Committee Report on Home Affairs 2014 Budget

Meeting report

The Chairperson stated the Committee had been briefed by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) on what its work ahead was. The Committee now had to prepare its Budget Vote.

The Report of the Committee had to speak to the Annual Performance Plan (APP) of the DHA. Members had to apply their minds on issues raised in the APP. The Committee could also make recommendations to the DHA. The Committee had a duty to do oversight over the DHA and to check on whether they did things which they had agreed to do.

Mr M Hoosen (DA) noted that in the previous meeting with the DHA on the 1 July 2014 the Chairperson had stated that the Committee could engage with the DHA at a later stage. The DHA’s Director General had agreed to answer outstanding questions when the Committee next met the DHA. He had been under the impression that the Committee would be meeting the DHA in the present meeting. He had a great deal of unanswered questions.

The Chairperson noted that the debate that the Committee had engaged in at its previous meeting with the DHA was around the DHA’s entities. It was discussed that once the DHA had presented to the Committee; the Committee could next engage the DHA’s entities.  The Director General of the DHA had also agreed to appear before the Committee to address members on the issue of immigration regulations. It had not necessarily meant that the next interaction with the DHA would be the current meeting.

The agenda for the current meeting was to draft a Committee Report on the APP of the DHA.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) referred to the draft minutes of the Committee’s previous meeting dated the 1 July 2014 and pointed out in the minutes that the entities of the DHA would be engaged at a later stage. Additional information could also be requested of entities. The minutes also stated that the present meeting was scheduled to deal with the Committee’s Report in response to the APP of the DHA.

Mr Hoosen noted that in the meeting of the 1 July 2014 he had raised the issue of immigration regulations and had requested the DHA to address the issue at its next interaction with the Committee.

The Chairperson said that there was no harm in the request that had been made.

Mr Gumede agreed that the issue was important but the Committee had to look at its Programme before agreeing to meetings. The best option was for the Committee to come up with a Draft Committee Programme.

The Chairperson felt that there was sufficient concurrence in the Committee. All issues raised would be dealt with and members could rest assured that nothing would fall by the wayside.

Consideration of Committee Minutes
The Committee considered its minutes from the 1 July 2014.

Minor grammatical and spelling changes were effected to the minutes. The Committee adopted the minutes as amended.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee Secretariat had been instructed to draft a report on behalf of the Committee in response to the DHA’s APP.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on the Annual Performance Plan and Budget Vote 4 of the Department of Home Affairs 8 July 2014
Mr Adam Salmon Committee Researcher presented the Draft Report to the Committee.

The Chairperson placed the Draft Report before the Committee for consideration.

Mr G Gardee (EFF) referred to the introductory paragraph of the Draft Report and asked who had decided that DHA entities would not be invited to the meeting of the 1 July 2014 because of time constraints. 

The Chairperson responded that it would not be appropriate to name persons in the Draft Report or any other report of the Committee.

Mr C Mulder (FF+) felt that Mr Gardee was correct. The manner it was written in the introductory paragraph gave the impression that the Committee had taken the decision not to invite the DHA’s entities. The issue of entities had been debated at length by the Committee in the meeting of the 1 July 2014 and the decision over the issue had not been unanimous.

Mr B Nesi (ANC) said that the Draft Report reflected what was said by the Committee. It was agreed to call entities to present to the Committee at a later stage. He agreed with the Chairperson that no persons should be named in the Draft Report.

Ms S Nkomo (IFP) stated that the Committee needed to remind itself what was said at the meeting of the 1 July 2014. She recalled that the issue had been left hanging and the Committee had not even taken a vote on the issue. What did happen was that the issue had been discussed.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) agreed with Mr Nesi and said that the Committee had agreed that DHA entities would be called at a later stage to address the Committee on their work. It was reflected so in the minutes dated 1 July 2014.

Mr D Raphuti (ANC) asked whether the Committee was actually going to engage on the Introduction of the Draft Report.   The DHA was the overseer of its entities and the Committee could not discuss who did not invite the entities. The Committee should proceed with its work at hand.

Mr Gardee reacted that the issue was simple. The Committee Secretariat had not invited the entities of the DHA to the meeting of the 1July 2014. If it was not so captured then the Introduction as contained in the Draft Report was that of the ANC majority and not of the Committee.

The Chairperson emphasised that if the Committee was to be efficient, members had to work together. Small issues could be argued over and over again. The Committee had agreed that the entities of the DHA could brief the Committee at a later stage. The Committee and the DHA had been invited to the meeting of the 1 July 2014. Entities of the DHA had not been invited due to time constraints. Was the Committee going to create drama unnecessarily? Members should not be flexing muscles and be dramatic at meetings.  

Mr Mulder noted that the underlying principle needed to be sorted out. Who was responsible for the oversight of the DHA’s entities? He was not aware that it was the duty of the DHA to oversee its entities. The Draft Report gave the impression that a unanimous decision had been taken not to invite the entities which was not so. Who did oversight over the entities?

Mr Nesi was worried that time was being wasted. The minutes dated the 1 July 2014 that the Committee had adopted earlier already covered the issue. He had no problem by stating in the Draft Report that the Committee Secretariat had not invited the entities due to time constraints.

The Chairperson noted that consistency was needed in order to move forward.

He pleaded with members to move on. Entities report to the DHA. The DHA made allocations to the entities. The Committee were entitled to interrogate entities on how they spent funds. Nobody had said that entities would not be interrogated. The minutes of the meeting of the 1 July 2014 did not reflect that any entity had been requested to appear before the Committee on a specific matter at the present meeting. The present meeting was scheduled to deal with the APP and Budget of the DHA. The issue of immigration would be discussed with the DHA at a later meeting.

Ms Raphuti said that perhaps the Committee needed to be workshopped on the role of the DHA’s entities since some members did not grasp what their role was.

Mr Gardee took offence and said Ms Raphuti should withdraw her remarks in relation to a workshop for members. Members were graduates and had held managerial posts in their previous careers. 

 Mr Mulder noted that perhaps a workshop would not be such a bad idea. It would allow everyone to have a clearer understanding.

The Chairperson agreed that a workshop should be seen as a learning opportunity.

Mr Gardee felt that Paragraph 2 of the Draft Report was just a cut and paste of the DHA’S APP Document and hence the Draft Report was not a document of the Committee.

The Chairperson explained that what Mr Gardee was referring to was talking to the APP of the DHA. The Committee’s observations were the Committee’s response to Paragraph 2.

He said that people quote things all the time. In speeches people often quote excerpts from other peoples’ works. The Committee could not change what the DHA had said. It could only respond to what had been said in its recommendations.

Mr Nesi was concerned that the DHA had not stated how it intended to train its staff.

Ms Raphuti said that the DHA ought to provide the Committee with timeframes and figures for example on the acquisition of equipment etc. It would speak to its performance. The Committee needed specifics. She noted that the DHA clearly did not have enough staff. The DHA should also conduct job evaluations.

The Chairperson said that a recommendation could be made that the DHA should build capacity in order to roll out its smart identity cards.

Ms Nkomo supported the idea of a workshop. She wished to make inputs on observations and recommendations since it was what the Committee was now focussing on.

An observation was that people on the ground were frustrated with immigration laws. Communities did not understand them. Another observation was that even though funds were allocated to the DHA and its entities the Committee needed a template on savings and underspending. These issues also needed to be unpacked.

Mr Gumede pointed out that the DHA had a high vacancy rate in Audit Services. It negatively impacted upon service delivery. The DHA should fill vacant positions such as Chief Financial Officer, Provincial Managers etc. The observation was that it was a high risk area. The recommendation was that the vacant posts be filled. Persons needed to be attracted to posts and be retained in them.

Mr Hoosen observed that the Committee had to recognise the improvement in turnaround times of some civic documents. The recommendation that could be made was that the turnaround times for other civic documents could also be improved.

Another observation was that the Border Management Agency would tighten border control. The recommendation that went along with the observation was that the Inspectorate of the DHA needed to be strengthened.

A further observation was that he was not satisfied with the financial management of the DHA. The recommendation that went along with the observation was that posts should be filled and that vacancy rates should be attended to.

The Chairperson asked if there was evidence that there was a problem with the financial management of the DHA as a whole or was it only a specific section that was problematic.

What if the DHA did not have financial management issues as a whole? Specific reference should be made to the correct sections of the DHA that had financial management problems.

Mr Hoosen responded that the point he made was perhaps different from that of Mr Gumede. The DHA did have financial management issues hence there had been fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

He made a further observation that a reduction in the DHA’s Budget in two of its programmes would surely impact upon service delivery. He was not sure what recommendation should be made in this regard. The observation was also made that though there was no increase in the budget of the Government Printing Works the likelihood was that expenditure would increase.

Ms Kenye said that the DHA should provide the Committee with timeframes as to how it was to address its challenges. She felt that the BMA should urgently be put in place. The lack of capacity of the DHA’s Inspectorate was also an issue.

Mr Gumede pointed out that the BMA was already established. It was a recent development. Report back to the Committee should be done within a reasonable period. The turnaround times for temporary and permanent residency permits were around 90 days. The turnaround times could be improved unless good reasons were given.  He noted that there should be continued effort to improve front office services.

The Chairperson asked whether the Committee should request from the DHA a report on the BMA within the first quarter of 2015.

Ms Kenye noted that she had been under the impression that the BMA had not yet been established but according to Mr Gumede’s earlier remarks it was established.

The Chair restated the recommendation that the DHA provide a progress report on the BMA in the first quarter of 2015.

Mr Mulder said that the Committee could be passive and wait for the DHA to report back or it could take on an active role. Perhaps the Committee could do a study on what had been done to secure SA’s borders.

The Chairperson emphasised the need for the DHA to inform the Committee whether it was at the implementation stage. Once the report back was done the Committee could undertake an oversight visit. If the BMA was not yet off the ground the Committee could take the DHA to task.

Mr Nesi agreed with the timeframe of the BMA Report for the first quarter of 2015. He made an observation that if the budget of the DHA had been decreased how was it to deliver on its mandate. Another observation was that employees of the DHA were not properly vetted. There had to be strict vetting measures in place.

Ms Nkomo made the observation that the Director General of the DHA had said that the DHA was going to change. The Committee had to note that the DHA wanted to change.

The budget of the DHA had shown an 11% decrease. How was the DHA going to implement? The DHA was also underspending. How were the two issues to be married?

She felt that the DHA used too many consultants even if it was on an adhoc basis. No contract workers were used by the DHA.

The Chairperson explained that the DHA did not generally use consultants. It used consultants mainly in ICT for identity cards, passports etc. The Committee would engage the DHA over the issue.

Ms Raphuti pointed out that the key challenges of the DHA were critical. The Committee needed to come up with recommendations in this regard.

The DHA should be visible to communities at grassroots level. Social cohesion should be ensured. Zenophobia should be alleviated. Campaigns needed to be put in place.

Mr Gardee made the observation that the DHA did not inform the Committee about challenges which it faced on litigation costs. The cost of litigation was material to the DHA. The amounts and the nature of the litigation were important. He felt that the DHA had an image problem and the Committee should be informed what their plans were to improve their image. It was also felt that the DHA was untransformed. They still did not have offices in villages.

The Chairperson disagreed and felt that the DHA was changing its image. The DHA had to contend with issues on a daily basis and was constantly under public scrutiny. The DHA may be talked about daily but all the talk was not necessarily bad.

Mr Gardee noted that the DHA did not in its key challenges speak about its operations in the international space. What challenges did it encounter in dealing with other countries?

The Chairperson responded that the Department of International Relations and Cooperation operated internationally as the interface between foreign countries and the DHA. The DHA did not have a responsibility to deal with overseas countries.

Mr Gardee noted that all he was saying was that the DHA operated to some extent in the international space. It had to encounter some forms of limitations and constraints.   

Mr Hoosen said that access to services in rural areas was being addressed to some extent with the use of mobile units. An observation could be that the use of mobile units was a step in the right direction. The recommendation could be that the services should be extended beyond that of mobile units.

The Chairperson said ideally there should be a DHA office on each corner but resources should be available in order for delivery to take place. The DHA should be engaged over the issue.

Mr Hoosen felt that lack of resources was not a good enough reason. The Committee should make observations and recommendations in this regard.

The Chairperson understood Mr Hoosen’s point but the fact of the matter was that sometimes resources were not available.

Mr Gardee made the observation that it appeared that the role of the DHA in assisting the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) which was a Chapter 9 institution was minimal. The DHA had been silent about the IEC. There appeared to be a disjuncture between the IEC and the DHA’s budget.

 Mr Gumede said that the IEC was a Chapter 9 institution. It was independent. The IEC could be called to the Committee as it was receiving funding from the DHA.

The Chairperson agreed that the IEC could address the Committee on how it spent its funds as it was funded by the DHA. Generally Chapter 9 institutions responded to the House.

Mr Nesi did not think it was relevant as the DHA was housed in the security cluster of departments.

The Chairperson pointed out that the DHA was not yet in the security cluster. But it would be joining it because its work on Identity documents and passports impacted upon the security of SA.

Mr Gardee noted that section 38 paragraph (j) spoke about financial transfers. The Committee had been blindly cajoled by the DHA in not speaking about almost R2bn that had been transferred to the IEC. How did the IEC spend its funds? A deliberate decision had been made not to have the IEC appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson reacted that nobody had been cajoled. There was also no secret about the IEC not appearing before the Committee when the DHA did. No entities appeared before the Committee because of time constraints. The issue had already been exhaustively discussed earlier in the meeting.

If the Committee wished to invite the IEC before the Committee it could be placed on the Committee Programme. The Committee did have the right to question the IEC as to how it spent its funds but the Committee could not micro-manage it. Chapter 9 institutions were independent and there should be no political interference.

The Draft Report needed to be completed.

He asked when a final draft of the report could be ready.

Mr Adam Salmon Committee Researcher answered that he had captured the observations and recommendations made by members as they were made and was willing to present it to the Committee if it so wished.

The Committee agreed that Mr Salmon read out what he had captured.

Mr Gardee wished it to be placed on record that the EFF disassociated itself from the Draft Report.

The Chairperson responded that the EFF could vote against the Draft Report when the Committee voted on it.

Mr Salmon presented the completed Draft Report inclusive of the observations and recommendations made by the Committee.

All parties voted in favour of the adoption of the Draft Report with the exception of the EFF.

The Draft Report was adopted as amended.

The meeting was adjourned.