Home Affairs Budget Review and Recommendation Report: Research Unit briefing

Meeting report

Home Affairs Budget Review and Recommendation Report: Research Unit briefing
Mr Adam Salmon, Researcher, Parliamentary Research Unit, tabled the draft Budget Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR or the Report) and noted that the table of contents started with the introduction, which was the same as that included in the Report in the previous year. The strategic objectives, values, mandate, vision and mission of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA or the Department) had not changed. The introduction explained that the BRRR was drawn in compliance with the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (the Act). This Act provided that portfolio committees must make financial recommendations to National Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) before the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS), which would take place in November. The deadline for submission of the Reports was 21 October 2011. He suggested that if Members had anything else that they wished to have, they should convey this to the drafters.

He then went through the Report. Bullet 1.1 in the BRRR explained the strategic objectives of the Committee which included the engagement on consistent strategic oversight and performance and development of the DHA, involvement in an effective People’s Parliament, establishing good relationships with the Department and its entities, helping in ensuring minimum standards and actual delivery of services, participating in national and international conferences and meetings, and engaging in programmes that would deliver meaningful and quality services to citizens and migrants.

The mandate, vision and mission of the Department were explained on page 3 of the document. In terms of the mission statement, DHA had to comply with two outcomes from the Government Programme of Action, namely Outcomes 3 and 12. This Department also subscribed to Outcome 5, which related to creating a skilled capable workforce to support an inclusive growth path, and it was pointed out that the DHA needed to import skills.

The Report also explained the four programmes of the Department, which included administration, services citizens, immigration services and transfers to the agency. The main outcomes were similar to the previous year, and dealt with secured citizenship, management of immigration, and efficient service that was corruption free. It was important to note that the DHA Annual Report for 2010/11 had indicated that the Department had failed to achieve a significant percentage of its performance targets. That indicated there should be more monitoring and evaluation of the Department and there was a need to ensure that it complied with National Treasury’s SMART performance indicators. He explained that “SMART” referred to having targets that were specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound. The Department acknowledged those criteria, but it needed to improve on those in terms of attainability and measurability.

The DHA’s measurable objectives for the current year were slightly different from those of the previous year. Under Outcome 2, there were additional immigration objectives, which included the need to integrate and upgrade the IT infrastructure for purposes of security. Objective 3.5 overlapped with outcome 3, and required the DHA to develop and implement service delivery standards for the improvement of operational efficiency, and to ensure effective, efficient and accessible service delivery to clients.

A further objective 3.4 had been added to the requirement that the service be efficient, accessible and corruption free. This new 3.4 required increased capacity to contribute to fighting cyber crime, which the DHA had not included before, as well as to develop and implement service delivery standards for the improvement of operational efficiency. With regard to outcome 2, he highlighted that objective 2.4 was to realise a positive skills migration trend. He noted that the trend was around 50 000 migrant skills annually. That numerical target of importing skills was included for the first time.

Mr Salmon moved on to the analysis of the operational plans. The DHA had not met many of its targets in the previous year. In the current year, it had more targets, and 50 performance indicators, compared to the 47 of the previous year. However, he pointed out that only 47% of those targets had been met. In future years, there would therefore be concerns as to whether the Department would be able to meet the targets, so it ad to make them attainable or achievable, which would require a further budget allocation and better monitoring and evaluation.

Mr Salmon noted that the DHA had spent 112% of its available budget by the end of the financial year. The reasons for overspending were linked to over-expenditure on all key programmes, and he would deal with this under the recommendations section.

The most recent reporting on spending in the 2011/12 financial year, from National Treasury, indicated that again the Department had spent 28% of its estimated budget, or 3.7% over the benchmark of 25% spending. In programme one the Department had overspent by almost 11%, which was of particular concern in view of assertions that it would not overspent. This particular payment was part of the ongoing settlement being paid to Gijima in the IT dispute. In the Citizens Affairs programme, the Department had overspent by 20%. In Programme 3, there was a significant under spending of almost 10%, due to delayed payments of contractual commitments. This would have to be monitored, because if it continued, it would have a negative effect on the audit, so the Department had to improve and pay contractual commitments on time.

Mr Salmon noted that the Department had misclassified a big segment of its budget under transfers, as opposed to goods and services, which caused an imbalance in its reporting. That could be solved by the Medium Term Budget Statement (MTBS), but the DHA would need to manage this prudently so that it did not have a negative impact on the annual reporting. The Department was currently establishing a Civil Services Trading Account, into which the fees for issuing identity documents (IDs) and passports would be paid, so that DHA did not constantly need to ask National Treasury for money. That should improve the Department’s financial reporting in future, but that process had not been fully implemented yet.

Mr Salmon noted that the Report commended the Department for its unqualified opinion. There was a delay in the finalisation of the asset register that led to the Department not having achieved many of the targets. During the Committee’s meeting with the Auditor-General it was mentioned that Government was moving away to an Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), but there were concerns that the Department was still investing in the Basic Accounting System (BAS), and there were some concerns that this may be fruitless expenditure because the Department was still investing in something that was being slowly phased out.

The DHA, in terms of the law, was registering new babies within 30 days, but there was a concern that there were not enough registration channels in rural hospitals. There was general consensus around the Annual Reports of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), Film and Publications Board (FPB) and Government Printing Works (GPW). The IEC had indicated that it was investigating electoral reforms that could have financial implications in the next year. In the past there had been problems with payment of electoral staff, but it seemed that problem had been resolved. The IEC needed to employ more persons with disabilities. The changing of boundaries during elections could have an impact on the budget of IEC.

Mr Salmon noted that there was a need for a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the FPB and South African Police Services (SAPS) in terms of raids, and additional training of police with regard to their responsibilities around censorship. There were attempts to achieve financial viability throughout government, but because of significant recruitment and retention problems, more cooperation was needed with Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) to try to achieve some special dispensation, although this may have further financial implications. This had to be prioritised, as entities of the DHA continued to function at a low capacity.

Mr Salmon noted that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) would only be tabling its report on the DHA that day in Parliament, and once this had been done, recommendations from SCOPA may need to be considered, although Mr Salmon pointed out that it was unlikely that SCOPA would recommend anything radically different to what this Committee recommended.

Other sources of  information to be considered when finalising the BRRR included the State of the Nation Address (SONA), which would also have an impact on the recommendations, since this required that job creation, economic transformation, improved service delivery and public service performance should be accelerated, as well as that departments should continue the fight against corruption, and attend to proper government elections and international democratic elections. The DHA had to prioritise issues of critical skills.

Mr Salmon outlined the oversight findings in the Report. The Committee had noted, during its oversight visit to North West, that there were no shelters for travellers and customers during the rainy season or bad weather, no chairs and benches for travellers and customers in queues, no speed services, or ATMs for customers who had contravened the Immigration Act and needed to pay on the spot. The Committee also noted a lack of information desks, non-availability of health inspectors from the Department for applicants who had not been vaccinated, limited family accommodation, resulting in some officials having to travel late at night, and long distances in relation to clinics. There were also staff shortages, no official transport for nightshift workers, and no regular vaccination of officials. Other issues included the withdrawal of border permits for regular travellers, and removal of security.

Mr Salmon then set out the Committee’s recommendations. These included recommendations that the DHA should prioritise the filling of vacant positions, should request Government to deploy the South African National Defence Force along the borders of the country with immediate effect, should improve transport in all of its offices and port of entry and increase employment and improve access for people with disabilities. Furthermore, the Department should try out passport live capturing machines in all offices of the Department, should address the matter of duplicate identities as a matter of urgency, and needed to find solutions for local office accommodation and address accommodation at a number of named centres.

Mr Salmon added that some analysis had been done into the most common areas of litigation, with a view to assessing what preventative measures could be used. There were recommendations that proper tender procedures should be conducted and included in the risk analysis of the strategic plan of the Department. There should be ongoing monitoring of the “Who Am I Online” project, which needed to be included in the performance targets of the Department. The Department should ensure that its capital asset register was up to date and conformed with the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The audit reports that related to Smart IDs should have no further delays when the project had been implemented. The Department should eliminate outstanding backlog asylum applications and increase its capacity at refugee offices. There should be increased communication between Johannesburg and Cape Town refugee centres. The Department should increase the number of mobile office units, especially in rural areas. Finally, it was recommended that the FPB should reduce its irregular and wasteful expenditure.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Mr Salmon for a very interesting presentation.

Mr G McIntosh (COPE) noted that it was the first time he was participating in a BRRR discussion, and he commented that it was a very good way to report to the Minister of Finance. However, he was concerned about the incredibly tight deadlines, which had not given the Committee much time to digest the Report. He noted that it covered not only the financial reporting aspects, but also operational matters, and thought it was an important way to hold departments accountable. Mr McIntosh wondered if the Committee was satisfied that everything had been included, and commented that this was a very comprehensive presentation.

The Chairperson noted that in fact all Members were still on a learning curve in respect of the BRRRs, and agreed that there was a template that had to be followed. Members would have to go back and discuss this with their parties, consider what else might need to be added and ensure that what was finally produced did follow the guidelines.

Ms A Lovemore (DA) noted that there were some conclusions that she did not quite agree with – including the Committee’s majority vote on the Immigration Bill, with its requirement that foreign businesses must employ local labour, and wondered if the Report could express an opinion. She wondered if the format of the observations and recommendations was correct.

Ms Lovemore agreed with the recommendation that the DHA must commit itself to the filling of vacant posts, but she was concerned that the DHA had not reported back on this, and had not reported on the unfunded vacancies in the Annual Report, and the vacancy rate was suggested to be lower than it was in fact. She was also concerned about the recommendation for electronic security surveillance in crime-prone offices, pointing out that in many, the devices were in place, but had not been checked or were not working. The mere installation of electronic security surveillance was not enough.

Ms Lovemore noted, in respect of the Film and Publications Board, that its Annual Report had suggested that it was part of the DHA, and seemed to give a false impression.

The Chairperson questioned what Ms Lovemore meant by this.

Ms Lovemore responded that perhaps this had been discussed before she joined this Committee, but noted that the FPB’s Annual Report had indicated that it was reviewing whether it should remain as a DHA entity.

The Chairperson said she knew nothing of that, but she would have thought it should be the Committee who should review this question.

Mr Salmon noted that if FPB changed its position, this would have budget implications. This was certainly not something that could happen in the current financial year, and if there were suggestions that this should happen, then the Committee should prepare for discussion on the point.

Mr Gaum said that this was not a decision that FPB alone could take, and if it was undertaking a review, then it had to report to this Committee on the matter. It was not necessary to deal with this in the BRRR.

Ms Lovemore noted that the Department had come a long way, but felt that it was not “transparent” as had been suggested. The Committee had only found out about certain matters – such as South African National Defence Force (SANDF) deployment – through the media. Directives issued by the Director-General were not open. The DHA had denied issuing any statement about the deportation of Zimbabweans, but it subsequently was revealed that this was done. She felt that a recommendation for proper transparency needed to be included.

The Chairperson cautioned that the Committee should try to prioritise the most important recommendations in the Report.

Mr A Gaum (ANC) noted that Members seemed to be in agreement that the BRRR could not be finalised at this meeting and proposed that another date be set aside to finalise it, to give time to Members to study the Report. He agreed that observations and recommendations should be stated clearly, and comply with SMART principles.

Mr Gaum said that in respect of the Government Printing Works (GPW), the Committee had agreed that there were too many matters of emphasis in its audit report. It had also requested that the vacancies be filled, and that the same excuses should not be repeated. The Committee had also recommended to GPW that it should make recommendations on the necessary legislation. All three of those recommendations should be included in this Report.

The Chairperson was concerned about the inclusion of the research done by the Centre for Development Enterprise, pointing out that many NGOs had made presentations during the public hearings, and she would not like to cite only one. She requested that this reference be removed from the Report.

Mr McIntosh reiterated that he was still struggling to get to grips with the BRRR, noting that there were many issues the Committee had to address. He thought that the GPW was still trying to find its feet, and one of the problems was that no permanent Chief Executive Officer had been appointed. He thought that the Committee should persuade the Minister to make an appointment urgently.

Mr McIntosh said that the immigration debacle continued to haunt the DHA, and that there was a need to really address and get to grips with legal and illegal migration. He thought there should be more cooperation between the DHA and Department of Health with regard to the registration of births.

Mr Gaum suggested that the DHA should maybe set specific categories and number of immigrants it would allow to enter the country per year, as it was done in other countries.

Ms S Rwexana (COPE) suggested that the Committee should make recommendations on the DHA prioritising employment of a minimum of 2% disabled people. The failure to meet this target was seen in all entities of the Department.

Ms Rwexana asked the Researcher to rephrase the sentences dealing with border posts and ports of entry, which she did not think were clear. The Committee should recommend greater synergy between the various departments performing duties at border posts.

The Chairperson thought that another issue should be noted in the Report, namely the fact that South African Revenue Services (SARS) scanners were not working in the ports of entry, making it impossible to track imports and exports. She thought the Committee should also write directly to SARS to notify it of the problem.

The Committee resolved to meet on Thursday 20 October to finalise the Report. Members should forward their proposals for amendment to Mr Salmon.

The meeting was adjourned.