Home Affairs BRRR; Committee Report on Sterkspruit, Eastern Cape oversight; Memorandum in support of migrants and Refugees from Catholic Archdiocese of Cape Town, with Minister

Home Affairs

17 October 2017
Chairperson: Mr B Mashile (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In the presence of the Minister of Home Affairs, the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs considered and adopted the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) on the performance of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) 2017 and the Oversight Report to Sterkspruit, Eastern Cape as well as considered the memorandum in support of migrants and refugees from the Catholic Archdiocese of Cape Town.

Firstly, the BRRR amendments were effected in accordance with Members’ inputs provided in the previous meeting. Further amendments included the withdrawal of recommendations 7.2.25 and 7.2.33. Members had mixed feelings on the issue of River Side Office. Some were in support of the condonation of irregular expenditure whereas others viewed irregular expenditure in the context of corruption. It was suggested that in situations where corruption was involved, an inquiry should be instituted until someone was held accountable.

The Minister was asked to elaborate on the question of liquidity and according to the Minister; the question of liquidity remained unclear. On the question of recommending investigations or inquiry, Members were of the view that this level could be reached when matter(s) had been dealt with according to law, in particular, according to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and according to Treasury regulations. After these processes, the Committee should decide to have an investigation or not.

Secondly, the Committee considered and adopted the Oversight Report to Sterkspruit, Eastern Cape with minor amendments. Members commented that an individual to head the DHA Stakeholder Forum should not be restricted to a councillor who was a political figure. A head should be extended to include other individuals playing a meaningful role in the community. Members also noted that an awareness campaign to sensitise members of the community that helping foreign nationals to acquire South African identity documents was not only wrong but illegal. A question of whether these people who come from neighbouring communities across the border should be termed foreigners was raised. A new term should be used to distinguish them from foreign nationals who come from the north.

Thirdly, the Committee considered the memorandum in support of migrants and refugees from the Catholic Archdiocese of Cape Town. The Committee resolved that the Office of the Deputy Speaker should inform the Archdiocese that the memo was considered and that they will be invited to present oral submissions.

Meeting report

Consideration and adoption of the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR)

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would be considering the BRRR for adoption. The report was amended in accordance with Members’ inputs provided in the previous meeting. He asked Members to check whether all their inputs are reflecting in the report.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) commented that the recommendation 7.2.33 should be removed and thus the report should be adopted with amendments

The Chairperson noted that the recommendation 7.2.33 would find expression in the future as they moved forward – when the Committee had all the details and all discussions. It was evident that the matter was in the hand of National Treasury. The matter would be again discussed in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). 

Mr M Kekana (ANC) said he disagreed with corruption-related recommendations. Corruption should not be promoted. In situations where corruption was involved, an inquiry should be instituted until someone accounted. Members are aware of the recommendation made by the Public Protector and he asked why the recommendation was being ignored or overlooked. It looked as if some people had personal interest in the issue of River Side Office. He agreed with Mr Gumede that recommendation 7.2.33 should be scrapped because it was dealt with in terms of law.

Mr Gumede, referring to recommendation 7.2.33, remarked that it should be scrapped because it should be dealt according to law, in particular, the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 (PFMA) and the treasury regulations. Until then, the Committee should decide to have an investigation or not. The normal process was that the matter should first be dealt with in accordance with the PFMA. After PFMA, Treasury could consider the matter. Similarly, he wanted to remove recommendation 7.2.25 because it was, in his view, premature to call for an investigation. Rather, the Committee should allow normal due processes to take their courses and the Committee should take decisions on the basis of outcomes of these processes.

The Chairperson noted that recommendations 7.2.25 and 7.2.33 should be withdrawn.

Mr Adam Salmon, Content Advisor, referred the Committee to page 13 where changed were made under the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC). Some details were added in terms of shortage of funds and under the Government of Printing Works (GPW), in particular, recommendation 4.4.13, expressed its intent to become a state-owned company and that the recommendation was rectified to speak to the previous briefing. Amendments were made with regard to page 15, 22, 29, and 33. On page 15, more information – as per discussion of Members – was added with regard to the IEC’s River Side Park office. On page 33, outstanding issues were removed from recommendation 7.1. On page 29, recommendations were cleaned up to make them recommendations in general.

The Chairperson took the Committee through report page by page

On page 16, Ms D Raphuti (ANC) sought clarity on consequence management.

The Chairperson responded that the consequence management ensured that people who committed fraud or corruption or other wrongdoings were dealt with. It was too broad to encompass disciplinary action, disciplinary hearing and inquiry or investigation.

On page 18, the Chairperson said the report should state that recommendations of the Auditor-General were made under the audit outcomes and not under the Annual Report.

Page 19 to 35 accepted without comments.

Referring to the IEC on page 36, Mr Gumede said that, in the financial statements of the IEC, concerns were raised in respect of the IEC’s liability. Members should recall that he asked where the IEC was going to get money to run the day-to-day business. The answer to this question was not clear. His concern was that if the IEC’s financial performance was not monitored and, one day, one will found that the IEC could not pay petrol for their operational cars or unable to pay basic office needs. The integrity of the IEC would be affected if the IEC could not have petty cash to pay small daily activities. He proposed that the IEC should be closely monitored.

The Chairperson said that they had talked about liquidity and asked the Minister to elaborate on that so that the Committee should be able to take a decision.

The Minister responded that, when they briefed the Committee sometime in April 2017, it was not clear that they could process work prior to reporting to the Committee. The Minister said that she wanted to raise her concerns prior to adoption of the report. Referring to the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) related recommendation, she said that DHA should be exempted. The recommendation on SITA should be reviewed because e DHA was happy to work with SITA.

The Chairperson responded that there was engagement with the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services. The problem was that SARS had deviated from SITA. At borders, SARS’s internet connection was better than the DHA. The problem with SITA was that it had three legs before the DHA could receive the connectivity services. The intention (of recommendation) was that SITA should reduce those legs. In the previous year, SITA briefed the Committee and promised the heaven and earth. Yet, there was still no improvement. In the last SITA briefing, they were talking about reconfigurations and changing connectivity system. The recommendation was made in accordance with the existing situation. SARS was enjoying better connectivity than DHA. SITA had no capacity to provide connectivity service. The Committee had no intention of assisting DHA in order to find a good connectivity service provider. The duty of the Committee was to assist the DHA to be an effective entity.

The Minister said that when it comes to connectivity, DHA faced huge problems. Since 2010, a decision was taken to follow SARS’s connectivity. People laughed at DHA and said that its connectivity was in ICU and strongly believed that the DHA would collapse anytime. A good solution was that the DHA built its own IT infrastructure. It was not SARS that agreed to host the DHA but other IT service provider.

The Chairperson said that they were trying to enable the DHA to work.

Ms N Dambuza (ANC) agreed with the Minister. The paragraph should be revised to reflect what the Minister said that the DHA should plan to have its own IT infrastructure. She asked Mr Adam to assist the Committee to revise the paragraph.

The Chairperson said that they should move to adoption.

Ms Dambuza moved to adoption of the report with amendments.

The BRRR was adopted with amendments.

Consideration and adoption of the Oversight Report to Sterkspruit, Eastern Cape

The Chairperson said that the report would be considered page by page.

On page 2, Ms T Kenye (ANC) said that a change should be made to read as the ‘rural municipality’.

On the observation Mr Gumede said that it should be noted that the stakeholders’ forum was headed by a councillor.

The Minister remarked that the stakeholders’ forum was headed by a political figure in order to mobilise members of the community. It could also be a priest or someone heading an NGO. It would sound political if the position was restricted to councillor.

The Chairperson that there were people who were willing to give their documents to foreigners in order to register births as South Africans and those who were willing to pay in order to register births. A paternity test was needed to ensure that children were born to fathers who were South Africans. There was a problem of people who were crossing the South African/Lesotho border as nothing could stop them or force them to pass at ports of entry.

Ms Dambuza, referring to the recommendation (9.4), said that it should not be a councillor. The forum should not be headed by a politician.  On the question of documentation, she noted that councillors and traditional leaders should be involved. The question of documentation should be dealt with by DHA along with the municipality and the forum. When there was a problem of fighting against foreign nationals, the municipality would get involved.

The Minister asked Members to assist on how the question of documents should be resolved. In most communities, members would support foreign nationals when the DHA inspectors detected foreign nationals. The communities would say that these people had been living with us for so long and, for that reason, they were neither illegal foreigners nor foreign nationals. There was always a conflict between inspectors and communities.

Mr Gumede said that these problems were found at the border with Swaziland and Lesotho where South Africans had families across the border. They had to attend weddings and other social or cultural activities. There was a special arrangement made between traditional leaders to allow members of their communities to cross the borders as they liked.

The Chairperson said that they were trying to develop an education campaign to educate communities at borders the impact of fraudulent documentation. The communities should know that foreign nationals should not be documented.

Ms Dambuza said that the issue of foreigners should be not be generalised because those people whom were termed foreigners were communities across the border, who should not be mistaken with people from the north. The report should not state that they were foreigners; rather the report should talk about communities across the borders. South Africa had families in these communities.

The Chairperson disagreed. He noted that foreign nationals from far afield like China and Pakistan were using the same borders to access South Africa.  

Ms Kenye moved for adoption.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) seconded.

The report was adopted with amendments.

Consideration of the memorandum in support of migrants and refugees from the Catholic Archdiocese of Cape Town

The Chairperson said that the memo was sent by the Deputy Speaker and asked Members how the memo would be dealt with.

Mr Gumede proposed that the memo should be tabled together with others when considering the 2006 Green Paper on International Migration.

The Chairperson said that the memo was, in a nutshell, saying that South Africans should not worry because their houses were also the houses of fellow foreigners. He stressed that South Africa was a sovereign country, which would open its borders in a manner that was progressing and in accord to other progressing country. The Archdiocese should come and address the Committee as this would help the Committee to understand their position.

Mr M Hoosen (DA) agreed. He asked whether the Speaker should advise the Archdiocese that they would come and report.

Ms Dambuza proposed that the Chairperson should rather respond to the Archdiocese. and that the Committee would consider the memo when they ome and submit oral submission. In other words, the Chairperson should acknowledge the receipt of the memo and should state that the memo would be discussed in the next meeting.

Ms Raphuti seconded the proposal. She was of the view that more consultation was needed on how to deal with the memo.

The Chairperson said that they should be invited to speak but the acknowledgement of the receipt of memo should be done by the Deputy Speaker.

Mr Hoosen remarked that the memo took five months to get to the Committee because of bureaucracy. It would be fair if the Chairperson responded and explained them what would be done with their memo.

The Chairperson reiterated that it was the Deputy Speaker who should write to them. The Chairperson would write to them when they are about to consider the matter. That was when he would be inviting them.

The Minister agreed. She however said that when writing to the Deputy Speaker it should be emphasised that people should be treated fairly in accordance with the parliamentary policy. A quick response to Archdiocese should be sent in which they would be advised that they would be invited to come and brief the Committee.

The Chairperson agreed.

The meeting was adjourned. 

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: