PC Home Affairs: Committee Programme for Second Term; Discussion of the possible Study Tour; Outstanding Minutes

Meeting report

Consideration and Adoption of Minutes
The Committee adopted the minutes from the meetings held on 18 and 31 January 2011 without any amendments.

Committee Programme for Second Term
Mr Eddy Mathonsi, Committee Secretary, took the Committee through its proposed programme for the second term. The draft programme was based on the parliamentary programme which Committees worked off of to set dates for meetings. The programme highlighted the meeting dates for the Committee and the agendas for some of those proposed meetings.  

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for additions or subtractions from the Members.

Adv A Gaum (ANC) objected to a meeting taking place proposed for 17 May 2011 as it was a day before the local government elections.

Mr Mathonsi replied that the Committee programme was tied to the parliamentary programme and would likely change in light of the local government election date.

Ms A Lovemore (DA) sought clarity on the meeting scheduled 14 June 2011 involving corruption initiatives and the Zimbabwean Project, she asked whether they were linked.

Mr Mathonsi replied that they were separate.

Ms S Bothman (ANC) commented that the Committee had recently dealt with strategic plans from the Department and other entities but was yet to deliberate on those plans. The strategic plans needed to be deliberated on before the Committee moved on to other business. The programme seemed to not take this into account. Finally, she said the programme should also make mention of possible oversight trips.

Mr Adam Salmon, Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs Committee Researcher, said that Ms Bothman could add to the Committee programme if she saw it fit to do so.

Mr Mathonsi added that the Committee would not be able to carry out oversight visits in the next quarter of parliament as the focus would primarily be on processing the budget votes.

Ms Bothman reiterated that the Committee was yet to deliberate on the Department’s strategic plan and that was necessary for the Committee to do.

Ms Lovemore agreed with Ms Bothman that the Committee should deliberate on the strategic plans. The Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs had recently held a workshop with the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs and the Committee needed to do the same. It would be pointless to hold deliberations on the Department’s strategic plan without the Department being present in such a meeting. She expressed her happiness with the draft programme as it had been presented.

The Chairperson emphasised that the Committee Programme was a working document and would be improved at Members’ suggestion. She suggested that the Committee have a meeting with the Auditor-General and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) with a specific focus on addressing the Commission’s payment method to electoral staff, which sometimes led to it having qualified audits. It was also important that the Committee look at the issue of the memorandum of understanding that the Department of Home Affairs had with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. 

Ms Lovemore said that the Department had a memorandum of understanding with several departments which could be discussed at the workshop to gain a better understanding of those.

The Chairperson agreed and said that those and other issues could be discussed at the proposed workshop.

Mr Mathonsi said that the Committee had to adopt the Committee’s report on the Budget Vote before 12 April 2011. He suggested that the Committee adopt the report on 29 March 2011.

The Chairperson concurred with that and said that the Committee had to adopt the report on that date.

Ms Bothman said that the Committee needed to consolidate and debate all the presentations it received before moving on to the next bit of work.

Mr Salmon suggested that the Committee discuss the additions and subtractions to the budget vote report of the Committee in the next meeting it held prior to approving the report.

The Chairperson concurred with Mr Salmon. She commented that legislative discussions had taken up a lot of the Committee’s time.

Discussion of the possible Study Tour
Mr Salmon presented the Committee with options its possible overseas study tour. The proposed study tour was proposed to be to one of three countries, these were the United States of America, Russia or England. Those countries had been chosen for the possible tour because of their comparative likeness to South Africa concerning immigration issues. The Committee would have to choose which country it thought best suited a visit and apply for the appropriate funding from the Office of the Speaker. There was competition amongst the various Portfolio Committees for that funding thus the Committee had to act fast. The Committee could only carry out a study tour in November in accordance with a schedule it had been given by the Office of the Speaker. 

Discussion
Ms Lovemore asked whether the Committee had received a formal invitation to go to England.

Mr Mathonsi replied that the invitation had been made to a previous Chairperson of the Committee on an informal basis and had not been followed up on.

Adv Gaum proposed that the Committee take a decision on where it wanted to visit in light of the competition for funding. It would be cold in all of the countries selected for the tour so he suggested that he could motivate to the Speaker to get clearance to conduct the tour at an earlier date. There was good motivation for visiting all three of the countries chosen for the tour. He said that if it was not possible to go to all three countries then the Committee should go to the United States and Russia.

Ms D Mathebe (ANC) commented that the Home Affairs Committee was a high authority in the country and it should be given higher priority when seeking to take a study tour especially considering its work in helping to secure the country.   

Ms Lovemore said that the Committee could not decide on which country to visit on the study tour on that day. She needed time to study the study tour proposal.

Ms Bothman commented that the Committee should look into taking trips in the region considering that South Africa was still a developing country and not on par with any of the three countries in the study tour proposal. 

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to decide soon on the country it wished to visit. The Committee would then have to compare policies in those countries and apply what it learnt in South Africa. The Committee needed to visit developed countries to learn how to improve its existent practices.

Adv Gaum supported the Chairperson and said that Russia was still a developing country.
The Chairperson said that the Committee would decide on which country to visit in the meeting scheduled for 29 March 2011.

Ms Bothman said that the Committee should decide on the study tour as soon as possible.

Ms Mathebe said that the proposal should be finalised pending a decision on which country the Committee wanted to visit.  

The meeting was adjourned.