ID Campaign: briefing; Draft Immigration Regulations: deliberations; Programme: adoption

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
3 June 2003
ID CAMPAIGN: BRIEFING; DRAFT IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS: DELIBERATIONS;
PROGRAMME: ADOPTION

Chairperson: Mr H Chauke (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Immigration Regulations: Correspondence with State Law Advisor & Parliamentary Legal Services
Eastern Cape Study Tour: Amended Draft Joint Report
Budget Vote 4: Report
Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs Draft Programme 2003-2004
Email [email protected] for these documents:
Immigration Regulations: ANC Comments
Western Cape Region Birth/ID Registration Campaign 2003

SUMMARY
The Department reported on progress with the identity document campaign, despite the Committee's concern that there was no briefing document. The Department had received only R15 million of the R60 million requested for the ID campaign. Currently, ten thousand applications were being processed each day representing an increase of two thousand per day as a result of the campaign. Increased capacity could accommodate as many as twenty-five thousand applications daily. The ID campaign would target the youth and rural areas, and negotiations with Treasury were ongoing about free IDs and photos. The Committee undertook to write to Treasury supporting this proposal.

The Committee resolved to consider the draft Regulations for discussion at the following meeting. The Parliamentary Law Advisor would be given time to examine the Regulations and raise any concerns he might have, which would also be considered. He raised preliminary concerns about the fees and the possible outsourcing of powers of search and arrest allowed under the Regulations.

MINUTES
The Chair stated that the Department had not been invited to the deliberations on the draft Immigration Regulations since they had been before the Committee on this topic so often before. Instead, the deliberations would allow members to make input on the draft Regulations. The Parliamentary Law Advisor had been invited to assist the Committee with this.

Department officials were present to brief the Committee on the identity document (ID) campaign. This campaign was important since ID documents were required when applying for many certificates, grants, licences and in order to vote.

ID Campaign
Mr J Tshabalala (Chief Director: Civic Services) stated that the Director General was unable to attend the meeting because of other commitments. Mr Tshabalala said there was no discussion document since the Department had received the request to attend the meeting too late to prepare one. Regional directors submitted reports on the ID campaign on a monthly basis and not all reports were available. When they were, the Department would draw up a comprehensive report and send a copy to the Committee.

The Chair responded that the letter had been sent to the Department on 28 May. The letter had been followed up that day and a second letter sent to clarify the requirements of the Committee. Further, he had interacted with the Department the previous day. If the Department had known it would not be ready, the Committee should have been informed and would then have had an opportunity to decide whether or not to continue with that part of the meeting. He expected that a national strategy would have emerged from the Departmental meeting of regional directors on 12 May and that the Department should be in a position to brief the Committee based on this. The Chair asked what members thought of this.

Mr R Pillay (NNP) agreed with the Chair. It was time to take urgent steps to ensure that the Department understood the Committee's oversight role. If information was requested, it should be provided. The Committee should take action if this did not happen. The unavailability of a document was unacceptable.

Prince N Zulu (IFP) responded that the Committee had already forcefully made the point that the Department should respond to their requests. However, this point could be made again.

Mr M Sikakane (ANC) stated that, even if the letter had only been received on 28 May, it might not have been possible to prepare a report in time since this would have given the officials only four or five days in which to do so.

An ANC member of the Committee for Public Works stated that he had attended the meeting specifically for the briefing on the ID campaign. He was concerned that the Department had not budgeted for capital spending except in Gauteng and the Western Cape.

Ms G Borman (DA) stated that the campaign was urgent. Provinces had to have reports in by the end of the month. People should comply or be disciplined for not doing so. Why did this not happen?

Ms N Gxowa (ANC) agreed that the Department should have told that Committee that it would not be ready for the meeting. The Department should be asked to submit the full report to the Committee secretariat.

Mr Tshabalala again stated that he had only received the instruction the previous day. The letter had been dated 2 June. He wanted to provide a comprehensive, well thought-out document. Bringing piles of reports from the provinces would serve no purpose. He and Mr D Mamabolo (Director: Identity Documents) could, however, give an overall picture of the campaign.

Department briefing
Funding
Mr Tshabalala stated that the Department had asked Treasury for R60 million for the campaign (R40 million for 2003/4 and R20 million for 2004/5) and had received R15 million. This had been assigned as follows: R2,5 million each to the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal; R1,5 million each to North-West, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Free State; R800 thousand each to the Western Cape and the Northern Cape; R700 thousand each to Gauteng West and Gauteng East; and R1 million to Head Office. The amount was insufficient. On Friday, a report had been submitted to the Director General to highlight the shortfall and prompt him to intervene. The Department estimated that an extra R60 million was needed.

Monthly reports
Mr Mamabolo noted that the monthly reports referred to were due on the 25^th of each month. Head Office collated them for presentation to the Director General by the 5^th; and the Director General reported to his cluster on the 10^th. He asked that the Committee programme attempt to accommodate this.

Department capacity
Mr Mamabolo reported that, under ordinary circumstances, the Department could currently accommodate eight thousand applications per day. The required turnaround period for an application was two months. With the ID campaign, the Department was receiving ten thousand applications per day. The Department had increased capacity to meet this by using selective overtime. Hiring of contract workers was not yet being considered. Actual turnaround was six weeks, so the target was comfortably met. Based on past experience, the Department could increase capacity to accommodate twenty-five thousand applications per day.

The Department preferred not to use volunteers since they were not subject to contracts and so the Department had no recourse. Currently the practice was to use three-month contracts because of the limited budget.

Campaign target groups
The Department had met with the regional directors on 12 May. This had been followed by a workshop with the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). The Department had decided to target the youth since they were generally apathetic about applying for IDs. The IEC had indicated that 60% of rural areas needed to be covered, so rural areas were also being targeted.

A provincial workshop had been held in the Eastern Cape. The aim was to link all available resources to optimise the Department's capacity. The workshop had helped to identify specific rural areas that needed an ID or child registration campaign. Provincial workshops had also identified a need for more mobile units, of which the Department currently has about one hundred and twenty. The Department had been able to piggyback on a R12 million programme by Social Development to register births.

About three hundred thousand IDs were still to be collected. The communications directorate was attending to this.

The Department was engaging with Treasury on the possibility of waiving application fees and offering free photographs for IDs.

Discussion
The Chair observed that Mr Tshabalala had said that he had received the information only the previous day, but the letter had been sent on Wednesday. He had raised the question of communication co-ordination with the Minister. The Department's Parliamentary Liaison Office had received a copy of the letter when it had been sent.

Mr I Pretorius (DA) asked if the Department had an estimate of the number of ID applications from people eligible to vote. He also asked if there was an estimate for the cost of supplying photographs free.

Mr Tshabalala replied that Treasury had given the market price of photographs as ten rands. In the Department's submission to Treasury, they had estimated the cost at twenty rands.

Mr Mamabolo added that photographs generally cost about fifteen rands in metropolitan areas and up to thirty rands in rural areas. The Treasury estimate seemed too low. He thought that Treasury might have assumed that the Department had cameras and would only have to pay for the cost of film, but this was not the case. Discussions on this issue were ongoing.

Prince Zulu stated that he was satisfied with the officials' report. It was comforting to hear that capacity could be increased to accommodate twenty-five thousand applications per day. The monthly reports should be available to the Committee every first week of the month. He asked how the regional offices ensured that people came to ID campaign venues.

Mr Tshabalala replied that the offices engaged with local media and placed notices at strategic places such as taxi ranks.

Mr Mamabolo added that the Department was to set a date with political party leaders to launch the ID campaign. A radio campaign was also planned using the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). It was too expensive to use private media or television. The Department also had pamphlets and banners to make citizens aware of the campaign.

Ms Gxowa suggested that the Department target schools and churches. Also, farm workers were far from taxi ranks where the information was displayed.

Ms Gxowa asked about volunteers. Were they paid?

Mr Tshabalala replied that each Department had to have a policy on volunteers. They were paid R40 per day to cover their transport and lunch costs. Volunteers were not bound by contract and could stay away at will.

Ms M Maunye (ANC) asked about the R12 million programme in the Eastern Cape.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) objected to the officials presenting without documentation. He also asked about the R12 million programme in the Eastern Cape. How did this relate to the R15 million of R60 million that the Department received? Were one hundred and twenty mobile units enough?

Mr M Kalako (ANC) asked how the mobile units were distributed by province. Had the Department tried to use municipal resources for the campaign? Were MPs' resources being used?

The Chair asked how the mobile units were equipped.

Mr Tshabalala replied that the Department had received only R15 million because this was all Treasury had said was available. They would be asking for an additional R60 million.

Mr Mamabolo responded that he did not have a breakdown of the mobile units. This information would be sent to the Committee. Each unit compromised a vehicle, fingerprint equipment, forms and other stationery. Mobile units were not equipped with electronic equipment. The units liased with vendors for photographs. There was a problem when vendors required guarantees that accompanying the units would not mean reduced income.

The Department was engaging with all role players, including municipal offices, with a view to sharing resources.

The youth and rural communities were the targets of the campaign. Farming communities were targeted as part of the rural focus. Matriculants require IDs to write their examinations, so schools were visited at the beginning of each year for this. This did not mean that they would not be visited again during the campaign. He was not aware of any use of churches for the campaign and would seek advice on this suggestion. The Department emphasised that politicians should use their constituency resources where possible.

The R12 million programme in the Eastern Cape was a Social Development support grant programme on which the Department had piggybacked. It was funded by a private donor and administered by Deloitte and Touche. The funds were not related to the R15 million from Treasury. He hoped he had not caused confusion and had merely cited this as an example of the Department co-operating with others to optimise resources.

Ms Maunye observed that, during the last visit to the Eastern Cape, the Committee had been told of six mobile units bought with funds from Deloitte and Touche.

The Chair added that these units were now simply parked.

Mr Mamabolo responded that the units did not belong to the Department.

The Chair noted that the Western Cape had two cameras and that these were used when going to farming areas. It would be good for other provinces to do the same. There appeared to be problems in liaising with the Department. For example, Port St John's had set aside R100 thousand for cameras but there had been no liaison between them and the Department. Portfolio Committee task teams would monitor the provincial ID campaigns.

Ms Borman noted that people tended to leave applications until the last minute, when the Department would not have the capacity to deal with applications. Had the Department identified the number of people needing to register for IDs? Had targets been set?

Mr Mamabolo replied that the question was difficult to answer because census data was not yet available for estimates. Indications were that the 2001 census would only be available in September or October. Working with 1996 census figures and past experience and making projections, the Department expected 1.5 million applications for new IDs.

The Chair noted that the Department input had been informative even if they had not had a document to follow. The Committee should write a formal letter to Treasury supporting the Department's requests for waiving ID application fees and providing free photographs.

Immigration Regulations
Discussion
The Clerk stated that the Committee had agreed that members should study the draft Regulations and identify areas needing clarity. Earlier in the year the Committee had raised concerns about the current Regulations and these had been sent to the Chief State Law Advisor and the Parliamentary Law Advisor. The resulting correspondence had been given to the Committee. The Committee was now to deliberate on its concerns about the draft Regulations.

Mr Pretorius noted that clarity was needed on the regions and on Section 19.

The Chair stated that a document giving the Committee's views would be compiled and sent to the Minister or Immigration Advisory Board (IAB). According to the Act, any suggestions that were not incorporated had to be returned with reasons given for their exclusion from the Regulations.

Adv F Jenkins (Parliamentary Law Advisor) stated that the draft Regulations had been tabled and published. Forty days had been allowed for comment. Suggestions then either had to be incorporated or, if rejected, reasons given. Final Regulations had then to be published and would come into effect. Parliament had no right to veto the Regulations.

Mr Pretorius asked if there would be a further forty days for comment since the period for public comment had ended.

Adv Jenkins replied that the cut-off date was 2 June but there was nothing in the Act to prevent someone from asking that comments be considered after that date.

Mr Pretorius stated that, as he understood the Act, the process would be ongoing. If the final Regulations took effect and six months after that someone objected to a Regulation, this objection could be raised with the IAB.

The Chair said that they needed to be guided by Section 7. This laid down two periods of public comment.

Adv Jenkins stated that it appeared that the process was in the second phase since the draft Regulations had been tabled and published.

The Chair said that the route to be taken was to refine the Committee's presentation. A submission should be made by 4 June. He asked if Adv Jenkins had noticed any problems.

Adv Jenkins replied that he had had very little time in which to look at the matter. He had concerns but could not express a firm legal opinion. The fees laid down in Regulation 28(3) seemed unreasonable. There could be a problem around the appointment of any legal persona as an immigration officer, as stated in Regulation 4(4). One could appoint a company, which would then have powers of search and arrest. This would have practical problems. Did it mean that everyone in the company had these powers? Would they be transferred to a security company? The concern was that such powers should not be outsourced. However, he needed at least two or three days to go through the Regulations properly.

The Chair agreed that Adv Jenkins had had very little time. The Committee had identified the training fee in Regulation 28(3) as a problem. He thought Adv Jenkins had raised a critical point regarding the outsourcing of powers of search and arrest. The Committee had rejected the outsourcing of powers during deliberations on the Bill. He agreed that the process should continue. Concerns could then be submitted for the Committee to work through section by section at the next meeting.

The Chair stated that the Committee should look into the implementation of the Act. They would be going out and meeting stakeholders and could then make recommendations based on experience. He drew members' attention to items 17 (meeting with refugees and stakeholders, and a visit to Lindela holding centre) and 19 (visit to Ports of Entry) on the committee programme.

Mr Pretorius stated that the Committee should interact with the IAB as soon as the Board became operative.

Prince Zulu stated that he was happy with discussions on the Regulations. It was pleasing that no recommendations could simply be ignored and that reasons had to be given if they were rejected. He asked to be excused so that he could attend another meeting for which he was already half an hour late.

Mr Kalako said that, with the establishment of the IAB, the Committee could submit their objections and recommendations to the Board and to the Minister. The Committee should not be left out of the process.

The Chair replied that the Committee had an opportunity to make input at least until the Regulations were adopted.

Mr Pillay asked if the Committee could table legislation to deal with irregularities in the Regulations if they were so serious.

The Chair responded that this was one option. He would consult with the Legal Advisors. Currently, the Act did not give Parliament powers regarding the Regulations. The Committee should use the open arrangement to submit their views and receive a response. They could then engage with the Department. He expressed a concern that, if the Department won the case in the Constitutional Court, they would ignore the Section 7 process and implement the earlier Regulations. The programme would have to be amended to allow for ongoing engagement with the Department on this matter.

Programme
The Chair asked the Committee to adopt the programme.

Mr Kalako asked that, when the Committee considered Ports of Entry, they established whether the Department was ready to deploy to new Ports of Entry.

Mr Pretorius expressed concern that item 14 (Delegation to visit Limpopo) occurred at the same time as the Budget Vote.

The Chair agreed to look into this. In the mean while, the Committee should adopt the programme.

The programme was adopted and the meeting adjourned.