Office of the Chief Justice & Information Regulator 2019/20 Annual Performance Plans, with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson greeted members of the Committee and asked them to be mindful of time constraints. He welcomed officials from the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) and the Deputy Minister to the meeting.
 
Briefing by Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) on 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan and Budget 

Ms Memme Sejosengwe, Secretary-General, OCJ, greeted members of the Committee and introduced the Office’s executive management team.
 
She said the Department had 3 programmes: Administration, Superior Court Services and Judicial Education and Support. The Department had achieved a clean audit outcome for the 2018/19 financial year and it estimates to achieve the same outcome for the 2019/20 financial year. The medium-term target for the Fraud Prevention Strategy is to implement it in 24 Superior Courts. The medium-term target for achieving quasi-judicial targets is at 100%. The medium-term targets for conducting case management workshops for court officials is at 2 and conducting judicial education courses is at 80 for the financial year. 
 
In order to improve efficiency and effectiveness in court administration through the use of technology, the OCJ has prioritised the implementation of an e-filing project that will be rolled-out to all Superior Courts by the 2021/22 financial year. The e-filing project will modernise court processes through the use of digital technology for effective and efficient service delivery. In order to contribute towards knowledge and skills enhancement at the courts, the SAJEI will continue to facilitate judicial education and training for Judicial Officers in line with its mandate as informed by the South African Judicial Education Institute Act, 2008 (Act No 14 of 2008).
 
Mr Cassie Coetzer, Chief Financial Officer, OCJ, said the OCJ achieved 100% expenditure. The following figures were presented to Members as medium-term estimates of expenditure: R2.1 billion for Administration, R9 billion for Superior Courts Services and R82.9 million for Judicial Education and Support. The medium-term expenditure estimate for judges’ salaries was at R1 billion. The total amount budgeted for compensation of employees, goods and services, interest and interest on land, transfers and subsidies, payments for capital and financial assets is estimated at R2.1 billion for the financial year. 
 
Ms Sejosengwe said the OCJs key strategic risks include the inability to fully capacitate the OCJ, possible exposure to fraud and corruption, inadequate implementation of the Master Systems Plan(MSP), inadequate quasi-judicial services rendered and lack of control over security and facilities. The Department has action plans in place to address these challenges. These include, amongst other things, the reprioritization of funds and posts, monitoring of the implementation of the fraud prevention plan, requesting additional funding from the National Treasury, continuous training of Registrars and continuous monitoring of facilities and infrastructure. 
 
(See presentation)
 
Discussion 

The Chairperson thanked the OCJ for its presentation and asked Members to raise questions and make inputs. 
 
Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) thanked the OCJ for including its strategic risks in the presentation. He noted that the OCJ had expressed frustration with budget cuts and how it affects various programmes, such as the Information Technology (IT) systems and the MSP as it relates to the effectiveness and efficiency of the courts. Was the entity still carrying these frustrations today?The Chief Justice released a report indicating the number of reserved judgments that take longer than 6 months to hand down since the date of hearing. Is this situation still persisting? On the percentage of funded vacant posts, should the OCJ be comfortable with achieving 10% or lower? What is the vacancy rate as of today? He hoped the entity would have planned for a lower percentage given its size. 
 
Mr Dyantyi asked for clarity on the total voted numbers and the total economic classification numbers. Why are they not the same? On the strategic risk of inadequate quasi-judicial services rendered, what kind of plan did the entity have in place to address this? On the strategic risk of lack of control over security and facilities, the OCJ said it will monitor with the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ & CD) to ensure its budget is spent. Where are you on that? What is holding the OCJ back in addressing this? 
 
Adv H Mohamed (ANC) congratulated the OCJ on its 2017/18 unqualified audit outcome and the good progress made on fraudulent court orders. He said some still prevail in the Magistrates Courts and hopes the progress can be sustained. Parliament needs to be able to conduct oversight on the court performance of the High Courts. The heads of court decided to delink the responsibility of the administrative office of the OCJ on the correct model of reporting on court performance. Besides the release of the report last year which provided the public with performance statistics, what other mechanisms are in place for the Committee to assess court performance? There were 87 judgments reserved for longer than 6 months since the date of hearing. There needs to be an interim mechanism that provides for performance assessment and monitoring. On the practice directives issued by the Chief Justice, can Members be provided with an updated report on how norms and standards have been given effect to? The updated report should focus only on the High Courts at this stage. This will enable members to assess whether there is sufficient administrative support and the degree of compliance in terms of norms and standards. 
 
Adv Mohamed said a judicial governance court model has been in the making for a couple of years now. Sections 165 and 166 of the Constitution stipulates this is a responsibility of the executive. Does the OCJ have any progress on it? The language of record in the courts is English for reasons of certainty and various other reasons. The High Courts will set the tone of new processes. What has been the progress in giving effect to this directive? The Committee noted the transitional process the OCJ and the DOJ & CD have engaged in over the last few years and the responsibilities they have towards each other. On the percentage of J1 warrants of release delivered within one day of the release issued, was the OCJ referring only to the High Courts? 
 
Adv G Breytenbach (DA) said there are problems being experienced in relation to the tools of trade. This function has not been fully transferred to the OCJ. Can the Committee be updated on this? Ms Patricia de Lille, the new Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, said the courts were a disgrace and the air conditioning has not been working for the last 20 years. Has this input been provided to the OCJ? What is the progress on this? There have been problems with internal computer systems which have been down for several weeks. What caused it? Has it been resolved and what measures have been put in place to make sure it does not happen again? What is the status of the Mpumalanga High Court? There is a journalist who published an article on this and the OCJ denied its contents. 
 
Mr W Horn (DA) said Members left with a feeling of unease after the accountability session in November last year. Members were not treated well. They were first informed they would join members of the judiciary in the holding room, thereafter they were told there was limited space. Members had to find their own way to the court where the session took place. The content of the judicial accountability session should at least include mention of judicial conduct and reserved judgments. The OCJ needs to look at the format of judicial accountability sessions. The matter of financial accountability as it applies to travelling needs to be looked at. The OCJ is the custodian of public money and as a result there can never be a strict separation of responsibility between the Department and the judiciary. It is the responsibility of the OCJ to at least interact with the way in which the judiciary deals with its issues as this has a financial impact.
 
Mr S Swart (ACDP) said the public satisfaction with the courts’ treatment of criminal perpetrators has declined over the last 6 years. The OCJ says it has put steps in place to address this. Can it provide the Committee with an update on the communication strategies? There are more and more public demonstrations so this is a matter of great concern. Can the Committee be provided with an update on what it is doing to enhance the public image of the judiciary? He suggested the Speaker of Parliament and the Committee should meet with the Chief Justice to flesh out the issues noted at the accountability session in November last year. An issue that needs to be dealt directly with the Chief Justice is the backlog of Road Accident Fund matters and case management. Members must find a way to put this meeting into their diaries. 
 
Mr T Mulaudzi (EFF) asked how far the Department is in establishing a single judiciary system in terms of section 166 of the Constitution. The accountability session in November was not planned well. Members must first be briefed by the OCJ at the next one. One of the issues raised during the accountability session was the ever-increasing workload. Does the OCJ have a contingency plan to assist the judiciary with the ever-increasing workload? On the e-filing system, how far is the establishment of it in the Superior Courts? When will it be done? The issue of infrastructure needs to be addressed, especially in the High Courts, where they don’t have air conditioning. Can the OCJ follow up with the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure on this? 
 
Mr Mulaudzi asked for the statistics on reserved judgments. How many are there and what plans are in place to reduce them? Judgments must be released as soon as possible. Can members be provided with the view of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on reserved judgments? The financial expenditure on travelling is a concern. Where were OCJ officials and the judiciary travelling to for such a high amount in 1 financial year? There was a report released in May of this year on language discrimination in the courts. How did the OCJ respond to these allegations? Having an offline system in the High Courts is a concern. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible. There is a new practice directive going to be introduced by Justice Aubrey Ledwaba, the Deputy President Judge of the North Gauteng High Court, which many lawyers think will cause a backlog. What informs this practice directive? What is the status of the macro-organisational structure of the Department? On the issue of recruitment and training of judicial officers, what is the reason for the delay?  
 
Ms Sejosengwe replied that the Chief Justice issues a report on reserved judgments and this is given to the JSC. The practice directive issued by Justice Ledwaba is dealt with in the structures of the JSC. Part of the functions of the JSC is to deal with judicial conduct as well as practice directives. The court systems record of language is English. This matter will be taken further with the Chief Justice. The concerns raised by Members around the accountability session is noted and the OCJ apologises for not engaging with Members. On the content heard in the sessions, the OCJ will convey it to the Chief Justice and the heads of courts. The proposed meeting with the Speaker of Parliament and the Committee will also be communicated with the Chief Justice. 
 
Ms Sejosengwe said the institutional model for judicial administration has been in the pipeline for quite some time. There is an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of Cabinet members who are looking at this matter. On the norms and standards of judicial officers, this is monitored by the JSC. The establishment of a single judicial system in terms of section 166 of the Constitution lies in the hands of the executive. The Deputy Minister may be able to assist in answering this question. On the vacancy rate, the 10% is prescribed by the Department of Public Service and Administration that states it must be kept below this threshold. The OCJ currently has 152 vacant posts (7.2%) and this is below the threshold. On the question of the system being down, as the organisation grows its systems are not able to carry the weight but the system is back on track now and judges are also helping to ensure the system is online. The OCJ is looking at ways to correct it from happening again. On the e-filing project, the Head of Court Administration will explain where we are in terms of the implementation progress.
 
Mr Coetzer said the OCJ has addressed the issue of budget cuts in a previous Committee meeting. On the amount used for travelling, this includes the total budget for travelling, accommodation and rentals of vehicles. It includes all the judges and JSC members when they have JSC sittings. It also includes the training budget of magistrates and judges across the country as well as witnesses and officials in the Department. Only a small portion of the budget is allocated exclusively for judges. The main amount goes to administrative support. The rendering of circuit courts remains a huge cost driver and this amount is also taken from the travelling and subsistence amount. It is not just the travelling of judges but the whole operation of the organisation.  
 
Mr Coetzer said the OCJ had submitted a comprehensive report back to the journalist and it was published. When the transfer of functions from the DOJ & CD to the OCJ was done, certain functions were retained in the former. Two retained functions were infrastructure and the capital management of infrastructure. All capital maintenance issues and budget remains a function of the DOJ & CD, as well as the provision of security services. There is a committee between the Department, the DOJ & CD and the Department of Public Works (DPW) to deal with the challenges of general maintenance and conditions of the Superior Courts. The OCJ raises the issue of air conditioning in the committee. There is a bilateral establishment between the Secretary-General of the Department and the Director-General of the DPW to address the problem of the accounting offices. The DPW started with a project, the budget was allocated and the air conditioning in the North Gauteng offices have been sorted. On the High Court in Mpumalanga, the Chief Justice still needs to give feedback on this. 
 
Ms Sejosengwe said the Judge President of the High Court in Mpumalanga has been appointed but other judges are still to be appointed. The Judge President has opened up the operations of the court and the OCJ is assisting him to make sure staff are in place. The OCJ is also working with the DPW to make sure the facility is being resourced as required. The macro-organisational structure of the Department is approved by Cabinet. There has been an advertisement for the 2 positions of Deputy Director-General. The reasons for the delay in judicial training will be given to members by way of written responses. 
 
Mr Nathi Mncube, Chief Director: Court Administration, OCJ, said the Chief Justice indicated that the e-filing project was supposed to be piloted within 6 months.The delay is because litigants file in terms of the Rules of the Court. The Rules need to be amended to allow litigants to file electronically. At the end of this month or early next month, a draft of the Rules will be finalised. The part of the e-filing system which does not require such an amendment is how evidence is presented in court. This part of the e-filing system will be piloted in the identified courts towards the end of this month. The judiciary has decided that all reserved judgments are being published on the OCJ website and performance of it can be tracked in this way. 
 
Ms Sejosengwe said the OCJs frustrations with the budget cuts are no different from other state departments. The OCJ is bracing itself for the next cut as it will have an impact on its operations. The issues raised by Members which were not answered will be provided in written responses and given to the Committee Secretary. 
 
Mr John Jeffery, Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, said the court administration model still has to be finalised. An IMC was set up and is ready to present its proposals to the executive. The OCJ is administering the High Courts and the DOJ & CD is administering the Magistrate Courts. The legislation applying to Magistrates Courts is advanced. As part of the model, the issue of accountability becomes a question. With the Magistrates Courts, people can get statistics on their performance and raise issues with different role players, such as the National Prosecuting Authority in criminal matters. On inviting the Chief Justice to Parliament, he suggested this comes from the Chairperson of the Committee and the Speaker of Parliament rather than the Secretary-General of the OCJ on their behalf. In the past, former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson met with the Committee and made it clear that he was not being summoned but was there to share his views. Judges should not be involved in the administration and can not account to Parliament. It is a sensitive issue so it would be best for Parliament to invite the Chief Justice.
 
The Chairperson said issues of mutual interest will be discussed in the JSC. The oversight model issue affects the type of information members receive in order to perform oversight. The funded vacancy rate target should be at 0%. The rate as it is can’t be justified in light of the high unemployment rate. He thanked officials from the Department for its presentation and the Deputy Minister for being in attendance. 
 
The Chairperson welcomed officials from the Information Regulator and asked them to begin the presentation. 
 
Briefing by the Information Regulator on 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan and Budget 
Adv Pansy Tlakula, Chairperson, Information Regulator, explained that the Information Regulator (IR) is a body established in terms of section 39 of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). The IR is an independent juristic person subject to the Constitution. It remains accountable to the National Assembly (NA). It is akin to a chapter 9 institution except it was established only recently. It cannot be in the Constitution unless the Constitution is amended to include it. Its members were appointed by the President on the recommendation of the NA for a period of 5 years. The members were eligible for re-election. The IR was empowered to establish its own administration in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Its funds consist of the sums appropriated to it annually by Parliament. It is currently sharing offices with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). 
 
Adv Tlakula said the establishment of the IR has been very difficult. The entire organisational structure of the IR was near completion and will be presented to the Minister of Finance. The body had appointed a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer who both started on 1 July. 
 
Adv Tlakula stated that the area of personal information law was new and was a continuous learning curve. The IR was nervous for budget cuts and will present a realistic budget to the National Treasury (NT). The IR must be at the centre of the fourth industrial revolution. The right to privacy of personal information was a serious area of human rights law.
 
The Chairperson welcomed the Deputy Minister to the second half of the meeting. 
 
Deputy Minister Jeffery said he had decided to stay because he had been involved in the Protection of Personal Information Bill in Parliament. When the Act comes into effect, the opt-out processes for telecommunications will end. This was relevant during the election campaign where people were complaining of unsolicited SMS’s from political parties. The requirements of the Act will only allow 1 message to be sent. When there is a data breach, the IR must be fully set up and running to deal with this. 
 
Mr Marks Thibela, CEO, Information Regulator, said the Public Awareness Strategy and Plan will be approved in the first quarter and implemented in the second, third and fourth quarter. The Communications and Branding Strategy will be developed only in the fourth quarter. The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Plan will be developed in the first quarter, approved in the second quarter and implemented in the third and fourth quarter. The Research Strategy and Plan will be developed in the first and second quarter and approved in the third and fourth quarter. The Guidelines for Codes of Conduct and the Guidelines for the registration of Information Officers will both be approved and published in the fourth quarter. The Memorandum of Cooperation between the IR and the SAHRC will be implemented in the third and fourth quarter. In handling complaints related to alleged violations of POPIA, the Complaints Management Processes will be tested and piloted in the fourth quarter. The first phase of the organisational structure has taken place and the approval of the second phase is the annual target. The IR is currently using the recruitment policy of the DOJ & CD until it has approved its own in the fourth quarter. It is important for the IR to have its own system and to fully migrate away from the DOJ & CD. Key finance policies need to be developed, analysed and then approved in order to effect this. The IR has engaged with the DOJ & CD and a separation plan has also been put in place to guide the migration. 
 
Mr Prakash Narismulu, Chief Financial Officer, Information Regulator, said the IR was still a relatively small organisation so the majority of the budget was allocated to employee compensation which stood at R19.5 million. Goods and services was at R6.6 million and machinery and equipment totalled R2.8 million. The total budget allocated by DOJ &CD was R28.9 million.  As a result of the high vacancies at executive level and administrative support level, the IR will have to account to the NT for significant savings. In addition, the IR has submitted a request to the DOJ & CD for additional funding for the current financial year. The IR intends to start operations and anticipates that an additional budget is required. There has been interactions with the CFO of the DOJ & CD in order to make a separation plan. As the IR implements internal controls and builds its capacity, the budget will start to take shape. 
 
Discussion

The Chairperson said the timelines for the rollout of the various strategies was too tight and the organisation was too thin. When one looked at the number of policies that still needed to be drafted, approved and implemented, was the IR certain it would be able to stick to the timelines set out? Members need to be reassured of this. 
 
Mr Dyantyi said the presentation seems like an inaugural establishment of the IR. He reiterated the Chairperson’s sentiments that its timelines are ambitious. When is the starting point and where is the organisation now? We are already in the second quarter so some of the targets should already have been met. Did the presentation deal with things that must still start? The IR must do some homework about its desires to become a chapter 9 institution. It must familiarise itself with members of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) and think of proposals to present on the amendment of the Constitution. What is the entity’s action plan for the engagement with the NT? On finance, how much additional funding was requested from DOJ & CD?
 
Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) said the IR will have to deal with complaints management processes. How did it plan to deal with this? On stakeholder management, this takes time and requires expertise and needs to be considered in the budget. On the office period, she noted that members are elected for a period of not more than 5 years. Did this also cover the Chairperson? She reiterated the sentiments of Dyantyi that the IR must do its homework and familiarise itself with members who are in the CRC.
 
Adv Mohamed said the IR must settle the matter of whether it is going to be a chapter 9 institution in the Constitution or not. On goods and services, what were the main cost drivers? Does it include meetings with stakeholders and looking at models? Can the IR elaborate on this? 
 
Mr Horn recalled that the last meeting in October of 2018 indicated a different picture of the organisational structure. Will all the issues be sorted out so that things can be presented to the Minister of Finance? If not, it will still take months for things to be finalised. The other executive positions are still in process but Members were told these positions were going to be advertised. Have they been advertised? Are the appointments imminent? On the budget for employee compensation, how many funded positions does it include? What is the type of support staff that is to be appointed? Everything can’t be done by the members themselves. 
 
Mr Horn pointed out that the IR Chairperson has been appointed to the UN Human Rights body and will take up the position in 2020. While he noted that it was always commendable to have a South African appointed to a world body, he questioned if the Chairperson will vacate her position and if her absence will have an impact on the organisation. In terms of internal arrangements and accountability, to what extent was this second position agreed upon?
 
Mr Swart said the previous Committee was frustrated with the slow pace in the October 2018 meeting. This Committee will be a lot firmer and find ways to assist the IR to become operational as quickly as possible. To what degree can the Committee assist with hiccups from the DOJ & CD? There are very few decisions the IR has been able to take and there is concern around the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and the SAHRC and their capacities. Timelines are very important. On the finances, if the IR foresees substantial saving, the NT will take that money back. At the same the IR will be negotiating with the NT for additional funds. The Committee has certain powers in terms of the Monetary Bills Act to shift funds from one programme to another and can help the IR in this regard.  
 
Mr Mulaudzi said the expenditure is not detailed. Can the entity detail the R27.4 million for the 2018/19 financial year in writing and provide it to Members? For the current financial year, the IR was allocated R29 million for establishment. How long is it going to take to become a fully-fledged established entity? When is it going to be listed on the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA)? There is an issue between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. Can clarity be provided on this? Does IR consult the Minister of Finance alone and without the Minster of Justice and Correctional Services? On accommodation, is the IR permanently moving to the SAHRC offices or in the future will you need your own offices?
 
Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked how public awareness will be implemented. People with disabilities must be able to access the IR. With social media, the youth put personal information on the internet without realising the consequences. How will the Act protect the youth?
 
Deputy Minister Jeffery said the view of Parliament in passing POPIA was that the IR should be similar to chapter 9 institutions but not included in the Constitution. When the Bill was being dealt with, part of the delay was coming from the NT who wanted the accounting officer to be a member of the IR and not the CEO. In terms of PFMA, the Act specifies that the CEO is the accounting officer. From this, it is clear that the CEO is the accounting officer but NT was raising concerns. Regulators are given real power, they can impose fines for breaches and in terms of PAIA they can determine whether information can be released or not. NT raised concerns regarding the salary levels of Regulators and the officials who would be making such decisions. 
 
Deputy Minister Jeffery said what needs to be done is a statutory amendment to the PFMA rather than saying the IR should be a chapter 9 institution. If the Committee wants it to be a chapter 9 institution, Members must lobby for this and not the IR. On the issue of the Ministers, the Minister of Finance must make approvals to stop the Regulator from creating a huge body that is going to be over-exhausted. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services was consulted. The IR remains accountable to the NA and not the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. This is the same for the SAHRC and other chapter 9 institutions that account to the NA. 
 
Adv Tlakula replied that the question of listing has not been resolved. The IR and the NT could not agree on the listing and the matter is still hanging because of a serious difference of opinion. The IR feels it should not be a public entity in terms of schedule 3 whereas the NT feels it should. The former Minister of Finance said the listing problem must be left to the NT to resolve. When the IR meets with the new Minister of Finance, the matter will be put on the table. The IR is continuing with the establishment of its administration and is not letting the issue of listing distract from this. The IR’s finances are not audited because it is a part of the legislative drafting unit of the DOJ & CD. It will not be part of this unit once it is fully established.The timelines are ambitious. Officials have learned from their lessons and measure what they think they can achieve and give it careful thought. 
 
Adv Tlakula said the IR has already started on the targets mentioned in the presentation. On organisational structure, the issue of posts is being looked at. They take a lot of time and there are only 5 officials to think the positions through. The IR is benchmarked against countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada. In Africa, there is no entity like the IR. On the organogram, the IR has completed the second phase and this can be made available to Members. The IR does not want to be an entity of the DOJ & CD. It regulates everybody and processes personal information so it will be difficult to be in any state department. The IR wants to remain independent and the Committee can assist with ensuring that its independence is not compromised.
 
Adv Tlakula said her position at the UN was not a full-time one. She assured Members she will continue to do her work and the IR will not suffer. You cannot nominate yourself for the position, the country itself has to nominate you, in particular the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. On the executive positions, the advertisement was given to the Human Resources department. It took such a long time to get the advertisements out that the IR had budgeted for employee compensation. As a result, it had to under-budget. The nature of bureaucracy is slow and frustrating but members remain committed to ensuring the IR functions and using the resources it has. 
 
Ms Lebogang Stroom-Nzama, full time Member of the Information Regulator, said members anticipate the IR will receive a lot of complaints and as a result, a complaints and investigation unit is needed. The IR has already appointed a service provider that has developed a complaints management process, this just needs to be approved and then tested and piloted. 
 
Mr Collen Weapond, full time Member of the Information Regulator, said there are 2 vacant positions on the executive level. These include an Executor for the Protection of Personal Information and an Executor for the Promotion of Access to Information. There were advertisements for these positions but the candidates were not found to be suitable for appointment. There is also a post called the Education, Communication and Provincial Coordinator which will be considered. The IR has consulted with the Minister of Finance on phase 1 of the organogram and he approved the start of phase 2. The Chairperson’s appointment at the UN will enhance the image of the IR and she is congratulated on this achievement. 
 
Mr Narismulu said the IR anticipates savings because of the underspending in employee compensation. It has asked for an additional R6 million from the DOJ & CD because funds need to be allocated to goods and services. These consist of mainly the advertising, branding and communications of the IR. The rental of the new office space has been sub-leased from the SAHRC. The NT issued an approval for that sublease. Funds will also need to cover security and cleaning of buildings, venue hire for workshops and public awareness. The IR currently does not have communication technology in the offices. The budget for the last financial year will be published in the annual report by September of 2019. The current vacancies include an executive assistant for the Chairperson and personal assistants for the members. The NT has instructed that personal assistants be shared in the meantime. As the IR’s administrative capacity increases, its outputs will improve as the entity becomes operational. 
 
Mr Thibela said there would be no savings if the IR had filled all of its vacant positions. The reason for asking for additional funds is based on the second phase. The baseline is very low and had to be revised. As a result, the IR indicated to the DOJ & CD that additional funds are needed. The baseline will go up once positions are filled. The office space shared with the SAHRC is for a period of 3 years. The IR is already thinking about head offices but this depends on the organizational structure and the number of staff employed. 
 
The Chairperson thanked the IR for its responses. The Committee is in the process of going through each and every entity they have met with to highlight the areas that need to be addressed with other relevant Portfolio Committees and Ministries. The Committee is not only here to ask questions but to assist entities in an optimal way. The IR is a very important structure that will position South Africa in the information world. It is a structure which the Committee wants capacitated as soon as possible. It is important for the economy, human rights and to equip South Africa for the fourth industrial revolution. He said the next time the Committee meets with the IR they should have office furniture and be up and running. The Committee will debate on whether it should be a chapter 9 institution or not. He congratulated the Chairperson for her appointment in the UN and adjourned the meeting.