The Committee Content Advisor briefed the Committee on the Fifth Parliament Committee Legacy Report and there were a few outstanding oversight visits and follow-up activities inherited by the Committee. Legislation took up most of the Committee’s time and some key pieces of legislation were referred to the Committee towards the end of the 5th parliament and would be revived. Outstanding oversight visits and follow-up activities included visits to SAPS (Western Cape) and IPID, continued monitoring of crime trends and monitoring the national rollout of the anti-gang strategy. There was still the need to monitor the fight against gender-based violence and sexual offences. Concerning the DoJ, the Committee still had to hold a meeting with Legal Aid to discuss access to justice, capacity and its caseloads; and to visit the new Limpopo High Court. The Committee still had to meet with the DCS to get a progress report on the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, particularly in light of severe overcrowding. With the DMV, the Committee had to hold a meeting to discuss the distribution of benefits particularly adequate housing and medical services to Military Veterans. There had to be a meeting with the Department of Public Works (DPW) to address the infrastructural challenges within police stations, courts, correctional centre facilities as well as Hoedspruit Airforce base.
The Committee agreed to prioritise the outstanding work inherited from the previous Committee.
The Parliamentary Research Unit briefed the Committee on its mandate and how it supported the Committee. Thereafter, the researchers presented sectoral analyses of the different Departments overseen by the Committee. These looked at trends over the past five years for the Departments of Correctional Services, Defence and Military Veterans, Home Affairs, and International Relations and Cooperation.
The Committee Programme was approved and the Committee will not meet during the NCOP committee oversight visits to the North West municipalities undergoing Section 139 interventions from 27 to 31 August.
Fifth Parliament Committee Legacy Report
Ms Anthea van der Burg, Committee Content Advisor, explained the functions of the Committee and the different Departments that it oversees – Departments of Justice (DoJ), Police (DoP), Correctional Services (DCS) and the joint Department of Defence and Military Veterans (DOD and DMV).
The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) sets aside about two days each year to prepare an annual performance plan for each Committee. This strategic planning process was informed by the National Development Plan (NDP), State of the Nation Address (SONA) and the Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). These policy prerogatives informed the work of the Committee and its oversight activities. The previous Committee had focused most of its work on the provincial issues emanating from the various Departments. In order to benefit the most from oversight visits, the Committee adopted an approach of inviting these Departments within a chosen province to present their challenges to the Committee. This approach afforded the Committee with a holistic view of the challenges experienced by Departments within the Criminal Justice Sector. Oversight activities over the DOD had been limited mostly due to time constraints and the fact that the Department was covered by the Joint Standing Committee on Defence; this, however, did not preclude the Committee from planning DOD activities.
In the 5th Parliament a total of 69 meetings were held by the Committee, 17 bills were processed and 12 oversight visits were undertaken in 8 of the 9 provinces – with Limpopo being the exception. There were visits to Western Cape communities with high crime rates, Philippi East and Nyanga; and to inspect the conditions of Pollsmoor Prison, in response to the High Court order requiring the prison to reduce overcrowding. Other challenges there included maintenance and ageing infrastructure, gangsterism, and staffing vacancies. The Committee visited the Hoedspruit Airforce base and cross border operations in the Free State. Some of the other visits were for monitoring the rollout of the Rural Safety Strategy by the South African Police Service (SAPS), and the distribution of housing benefits for Military Veterans. The previous Committee raised concern with the Magistrates’ Commission about the lengthy processes in finalising disciplinary action of magistrates prior to these cases being brought before the Committee.
Two international agreements were processed and one statutory appointment was made for the National Council for Correctional Services. Legislation took up most of the Committee’s time and some key pieces of legislation were referred to the Committee towards the end of the 5th Parliament. These were the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill (IPID), Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill, Child Justice Amendment Bill, Hydrographic Bill and the Traditional Courts Bill. The current Committee had to review these and invite commentary from relevant organisations before adopting them.
There are a few outstanding oversight visits and follow-up activities that were inherited by the current Committee. These included visits to SAPS (Western Cape) and IPID, continued monitoring of crime trends and monitoring the national rollout of the anti-gang strategy. There was still the need to monitor the fight against gender-based violence and sexual offences. Concerning the DoJ, the Committee still had to hold a meeting with Legal Aid to discuss access to justice, capacity and its caseloads; and to visit the new Limpopo High Court. The Committee still had to meet with the DCS to get a progress report on the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, particularly in light of severe overcrowding. With the DMV, the Committee had to hold a meeting to discuss the distribution of benefits particularly adequate housing and medical services to Military Veterans. There had to be a meeting with the Department of Public Works (DPW) to address the infrastructural challenges within police stations, courts, correctional centre facilities as well as Hoedspruit Airforce base.
The Research Unit recommended that the Committee should host a colloquium with all the Departments in the Security and Justice Sector and all relevant stakeholders to share experiences on the gaps, challenges and recommendations for the improvement of the functionality of the criminal justice sector. The previous Committee did not undertake an international study tour; the current Committee was advised to consider it. The Research Unit noted that the cluster size of NCOP Committees remain a challenge for effective and efficient completion of work by Committees. There needs to be sufficient time allocated to each Committee for oversight activities and processing legislation effectively.
Mr B Gxoyiya (ANC) suggested that the Committee should first prioritise the outstanding work it inherited from the previous Committee in order not to develop a backlog. He commented on the key statistics stating that there was no clarity on what they were measured against, thus making it harder to gauge. For example, the number of meetings held had no indication of the number of meetings that were scheduled or whether every meeting met the quorum requirements. There should be more oversight visits within the Western Cape and the places being visited should not be notified beforehand because they could easily create a false impression about the conditions when they host the Committee.
Mr K Motsamai (EFF) said that overcrowding in correctional centres is a violation of human rights. The Committee needs to visit these prisons to evaluate the conditions. The officials working at the centres were running tuckshops for their own financial benefit and this had to be audited. The Committee needs to visit military veterans, some who were mentally disturbed by their experiences in the military. The DMV needed to process the distribution of benefits to veterans more efficiently.
Mr I Sileku (DA) questioned how sites were prioritised for oversight visits. He pointed out that the reports on oversight interventions by the Committee should be based on the progress after the visits instead of merely noting the findings during the visits. If the Committee still had to meet with DMV to discuss the housing of veterans, there were most likely new housing challenges, causing further delays.
Ms Z Ncitha (ANC) asked if the bill that forbids police officers from torturing inmates had been passed. She asked if there was legislation in place for dealing with the challenges of cross borders. During the visits to Gauteng communities, the previous Committee discovered that there were many illegal foreigners residing in certain areas. This had implications for service delivery to citizens – especially healthcare and education. There were still a few pending cases about hospitals who were unable to deport illegal foreigners who give birth to children. What is being done about military veterans are ill and do not have medical aid? What did the 5th Parliament do about DoJ taking too long to process the disciplinary action of magistrates? Is this part of the work that is to be inherited by the 6th Parliament?
Ms Ncitha suggested a date be set for the Committee’s visit to the new Limpopo High Court. She said that unannounced visits may pose challenges. The Committee should first send researchers to these places, to gather as much information as possible so that the Members would be able to prepare for the visits.
Ms van der Burg explained that the bill on torture was brought before the previous Committee as legislation to be used by the SA Human Rights Commission as a monitoring mechanism to protect inmates from being tortured.
Ms van der Burg explained that the cause of the delays in the magistrates’ disciplinary cases was because the magistrates in question knew the law so they continually find loopholes to circumvent and delay the process. The Commissioner was presently working around these delays.
Research Section mandate and support to Committee
Ms Nadia Dollie, Senior Researcher, Parliamentary Research Unit, indicated that the Parliamentary Research Unit was established in 1997 with the primary mandate of providing objective, non-partisan research support to Members of Parliament, Committees, delegations and senior managers. The unit was divided into 7 clusters - each headed by a senior researcher along with between 5 – 13 researchers and supported by an administrative assistant. She detailed the services proactively offered by the unit, including analysis of the SONA, Budget Votes, Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans and Reports, Quarterly Performance and Expenditure Reports. Other services included analysis and review of policy documents as well as providing preparatory papers for oversight visits and study tours. Upon request, the unit provides briefings and presentation to Committees, research support to individual MPs as well as background information for speeches. She added that the unit did not provide services such as committee meeting minutes and reports, study tour/oversight reports, party political support and speech writing.
There had been a movement within Parliament imploring the unit to improve the depth, quality and focus of the support it provides to the Committees. The unit would make special considerations to cater for the Select Committees and the increased clustering of Committees, through interim measures and a proposed realignment project. The unit would ensure the smooth transition of information between the NCOP and the National Assembly (NA), while noting the differentiations in the mandates of the two structures, to avoid functional duplications. She mentioned the papers that the unit had composed, spanning topics such as Border safeguarding (2015 and 2016), Child Justice (2015), Gender-based violence (2014), Health care for inmates (2017) and Criminal Justice System Revamp (2015). Finally, she introduced the researchers according to their portfolios as well as their contact details.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee would continue to engage the unit. The Committee would be interested in how the Committee cluster was going to be restructured, from a research perspective.
Department of Correctional Services (DCS): Sectoral Analysis
Ms Patricia Whittle, Committee Researcher, noted the mandate of the DCS derived from the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998. Since 2014 the DCS was residing under the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services. Apart from the Committee, there were other independent bodies that were overseeing the DCS: the Inspecting Judge of Correctional Services, the Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs), NGOs and faith-based organisations as well as Constitutional Court judges.
DCS presently had 243 correctional centres operating in 6 regions: Eastern Cape, Free State and Northern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape and the Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West region. South Africa did not have an official national recidivism rate; some commentators estimated it to be more than 66%. The national imprisonment rate was 286 prisoners per 100 000 adult population, based on an estimated national population of 56.3 million as of 31 March 2017 (Statistics SA). In 2017/18, the average inmate population increased to 160 583 with an approved bed space of 118 723 (135.8% occupancy); and in 2016/17 it had reached 160 280 inmates, with an improved bed space of 119 134 (134% occupancy). On 31 March 2018, remand detainees (RDs) or awaiting-trial detainees (ATDs) comprised 46 142 (28%) of the total number of inmates, of which 110 (0.24%) were children. The regions with the most inmates in 2017/18 were Gauteng, followed by Western Cape. Western Cape had the most RDs and KwaZulu-Natal had the most sentenced and RD children.
The DCS budget increased from R19.7 billion in 2014/15 to R25.4 billion in 2019/20. Expenditure remained stable between 99-100%. The biggest cost drivers were compensation of the DCS’s 41 994 employees (totalling R17 billion in 2018/19); and capital projects which includes construction, upgrading, maintenance of correctional centres and creating additional bed spaces. The 2019/20 budget reflected a number of capital projects, some of which dated back to 2015/16 but were still in the design phase, even though the funding had been allocated every year since inception. Cabinet approved a budget reduction of R245.2 million in 2017/18, mostly on goods and services (contractors, computer services, audit costs) as well as machinery and equipment (mainly IT equipment). Cabinet approved a baseline reduction of R605.1 million (2018/19), R668.2 million (2019/20) and a further R709.6 million (2020/21). Most of the reductions had been effected on accommodation charges for the maintenance of facilities in the incarceration programme.
Target achievement performance had been increasing annually, from 53% in 2014 to 83% in 2017/18. Areas of good performance included: consistently exceeding the targets for parolees and probationers without violations as well as targets for officials being trained through the Workplace Skills Plan. There was a consistent achievement of grade 12 pass rate and the number of children in correctional facilities had been reduced from 204 (2014/15) to 124 (in 2017/18). For 2016/17, 136% (more than the target) was achieved in the HIV testing of inmates. There were a few areas of underperformance. A concerning one was security in correctional centres – shown by the number of escapes, assaults and unnatural deaths in correctional facilities over the years. There were cases of inmates smuggling contraband and cell phones into the facilities. There were still overcrowded conditions in multiple facilities and the Department was struggling to limit the construction delays. More sentenced inmates were serving lengthy sentences and parole had not made a noticeable impact on reducing prison numbers.
Research showed that there was a need for more rigorous implementation of initiatives like the Bail Protocol and reducing the amount of bail of awaiting-trial detainees, to reduce overcrowding. This approach proved less successful since many ATDs were denied bail because of being charged for serious offences (e.g. rape, murder, aggravated assault and robbery). There was a call for strict adherence with Section 49G of the Correctional Services Act which mandates that no remand detainee may be detained for a period exceeding two years without the matter being brought to the attention of the court. The electronic monitoring contract was cancelled.
DCS consistently faced challenges of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditures. There were still vacant positions requiring critical skills. Testimony at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture included allegations that certain senior DCS officials were paid bribes by Bosasa for awarding tender contracts. The nutrition services of African Global Operations (AGO), previously known as Bosasa, lapsed on 24 March 2019 after the cancellation by DCS (following AGO’s application for voluntary liquidation). This affected 26 kitchens and DCS had to increase its insourcing of nutrition. At the time, DCS said that it had a detailed implementation plan to ensure seamless transition and to mitigate identified risks in the areas of legal, security, financial and health areas. The Portfolio Committee advised DCS to put in place a mechanism to avoid a situation where one company becomes a dominant service provider and monopolises the DCS.
The DCS received a Qualified Audit opinion in 2017/18. It did not maintain accurate and complete records of the contractual information used to determine commitments. This resulted in commitments being understated by R329 709 671. The Auditor-General could not: (a) obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the amounts disclosed; (b) confirm the commitments by alternative means and (c) determine whether any adjustment was required to commitments stated at R2 284 084 000 in the financial statements.
Mr K Motsamai (EFF) pointed out that Ms Whittle did not indicate if there were inmates who were sick within the centres. In a lot of the centres, inmates were not given work to do while serving their time. There were seasoned inmates who were sexually harassing new officers.
The Chairperson interjected that the purpose of the presentation was for the Committee to get a five-year trend analysis of Correctional Services. The matters he raised were suited for a different meeting agenda.
Department of Defence and Military Veterans: Sectoral Analysis
Mr Wilhelm Janse van Rensburg, Researcher for the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, outlined the parliamentary oversight structures overseeing the DOD. He described the sub-structures within the Defence Sector, including the DOD, DMV, Armscor, the Castle Control Board (CCB) and the Office of the Military Ombud, amongst others.
The DOD budget allocation in 2019/20 was R50.513 billion (0.93% of GDP) and the key concern was the continued budget reduction in real terms from 2014/15 to 2019/20. An international standard ratio for expenditure was 40:30:30 - 40% on personnel compensation, 30% on operations and 30% on capital acquisitions (armaments). In 2017/18 South Africa spent 55.9% of the budget on personnel and this was expected to increase to 58% for 2019/20. A significant portion of the remaining budget was to be spent on operations; that meant that there would be insufficient funds for capital acquisitions – to replace ageing equipment such as army vehicles, strategic airlift and the helicopter fleet. The DOD was facing the challenge of ageing personnel – for example, the average of a rifleman was almost 32 years old. There was a clear need to rejuvenate the Force with younger recruits.
The DMV was being constrained by the Department of Human Settlements (DHS), provinces and municipalities in finalising the distribution of housing benefits for the veterans as only 270 of the targeted 1000 houses were built in 2017/18. The target was to be reduced to 500 for 2019/20. There was a need for a credible database to determine which veterans qualify for benefits - linked to a means test. A skills audit was identified as a priority in the 5th Parliament to ensure that sufficient skills exist within the DMV, for effective service delivery. Within Armscor there was a declining defence industry – the limited funds for the military resulted in limited local procurement, exit of skills and loss of employment. The Military Ombud had a desire to be registered as a Level 3 public entity to enhance independence. The CCB recognise the need for the self-sustainability of the Castle; it was projected to shortly deplete its surplus fund and would require ongoing funding from the DOD for maintenance of the premises.
Mr Janse van Rensburg recommended that the Committee should liaise with the DMV, provinces as well as municipalities to see to it that deserving veterans were provided with houses. The Committee should engage with other departments for the provision of health and transport services to veterans. The veterans should be memorialised to be remembered for their contributions. Lastly, there had to be a general promotion of military veterans to create awareness.
He recommended that the Committee should engage the DOD on domestic deployments (in the Vaal and Cape Town areas) and ask it to ensure that well-equipped and trained forces were deployed for these functions. For effective border control, there was still a need to engage the DOD, SAPS and other role players about the border communities that were being affected by border safeguarding challenges. Currently 15 sub-units (instead of the 22 needed) were deployed but there was limited maritime patrol capacity.
Mr Motsamai pointed out that the DMV was still using the ‘old order’ clause, which did not accommodate family members of veterans with healthcare. For example, if a veteran was involved in an accident with his/her child, the DMV would cover the expenses of the veteran only; this was unjust. He suggested that the Committee should visit the DMV.
The Chairperson told Mr Motsamai that he was raising oversight matters which were not related to the research unit, particularly within Mr Janse van Rensburg’s scope of work.
Mr Janse van Rensburg indicated that the DMV was in the process of drafting a Military Veterans Amendment Bill and that Mr Motsamai’s concern was one of the key issues raised in the discussions on the Amendment Bill. They were in the process of being resolved.
Mr Motsamai replied that there was nothing that the DMV was permitted to draft – the Amendment Bill would have to be drafted by Parliament.
The Chairperson said that Mr Motsamai’s comment was uncalled for and tried to clarify what Mr Janse van Rensburg meant in his response.
Department of Home Affairs (DHA): Sectoral Analysis
Mr Mkhululi Molo, Researcher: Select Committee on Health and Social Services, stated that the mandate of the DHA was to secure and manage identity as well as international migration through the delivery of enabling services to all citizens, foreign nationals, government and the private sector.
The DHA priorities during the 2014-2019 term were to improve customer care by improving its frontline offices through the ‘Moetapele leadership initiative’. The second was the implementation of the International immigration policy framework – emphasising the management of undocumented migrants, especially at the ports of entry; the DHA was planning to upgrade 62 of the ports of entry. To support this, the DHA had been planning to launch a Border Management Authority (BMA) since 2017/18 but faced unforeseen challenges with the Bill that would enable its establishment. The Bill was currently in the NCOP. He advised the Committee to invite DHA to brief it on what the BMA entails – to ascertain if the agency would effectively address the problems faced by the national border. The Committee would also be required to process the Civil Union Amendment Bill. Another priority was to accelerate the DHA modernisation programme. This included the implementation of an electronic, live data capturing system. Also, DHA was planning to replace the outdated National Population Register with the new and improved National Identity System.
There were imperatives pronounced by the President in the 2019 State of the Nation Address (SONA) for DHA. The Department was tasked to market and strengthen tourism into the country, through it visa regime. This includes improving functional efficiency and clearing backlogs in the issuing of visas. During the budget vote debate, the Minister of Home Affairs mentioned that of the 193 United Nations Member States, 73 were officially granted visa-free entry status by South Africa; 16 of those were African countries. The President highlighted the importance of economic development and investment, stating that SA should identify more countries with which to do business, within crucial sectors; the role of the DHA in this plan would be to simply the processing of permits for foreign investors, without compromising national security. Another directive was DHA’s role in ‘Operation Phakisa’ – efficient rendering of immigration services within the maritime sector, to boost the ocean economy. Lastly, the fight against corruption within the DHA was still crucial; this included the processing of fraudulent identities and certificates, mostly at refugee reception centres.
Mr Molo stated that the entities funded by the DHA were the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) and Government Printing Works (GPW). DHA allocated a budget of approximately R2 billion to the IEC but the GPW budget was mostly obtained from the revenue it generated internally. The DHA budget allocation for 2019/20 was R8.339 billion, which was a 5.4% nominal increase, but only a 0.2% increase (when adjusting for inflation) from the previous year. DHA generates revenue from the services it renders – the public pays for the issuing of Smart IDs etc. The success rate of DHA’s annual targets had been improving consistently from 70% in 2014/15 to 86% in 2017/18. For 2018/19, information about target achievement had not been made available. For 2017/18 year, DHA had an unqualified audit with findings on lack of compliance with key legislation and subpar supply chain management. DHA operations were segmented into three programmes: Administration, Citizen Affairs, and Immigration Affairs. Citizen Affairs consumed the majority of the DHA budget – about R5.4 billion in 2018/19 and R4.7 billion in 2019/20.
DHA had a total of 419 offices, of which 164 were located in urban areas and 248 in rural areas. Only 193 offices (81 rural) were already modernised with live capture systems. Gauteng hosted 13 of the 14 banks that were operating as DHA service points, using e-Home Affairs. There were 391 healthcare facilities that were equipped with birth and death registration - 203 urban and 188 rural. The plan was to implement this at every healthcare facility. DHA was represented in 30 South African missions abroad; some of these missions were short-staffed and were being assisted by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). There were still only five refugee reception centres; there were four premium visa and permit centres – run by a private company called VFS Global that was in contract with DHA. Home Affairs was not capacitated enough to efficiently handle the large influx of applications submitted through VFS and there was a need for a memorandum of understanding between the two parties to limit the number of incoming applications.
One of the key challenges faced by DHA facilities was network connectivity. There were concerns about the reliability of the service that the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) was providing. The systems were constantly experiencing downtime, which frustrated clients. There were ongoing discussions between SITA and DHA to resolve the matter. Another challenge was that foreign missions with a high volume of clients were not adequately capacitated with human resources. There was a shortage of staff at footprint offices, which led to congestion. Another challenge was the current DHA infrastructure could not meet the service demand, i.e. approximately 57 million citizens and millions of foreign nationals. The DPW is responsible for the provision and maintenance of office space for DHA but the 412 offices were insufficient and some were not in a good condition. DHA had been struggling with meeting the target of birth registration within 30 days of the birth. There were capacity challenges for the Refugee Appeal Board (RAB) and Standing Committee on Refugee Affairs (SCRA). This impacted the management of asylum seekers and refugees. DHA incurred R2.4 million in unauthorised, irregular, wasteful and fruitless expenditure for 2018/19 due to non-compliance with supply chain management regulations and interest on overdue payments.
Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO): Sectoral Analysis
Mr David Madlala, Researcher: Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, spoke about the authority scope of the President, the mandate of DIRCO along with the oversight responsibilities of the Ministry overseeing it; and the role of Parliament in international and multilateral agreements. He outlined the DIRCO programmes: Administration, International Relations, International Cooperation, Public Diplomacy and State Protocol as well as International Transfers.
DIRCO operated in 108 countries around the world, with a total of 130 missions staffed by DIRCO officials as well as locally recruited personnel. Each of the missions was equipped differently and had their own challenges – mostly related to asset management and compensation of employees located abroad. Membership fees required for SA representation within international organisations.
Mr Madlala spoke about the South African Council on International Relations (SACOIR) established by the former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, in consultation with Cabinet. The Council comprised members appointed by the Minister from academia, business, civil society and labour to serve as a consultative platform for South African think-tanks, academics, and other relevant representatives of civil society to interact with DIRCO on the development and implementation of South Africa’s foreign policy. The South African Association of Former Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Chief Representatives lent their extensive experience, expertise and institutional memory on international relations and diplomacy towards the execution of South Africa’s foreign policy interests. They led discussions on international relations and diplomacy to advance the public’s understanding and support for South Africa’s key foreign policy objectives.
DIRCO had proposed the Foreign Service Bill in the 5th Parliament which would specify the role of officials working in the Department given the unique nature of their work. The rationale of the Bill was that the Department operated in an international environment that was not taken into account by Public Service and Administration norms. The Foreign Service Bill reflected a range of international practices in legislating the functions of departments responsible for International Relations - as they conducted their activities outside the borders of the country. In April 2011, DIRCO made a presentation on the establishment of the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA). The aim of SADPA was to give DIRCO an institutional mechanism that allowed it to focus more on the political aspects of development cooperation while SADPA itself would focus on implementation.
DIRCO had some notable achievements in the 5th Parliament such as the successful hosting of numerous conferences. It managed to make significant strides in terms of political targets in each of its programmes. On the other hand, DIRCO must be vigilant in overcoming compliance challenges with the supply chain management prescripts, asset management, skills and training in financial and asset management units, information and communication technology (ICT), consequence management and contract management.
Ms Ncitha suggested that Mr Madlala’s presentation should be slotted into one of the Committee’s upcoming meetings because it had to be cut short due to time constraints. It did have valuable content that the Members needed to hear, without time pressure.
Mr Gxoyiya agreed and pointed out that the content of the presentation had too much information to be communicated in one sitting.
The Chairperson agreed that the presentation would be included in an upcoming meeting.
The Chairperson thanked the researchers and the support staff for their contributions.
Committee Reports: Adoption
Ms Ncitha pointed out that the reports did not include the attendance register of Members so they could wrongly comment and consider the report of a meeting they were not part of.
Mr Gurshyn Dixon, Committee Secretary, clarified that although Members were not present at the meeting, they were permitted to consider the report.
The Committee approved the following reports:
- Committee Report on Department of Police budget
- Committee Report on Department of Justice and Constitutional Development budget
- Committee Report on Independent Police Investigative Directorate budget
The Committee Secretary indicated that the eight interventions scheduled for the week of 27 to 30 August 2019 would be split into two interventions per day. He asked if they would like to have Committee meetings during that period.
The Chairperson reckoned that Committee meetings may not be possible because the engagements that would happen around the interventions could potentially consume a lot of time. She suggested that there had to be a joint management of the three Committees which had common Members; there had to be some level of integration of the multiple programmes that the Committee had planned.
Ms Ncitha cautioned the Committee about the ambition of undertaking two interventions per day across the six municipalities because the Members would first have to meet with the executives of the municipalities and go on site, per day. This would not enable the Members to do oversight thoroughly. The only way to do this would be to delegate the Members to different municipalities.
Ms Modise supported Ms Ncitha’s views. She felt that the interventions may not be effective if each intervention day had to be shared by two municipalities.
Mr Sileku noted that the Committee was depending on guidance by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) to determine how to proceed with scheduling the interventions. The detail must be deliberated during the meetings with COGTA.
The Committee adopted the minutes of 26 June and 10, 17, 19 July 2019.
The meeting was adjourned.
- Research Unit - Department of Defence Budget for 2019/20: A Macro Overview
- Research Unit on Boarding Project - International Relations and Cooperation: Key Perspectives and Oversight Implications
- Research Unit - A Summary of the White Paper on South Africa’s Foreign Policy
- Research Unit - Analysis of the State of the Nation Address June 2019
- Research Unit - Summary and Analysis of Budget Analysis Vote 18: Correctional Services
- Research Unit - Justice And Security Cluster Support To Committees
- Research Unit - Defence sector overview
- Research Unit - 5-year Trend Analysis: Correctional Services
- Research Unit - Legacy Report Key Issues 5th Parliament
- Department of Home Affairs - Perspective And Oversight Implications 2019/20
- Department of International Relations and Cooperation: Mandate presentation