Meeting with delegation from Botswana Portfolio Committee on Labour and Home Affairs

Meeting report

Meeting with delegation from Botswana Portfolio Committee on Labour and Home Affairs
The delegation representing the Portfolio Committee on Labour and Home Affairs from Botswana comprised of Mr Gibson Nshimwe MP-Chairperson, Major-General Moeng Pheto MP, Mr Charles Tibone MP, Mr Fidelis Molao MP, Ms Wangu Kokoro and Mr Bonnet Keineetse.

The Chairperson on behalf of the Committee welcomed the delegation from Botswana. She asked her counterpart from Botswana if he wished to make opening remarks. Thereafter members would be allowed to comment and ask questions.

Mr Nshimwe stated that the Botswana Portfolio Committee on Labour and Home Affairs covered two portfolios ie labour and home affairs. The committee consisted of 8 members- 5 from the ruling party and 3 from the opposition. At the time of elections, the committee had a 50/50 split between the majority and opposition parties. The delegation was on a benchmarking mission. Botswana’s portfolio committees had formed in late 2011. It had only started performing work in 2012. This was Botswana’s first benchmarking visit to South Africa. The idea behind the visit was to see how the country’s portfolio committees functioned.

Mr G McIntosh (COPE) welcomed the delegation and as a new portfolio committee encouraged them to flex their muscles. He felt that Botswana was a light on a hill to the rest of Africa. Botswana was a small country but it was a good example to the rest of Africa on how to move ahead. Botswana just needed a good system of oversight now that portfolio committees were in place. He noted that constructive discussions could be had in portfolio committees even though there were different political parties. Good governance was needed to ensure that departments did their work. Portfolio committees need not be “conflictual”. He also wished to encourage Mr Nshimwe to recognise the portfolio committee’s responsibility to ensure that ministers and departments in Botswana functioned efficiently. The principle of parliamentary government was important.

Mr McIntosh further stated that the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Civil Registration that had taken place recently in Durban had been encouraging even though at times it had been depressing. There were many people in Africa who did not have identity documents or birth certificates. A positive was that Botswana had a good system of civil registration and statistics. SA’s track record was also good. SA and Botswana were more or less on the same level. An improvement for Botswana was perhaps to adopt the finger printing identification system that SA was using.

Mr Pheto agreed that Botswana’s civil and national registration was well established. It tied in with voter registration information as well. The Committee was welcome to visit Botswana to see how it worked.

The Chairperson said that the delegation should note the questions asked by members and thereafter would be allowed to respond.

Mr M Mnqasela (DA) stated that he had been present in Botswana during its 2009 elections. He had observed that the challenge faced by Botswana was how to deal with Zimbabwean asylum seekers in the country. As was the case in SA most of the refugees were economic refugees. He witnessed two foreigners being repatriated for committing crimes; the alternative was to face the death penalty. He asked whether the death penalty had served Botswana well. He also asked how Botswana had all along done oversight without having a parliamentary structure. 

Mr Nshimwe noted that a centre for illegal immigrants had been established where immigrants were scrutinised and examined before being granted political asylum. Border jumpers were temporarily held at the centre until they were deported.

Mr Pheto noted that there were large volumes of Zimbabwean refugees in Botswana. The majority were there for economic reasons. He felt that Botswana’s burden with regards to Zimbabwean refugees was heavier than SA’s. Botswana had refugees from Mozambique, Zimbabwe, SA and Namibia.

Mr Molao responded that whether the death penalty was working or not was debatable. The death penalty was in general supported in Botswana but there was human rights awareness. The death penalty was introduced as a deterrent. How effective it was had not been measured. Dialogue on the death penalty was continuing.
He understood that ministries generated bills. Afterwards it came to portfolio committees for discussion and whereafter it would be tabled in parliament. In this entire process how was the working relationship? He asked whether it ever happened that a minister wished to rush through a piece of legislation by bypassing committees.  

The Chairperson stated that all processes regarding legislation needed to be followed. A minister could not bypass a portfolio committee.

Mr Tibone personally did not support the death penalty but the political party that he belonged to did. He said that the public’s view on the death penalty was influenced by the Botswana government’s position. It was best that dialogue over the issue continued.

Mr Pheto said that SA and Botswana should have a sit down over the issue of the death penalty. Many fugitives from Botswana guilty for murders were hiding out in SA.

Mr M De Freitas (DA) stated that most of the work was done within the Committee. Most of what happened in the House was grandstanding. The real work took place in portfolio committees. All political parties within a portfolio committee had a common objective. He also referred to the conference which Mr McIntosh had referred to and stated that the presentation from Botswana was impressive. He suggested that the Committee undertake a trip to Botswana as there was much information which could be shared between the two countries. He asked why the two portfolios of labour and home affairs had been clumped together. He did not see the link between the two. What was the situation prior to the formation of portfolio committees in Botswana? Was the Executive not held accountable? He asked what the core work of members were if there were no portfolio committees in Botswana.

Mr Nshimwe responded that prior to the formation of portfolio committees Botswana did have various committees which had to do work. Various committees were set up to deal with specific issues. There had been for example HIV-AIDS and social committees.

Mr Tibone noted that his portfolio committee was new and needed to be strengthened. Prior to portfolio committees, committees were sessional and existed for one year. These committees were functional and did not belong to a dedicated portfolio. Members of parliament used to be briefed by various ministries. There were now portfolio ministries and portfolio committees. The change was important to the democracy of Botswana. Previously the Executive had been all powerful but now with the advent of portfolio committees, the Executive could be held accountable. It was time for there to be a balance. Mr Nshimwe who was the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Labour and Home Affairs in Botswana was even a member of the opposition party. Botswana was clearly moving in the right direction. All that was lacking was the ability to process legislation. Botswana did not have the same organisational structure which SA had. Another difference with SA was that meetings could not be held when parliament was sitting. Meetings were held between sittings. As a result it was often difficult to obtain a quorum of members at a meeting. 

Mr Pheto explained that in Botswana there was a Minister for Labour and Home Affairs. The Minister handled both portfolios.

Ms M Makhuba (IFP) noted that the purpose of portfolio committees was to keep departments and stakeholders accountable. The Committee worked together as a team and members did not represent their respective political parties. Why had Botswana decided to go the portfolio committee route after such a long time?

Mr Pheto explained that prior to portfolio committees Botswana had sessional committees. The problem with sessional committees was that they lacked good leadership and they were temporary. The portfolio committees were still trying to find their feet. Public hearings and consultations were done when necessary.

Adv A Gaum (ANC) pointed out that the Committee was firstly responsible for dealing with legislation which emanated from the Department of Home Affairs. The legislation coming before the Committee could cover immigration, refugee related matters, Film and Publications Board issues, government printing and the Independent Electoral Commission. Legislation was introduced to the Committee by the Minister of Home Affairs. Once legislation was with the Committee public hearings were held with organisations and stakeholders. Political parties engaged in study groups where a political party would take a stand on legislation. Once public hearings were complete the Committee would discuss and amend the legislation where necessary after which a vote would be taken on it. The piece of legislation would then go back to parliament for approval or disapproval. By the time that the legislation reached the House the decision on approval or disapproval of the legislation was a foregone conclusion.
The second responsibility of the Committee was oversight. Firstly oversight with departments was by way of considering their strategic plans and their annual reports. Secondly, oversight visits would also be undertaken to for example border posts. Thirdly, study tours could also be undertaken to specific areas.
For 2012 thus far the Committee had dealt with the Immigration Amendment and Refugee Amendment Bills. The amendments were made to improve efficiency and to tighten responsibility. He strongly felt that the responsibility for the refugee issue should be shared by Southern African Development Countries and not mainly SA. The first safe country principle should be followed. People tend to come to SA via other countries. The first country entered into should take responsibility for the refugees. At present in SA there were refugee reception centres all over. The intention was to move these centres to borders. Legislation was perhaps needed in order to achieve this. The overall objective was to overhaul the refugee and immigration legislative framework.

Ms Bothman said that she had read the letter that the Botswana delegation had written to the Committee. She felt it best to explain that SA had an Executive, Legislature and a Judiciary. The Executive was tasked with doing day to day things and was accountable to the Legislature. The Legislature was parliament and it was responsible for holding the Executive accountable. Departments were held accountable by virtue of their five-year strategic plans and annual reports. Oversight visits were also done to check on service delivery, infrastructure development and the implementation of legislation. 
Besides dealing with legislation the Committee could call on government departments and organisations like the IEC to account. Public hearings relating to legislation could take place in parliament as well as in the provinces. The work done by the Committee was complex and often there was a need to multitask as issues which needed to be addressed clashed with one another.

The Chairperson reiterated that annual reports of departments were scrutinised by the Committee. There were however also quarterly reports that were scrutinised. The Committee when scrutinising annual reports also took into consideration comments made by the Auditor General’s Office. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts in parliament also held state departments and entities to account.
The Committee also undertook oversight visits to border posts. The SA-Botswana border was well controlled and managed. Perhaps SA could learn from Botswana on how to manage borders well. SA experienced problems at its Swaziland and Lesotho borders.

Mr Nshimwe stated that his portfolio committee did indeed deal with the labour and home affairs portfolios. The committee received reports from government departments and ministries just as the Committee did. They also reported to their national assembly on an annual basis. He added that there was work ethics attached to Botswana’s public service. The public service was not aligned to any political party.

Mr Tibone appreciated the compliment that Botswana managed its border with SA well. The fact was that the same people stayed on either sides of the border. Botswana did however have challenges on the border with Zimbabwe. 25% of Botswana’s population was made up of Zimbabweans.

Mr Nshimwe asked what the difference between the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) was.

The Chairperson said that the NCOP had representatives from the provinces. When legislation was introduced in the NA it would be sent to the NCOP as well.

Adv Gaum further explained that SA had two houses of parliament ie the NA, which had representatives that were proportionally elected and the NCOP which had ten members per province. The NCOP represented provincial interests on various matters. The two houses could not make bills. The Constitution of SA governed the mechanisms and procedures of the two houses. The NCOP was responsible for keeping checks and balances with a provincial element.

Mr Mnqasela added that in Botswana the constituency decided where the representative would be deployed. In SA’s case the political party decided where the representative would be deployed.

Mr Pheto asked how often the Committee met with ministers to consult on issues and legislation. Were timelines for responses from ministers set?

Mr McIntosh stated that the Committee’s meetings were open to the public when legislation was dealt with.

The Chairperson added that the meetings were only open for observing. Public participation only took place during public hearings.

Mr Tibone stated that in Botswana consultation with the public only took place at community meeting places and not in portfolio committee meetings.

The meeting was adjourned.