trafficked.
Mr Ndabandaba asked how DSD arrived at the figure of 50% for state of readiness.
Ms Nxumalo said that each area was quantified at a certain percentage; this had not been done on an overall basis. Where only half the work had been done DSD indicated this through the 50% rating.
Mr Jeffery said that as there were 13 facilities, one would assume that presumably there was one in each province and then some provinces had more than one, this was a one size fits all approach and it was worrying. The statistics in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape were unsurprisingly low. One would expect that there would be more in Gauteng, Western Cape and Kwazulu Natal. One size did not fit all, had this been considered?
Ms Nxumalo disagreed with the one-size fits all analysis as in Gauteng, Western Cape and Kwazulu Natal there was more than one shelter. As already indicated, if statistics determined it, more shelters would be built in areas where there was a need.
Mr Jeffery said that Ms Nxumalo had indicated that there were 20 beds per shelter. According to DSD statistics in Mpumalanga there were 40 victims, so already there was a problem.
Ms Nxumalo said that victims came and went so one could find that more than 80 victims could be accommodated at different times.
Mr Winston Tong, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, DOJ&CD, addressed the question of the figure R960 000, saying a detailed cost report had been provided. The figure was for local victims as well as those who were repatriated to other countries from South Africa. Average airfares to the most likely destinations as based on the statistics, were also used to calculate the figure.
Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO)
Mr Albie Loubser, Chief Directorate: Consular Services, DIRCO, said DIRCO was responsible for assisting South Africans who were destitute and in need of assistance in foreign countries. This was achieved via consular offices across the globe. There was a diplomatic academy for which he was responsible. DIRCO had dealt with human trafficking in terms of assisting distressed victims and was 100% ready for the implementation of the Bill. The challenge was that DIRCO did not have a budget for the logistical support of victims as well as funds for repatriation purposes. The request was for a budget for this specific purpose.
Mr Ndabandaba asked if cases where nationals were in distress or destitute were reported directly to Mr Loubser.
Mr Swart said that as he understood it, the costs of repatriation would be covered by DSD. Had the department experienced a situation where trafficked victims were repatriated? There was a case in London a couple of years before. How was the budget for the logistical support of victims worked out?
Mr Jeffery asked how many victims had the DIRCO assisted or come across. The Bill provided for South African citizens and permanent residents that had been trafficked to foreign countries. It was concerning that permanent residents were also included when they were citizens of another country. South Africa still had to paying for their repatriation expenses as opposed to the country where they were citizens.
Mr Loubser replied that DIRCO kept careful statistics of persons in distress who were assisted. During the current financial year there were 94 cases of distressed persons. Distress was described as an emotional state whereas destitution was a material state. The challenge was always to assist people so that they could help themselves. The cases were reported in many ways and there was no specific mechanism that was used to report cases. Upon closer examination of the cases in London and Saudi Arabia, the South African residents had entered into contracts of labour only to find that it was not what they had wanted. They then used trafficking as an excuse to be repatriated. The case in London did not cost any money, as it was often the case, donors contributed to the costs. The South African government preferred having a budget for the purposes of assisting South Africans who were distressed abroad. DIRCO was of the view that under the Constitution a permanent resident had all the rights that a normal citizen had. Consular assistance would be extended to a permanent resident only if their country of origin would not be able to do this.
Mr Ndabandaba asked if DIRCO worked with civil society organizations.
Mr Loubser replied in the affirmative. The assistance they rendered was mostly in terms of disaster relief. The IOM played an important role where assistance for trafficked victims was concerned. DIRCO worked closely with the IOM who knew of trafficked victims long before governments.
Department of Health (DOH)
Ms Kambule announced that the Department of Health was not available to make their presentation but she would do it. The state of readiness of the Department of Health was 100%. They would be able to assist all victims including foreigners using their existing budget.
Mr Jeffery asked if the Bill would do anything for foreign victims insofar as access to health care was concerned. If the Bill did this however then it could not be correct that the Department of Health could cater for them from the existing budget.
Ms Schäfer commented that there had to be a follow up why the Department of Health was not at the meeting.
Mr Swart said that foreigners were entitled to health care according to the Constitution. Whether this was done in practice was a different matter. It would be ideal to hear from the Department of Health on what resources had been set aside. It was not acceptable to say that resources would be made available ‘within the budget.’
Ms Kambula said that the Department of Health had participated in the consultation and planning sessions. The questions had been noted and would be forwarded to them.
Mr Swart added that the Department of Health should be asked whether they had set aside a budget for training like the other departments.
Ms Kambula said that the Department of Health had made it clear that they did not need to embark on training to deal with victims as trafficking was not a disease. They would be dealt with in the same way as any other victim.
South African Police Service (SAPS)
Major General Tertius Geldenhuys informed the Committee that some of the figures had changed as SAPS engaged in extensive consultation. The National Instructions were 60% ready as they had already been prepared in terms of the Children’s and Sexual Offences Acts. The learning material was not yet ready because SAPS was awaiting the finalisation of the Bill. There was training material only it did not address adult victims. Child victims of trafficking were already catered for in terms of existing legislation and there were teams that dealt with trafficking in every province. Approximately R10 million would be needed for training. There was likely to be an increase in the number of trafficking cases reported to the police hence the escalation of costs. Statistics from the SAPS computerised system were available but because there was no specific legislation, other offences were used to charge perpetrators.
Mr Swart said that there was a specific section in the Sexual Offences Act that criminalised trafficking yet General Geldenhuys had just said that there was no specific legislation. Could there be clarity on the training, as there existed legislation criminalising trafficking.
Mr Ndabandaba asked who managed the dedicated human trafficking desk at SAPS offices across the country.
Mr Jeffery asked if additional investigators would be appointed. The Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation (Hawks) was already in charge of trafficking cases for purposes of sexual exploitation. Would this change to accommodate trafficking for labour purposes?
Ms Schäfer asked how many persons had been trained for trafficking purposes. How sure was SAPS that the funds costed would be approved by Treasury? Was it possible to engage with Treasury beforehand?
Mr Geldenhuys said that there was existing legislation dealing with trafficking such as the Children’s Act and SAPS was already dealing with this. The current legislation did not refer to adult victims of trafficking. This would be the first legislation dealing with adult victims.
Mr Jeffery raised a point of order and asked how the General could say that there was no legislation that dealt with trafficking of adults when the Sexual Offences Act was in operation?
Major General Geldenhuys said that there was a small number of cases that could be brought under the definition of trafficking in that Act. The point was that the Bill would be a law of general application, something that did not exist specifically for trafficking purposes in South Africa at the moment. The following persons managed the dedicated human trafficking desks: Limpopo: Col Mabotsha; North West: Lieutenant Col Motsana; Mpumalanga: Warrant Officer Van der Watt; Free State: Captain Van Wyk; Kwazulu Natal: Warrant Officer Dayanand; Northern Cape: Col Barkhuizen; Eastern Cape: Captain Magwangana; Western Cape: Lieutenant Col Heunis. It should be remembered that the managers reported to seniors who were properly trained, and they themselves were coordinators.
Mr Jeffery asked if all the managers at the dedicated human trafficking desks were part of Hawks. The disparity in ranks indicated that there was no uniformity.
Mr Geldenhuys confirmed that all the managers were members of the Hawks. In some provinces there would be very few if any instances of human trafficking. This would mean that a high-ranking official in such a province would have trafficking as an additional function. In a province where there would be many instances of trafficking, a manager would perform a coordinative function whilst reporting to a higher-ranking official.
Mr Jonas Sibiya, Office of the CFO: DOJ&CD, added that National Treasury usually approved the allocation of funds once a Bill became an Act. The problem was that Treasury used to allocate funds for Bills, which could drag on so the funds had to be deviated. This was why Treasury did not allocate funds for Bills anymore. For this Bill a cluster presentation would be made to Treasury once all the inputs from the stakeholder departments were collected.
Department of Home Affairs
Mr Henry Madalane, DHA Director of Immigration Services, said the Regulations were not ready as they were subject to the enactment of the Bill. The Directives would be funded from the existing budget. R42 500 was budgeted for the issuing of certificates. Visitor permits were already being issued to victims of human trafficking and the DHA was 80% ready in this regard. DHA was 100% ready in terms of facilitating and accepting residents who were victims of trafficking. Verification of travel and identity documents was 100% operational.
Mr Swart said that the presentation had provided a lot of input on dealing with victims of trafficking but what of the issue of South Africa’s porous borders? What was being done by border officials to prevent trafficking? South Africa was allegedly viewed as a transit destination and this was one of the reasons why it was important that the Committee should also know what Home Affairs was doing to prevent trafficking.
Mr Jeffery said that training for border control officials to enable them to spot trafficking was not provided for in the readiness plan for Home Affairs.
Mr Madalane replied that there were immigration officials stationed at ports of entry. The porous borders were along the borderline where one encountered border jumpers. If there were instances where corrupt officials colluded with traffickers, Home Affairs took disciplinary steps. It was correct that South Africa was a transit destination and the problem was that officials were not trained to identify this type of crime. Better collaboration between immigration and law enforcement agencies was needed at all entry ports. In a joint venture with IOM and other groups, DHA officials were trained and once the Bill was passed there would be training for all officials including those at the ports of entry.
Mr Swart said that the Committee would have to have further engagements with Home Affairs. It would be interesting to know how many officials involved in collusion were charged in a disciplinary hearing. An issue that merited further inspection was to what degree holiday visas / permits were facilitating human trafficking.
Mr Madalane said that the issuing of permits and collusion of officials was a major concern. The permit function was now centralized at head office as a result. It would be difficult to quantify how many cases of collusion involving trafficking were recorded.
The Chairperson asked if Mr Madalane was saying that it would be difficult to get the number of cases where there was collusion because of the difficult nature of trafficking.
Mr Madalane replied that the difficulty lay in obtaining figures of collusion where trafficking was involved.
Ms Schäfer asked what were the numbers of disciplinary cases involving collusion, falsification of documents and corruption.
Mr Madalane said that the figures would have to be provided at a later stage.
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
Ms Nolwandle Qaba, Project Manager: Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit (SOCA) said that the NPA would not begin working on the National Policy Framework until the Bill was enacted. The Directives had not been drafted. Prosecutors, asset forfeiture investigators and witness protection officers had to be trained. Prosecutors were trained in terms of the Sexual Offences Act. Training for prosecutors began in July 2008 for the purposes of that Act. Currently the NPA had seven certified trainers. The training would be on the existing budget because the SOCA Unit had set aside funding for the Trafficking Bill.
There were no questions for the NPA.
Mr Jeffery asked what happened to the Department of Labour’s role, which was included in the original document but not this one.
Ms Lekubu-Wilderson replied that the Department of Labour could not participate in the planning sessions nor present before Parliament.
Mr Jeffery said that the Committee should have been told as opposed to the Department of Labour not being included in the presentation in the hope that they would not notice.
Ms Lekubu-Wilderson said that during the introduction it was indicated that they were not present.
Draft Costing of the Bill
Mr Winston Tong, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, DOJ&CD, noted the document was now more detailed in line with what the Committee had requested at the last meeting. The costing process included identifying outputs and then requesting the various cluster departments how much they would need in order to deliver. The costs were then spread over the start up period as well as the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). The total cost was R113.5 million based on the inputs from the cluster departments. This figure was over the implementation period as well as year one, two and three of the MTEF.
Mr Jeffery asked how the Department knew how much human capacity it would need if it did not know the extent of trafficking. What was the basis of DSD now needing two Deputy Directors instead of one from the previous report?
Mr Tong replied that DSD would have to respond to the question, as they were the ones who came back to the Department with feedback on the costs involved for their outputs.
Mr Jefferey said that before DSD answered, how much was available budgetary wise and how much would still be needed.
Mr Tong replied that the Committee would be provided with an analysis and total summary of unfunded and funded mandates.
Ms Nxumalo replied that DSD revised their capacity as well as the responsibilities when determining the need for the additional director. The dedicated unit was under-resourced in terms of human resource capital. There was a need for data capturers in each province, as they did not have the human resources.
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting informing Members that there would be another engagement the next day.
- National Prosecuting Authority: Human Trafficking Statistics and Case Analysis
- National Prosecuting Authority: Human Trafficking Cases
- National Prosecuting Authority Human Trafficking Case Analysis
- Costing and Implementation: Combating of Trafficking in Persons Bill
- Department of Social Development Additional Information on The Implementation Plan
- Revised Consolidated State of Readiness Report Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Bill
- Briefing: The State of Readiness Report By the Role Player Departments
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.