Department of Justice Strategic Plan and Budget 2007/08

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
23 May 2007
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STRATEGIC PLAN AND BUDGET 2007/08

Chairperson: Mr L Mokoena Kgoshi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
DOJ & CD: CFO Report
Select Committee Presentation by Khotso de Wee [the original document will be available soon]
DOJ presentation by COO

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by various units of the Department of Justice.

The Chief Operating Officer’s presentation focused on strategy, the identification and management of risks, Programme support and Administration, the implementation of TRC recommendations and the coordination and management of regional offices. Several organisational challenges faced the Department. There were too many projects and too many goals, some of which were vague; there was a disjuncture between the national and regional projects and there were problems with capacity. However, the key achievements included the mobile courts, the roll out of IT systems, an increase in court managers, the passing of the Sexual Offences Bill, regionalisation and a more focused department. There were backlogs in vetting of employees but more security equipment was installed in Courts. Progress had been made on programme support and adminstration. The TRC unit was monitoring implementation of recommendations, finalising once-off reparations payments and being involved in exhumation. Regional offices faced challenges in implementation of technology. A summary was given of the new technology developments aimed to make the courts function more efficiently.

The Corporate Services briefed the Committee on its new structure which was intended to achieve greater synergy.

The Chief Financial Officer summarised the reasons for the Audit Qualification in 2005/06, which related to Monies in Trust Revenue Receivable. There was some dispute with the Auditor General as to whether the report should have been qualified. The qualification arose from the move towards accrual accounting, as the Department could not accurately gauge the exact amounts. The Department had now prepared and tabled an Audit Action Plan to address the issues. The Forensic Audit was a separate audit which would be tabled in parliament, and which related to supply chain management shortcomings. The 2006/07 expenditure was tabled and explained and it was noted that the Department had a total roll-over request of R438,8 million. The budgets were tabled, showing  year-on-year growth of approximately 15%. The breakdown for the additional funding was given, and it was noted that this planned to address human resources vacancies and additional court facilities. The achievements of the CFO’s office were detailed.

The Human Resources department tabled a breakdown of employment was given and current vacancy rate as at January 2007, which was at 11,2 %. The major challenge facing the Department was one of compliance and financial disclosures. The idea was to promote a culture of performance management. The current disciplinary matters were tabled. The HR projects for 2007/08 were summarised. There was a major project to deal with harmonisation of Legally Qualified Salaries, involving a number of departments. A benchmark job description had been compiled and about 80% of job evaluations had been done.

Finally a presentation was delivered on the integrated systems management.

A number of questions were posed by Members, but none could be answered due to shortage of time. The Department was asked to provide detailed written responses.

MINUTES
Department of Justice (DOJ) Briefings
Chief Operating Officer Briefing
Mr Khotso de Wee, Chief Operating Officer, DOJ, noted that his presentation would differ slightly from the slides.  He noted the main functions of the COO’s office as: strategy, the identification and management of risks, Programme support and Administration, the implementation of TRC recommendations and the coordination and management of regional offices. The strategic plan envisaged three main goals: achieving security and justice, enhancing organisational efficiency and transforming the state of justice in society.

During 2006/07 there had been an improvement in the implementation of Key performance indicators. Several organisational challenges faced the Department. There were too many projects and too many goals, some of which were vague; there was a disjuncture between the national and regional projects and there were problems with capacity. However, the key achievements included the mobile courts, the roll out of IT systems, an increase in court managers, the passing of the Sexual Offences Bill, regionalisation and a more focused department.

In terms of risk management, the major challenge faced related to backlogs in terms of vetting employees. More security equipment had been installed in the courts and magistrates offices, and he tabled the statistics. However, it was to be noted that this still only covered 50 % of the courts. Plans to meet these challenges included decentralisation of budget to regions, review of security policies and procedures, development of security standards, reviewing the strategy and training and awareness programmes.

He outlined the progress made with regards to programme support and administration. A National Operations Centre (NOC) had been established to integrate all the information available to the Department as currently the information was very scattered. The 2010 World Cup project would prepare the courts to deal with problems of discipline of visiting and local fans. There was an attempt to coordinate the number of donors of the Department and to create more coordination between the regional and national levels.

In terms of the TRC, he outlined three areas of progress. The Department was monitoring the implementation of the TRC recommendations. It was finalising once-off reparations payments. 17 000 had been paid and 1 227 remained. Initially the Department was working with the Government Communication and Information Systems (GCIS) to trace people but was now doing it themselves. It was lastly involved in exhumations, together with the National Prosecuting Authority. 477 missing people had been identified.  The challenges faced were to submit a report to Cabinet and Parliament, to co-ordinate the agencies involved and to regulate the R600 million which was left for reburial costs in respect of exhumed remains.

The challenges faced by the regional offices were to do with the implementation of certain projects, many of which related to the implementation of technology which would make the functioning of the court more efficient. J-DAS was an important software used to monitor money paid into accounts; E-Scheduler was a software used to manage case-backlogs; Digital Court Recording System (DCRS) was used for transcriptions services in the courts; and Electronic Financial Transactions (EFT) were used for improving the payments of maintenance. Other projects included the extension of Maintenance and Estate Services; Small Claims Courts and employing tracing agents.

Progress on JDAS was slow; on E-Scheduler was good; but both DCRS and EFT faced the challenge of moving people from the old transcription to the new system. The extension of Estate Services faced the challenge that the majority of people in South Africa had no idea how to manage their estates.

Corporate Services presentation
Mr de Wee then moved on to the Corporate Services Presentation. He outlined the structure of the COO in order to indicate that the structure was in the process of being changed and would be finalised by the end of June. This change was necessary as the synergy between their structure and strategy was not as it should be.

Chief Financial Officer presentation
Ms Sandra Gomm, Chief Financial Officer, DOJ, explained that she would give her presentation  on 2005/06 audit matters, the 2006/07 expenditure outcome; and the MTEF Budget Allocations.

In relation to the 2005/06 audit, Ms Gomm explained that DOJ had received an Audit Qualification after two years of unqualified audit reports. This related to the Monies in Trust Revenue Receivable.  The Monies in Trust was a separate account and the audit was in progress, with an indication that the audit opinion would be disclaimed. The Guardian’s Fund received a disclaimer, and the President’s Fund, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and Criminal Asset Recovery Account (CARA) had been unqualified.

Ms Gomm explained the qualification on the Monies in Trust Revenue Receivable Audit. It was as a result of the Financial Management Transformation Programme introduced by the National Treasury in 2006. There was a move towards accrual accounting. Every year new disclosure notes had been introduced, so that more information may be divulged once an accrual accounting was reached in a couple of years. Disclosure note 26 in the Department’s financial statement related to revenue received in the Monies in Trust Fund which has not been transferred to the National Revenue Fund as they should have been. However, the Department could not accurately gauge the exact amount of these monies. They were also in disagreement with the policy as they felt that the Monies in Trust was a separate account. They had had preliminary legal advice from the public/private partnership (PPP) transaction advisor about whether these funds represented Trust Funds or were an Agency Service that the Department provided on behalf of the Revenue Service. The Department pointed out that this was regarded as a completely separate reporting entity. There was also an accounting Exposure Draft relating to managing revenue for a third party.

The Department had prepared an Audit Action Plan, and Ms Gomm noted that this emphasised a number of things. In regard to financial management, questions had been raised at the last meeting between the COO and the Committee. A reprioritisation of the Budget had subsequently occurred. Inventory Management had not been effectively implemented in 2 regions. This had now been addressed by training and implementing the system, as well as implementing policy for software and intangibles. There was a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the Department in terms of capitalising the development costs of in-house development software, and this was still being discussed. Compensation of Employees had been another area of concern, since some policies had not been approved, there were long suspended employees who were still on the payroll and there had been a miscommunication between Human Resources, the payroll and Registry (who could not provide files). Contingent liabilities related back to the Monies in Trust issue and as already mentioned the Department could not quantify the possible shortfall. This had to do with the manual system and volumes involved. Another aspect related to performance information. The Auditor General was reviewing and reporting on the shortcomings of the Department. This could be used in preparation of the annual report. Finally, the Forensic Audit was a separate audit which would be tabled in parliament. It related to supply chain management shortcomings.

She then explained what the Department was doing to deal with the Monies in Trust issue. The Department believed that the way to resolve this was that in terms of the International Accounting Standards the Monies in Trust should be a separate reporting entity with separate financial statements. The Department had also asked the officers to prepare monthly reconciliations that would allow the Department to produce the information should they not be able to convince the Treasury that it should be a separate reporting entity. They were busy with a public/private partnership. The bids had been received from 4 consortiums in February 2007 and evaluation was currently under way. It should be finalised in the next 6 to 8 weeks  as it was a time-consuming process. The PPP programme would also address the Guardian Fund problems, in terms of the disclaimed audit opinions.

The major issue the Department was facing was the disjuncture between itself and the Auditor General. The Auditor General wanted to qualify the report in view of the Monies in Trust and the Vote Account, but the Department felt that these were separate entities and that they should only be qualified on the Monies in Trust.

Ms Gomm then moved on to the unaudited 2006/07 expenditure outcome. There had been 93 % expenditure. The under-spend of 7% was mainly due to vacancies, which were fully outlined in the document. The average vacancy rate for DOJ was 14%, and that of the NPA 24%. She then dealt with expenditure per branch (see document). She pointed out the overspend by the Director General,  and the under-spend of the COO. This was due to the fact that they were in the same office and expenditure was misallocated. This was being rectified.  The Department had a total roll-over request of R438,8 million and if this was approved their final under-spending would be 0,5 %. Details of the roll over were presented (see document).

Mr Johan Johnson, Chief Director: Budgets, DOJ, tabled the Medium Term Economic Framework (MTEF) allocations. He pointed out that the year-on-year growth was approximately 15%. In terms of nominal growth, the approved growth was R1,6 billion. Under Court Services, there was additional funding for reduction of criminal case backlog; there was additional funding for facilities management; under state legal services, there was additional funding for enhancing the Masters office capacity; under National Prosecuting Authority there was additional funding for the employment of approximately 650 new prosecutors. This would allow for two prosecutors per court, thus greatly increasing capacity. There was also money for the implementation of job evaluation results, which would mean improvement in the conditions of employment. Under Judges and Magistrates, there was additional funding for the employment of 35 additional magistrates and 25 additional judges. This would improve capacity and performance,

He made several observations regarding the 2006 Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) Allocations. He noted that there was an average annual growth rate of 11.2% between 2006 and 2010. The largest part of the additional allocation related to taking over personnel of the Witness Protection Unit, increasing personnel, setting up temporary service points to deal with criminal case backlogs and addressing the shortfall in the statutory appropriation. The annual average growth rate of 28.5% under facilities management would fund the construction of new court facilities and the rehabilitation of existing court infrastructures. Mr Johnson pointed out that DOJ could not fill all their vacancies as they simply could not house increased staff. The average 8/2% growth rate for lower courts would reduce the criminal case backlog, and integrate the management of cases and people through the justice chain. The public prosecutor sub-programmes affected the rate at the NPA. There would also be increased human resource capacity in the Legal Aid Board, the Special Investigating Unit, the Commission on Gender Equality and the SA Human Rights Commission.

He displayed the Regional Budget Allocation, which was largely contingent on the staff numbers in the region. A breakdown of the allocations for the State Legal Services was given, as was an outline of the increase in spending. He pointed out the growth in the allocations to the Master of the High Court which was due to the necessity of additional personnel. A breakdown of the NPA’s spending was given. The Transfer Payments and Public Entities and Constitutional Institutions were given. (See document  for more detail on all these breakdowns).

CFO Presentation
Ms Gomm then presented on the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. She addressed the achievements, the challenges faced by the office and the action steps taken to meet these challenges. The key performance indicator was no audit qualification. She then spoke about the Monies in Trust Public Private Partnership:  its achievements, challenges and action steps. The Key MTSF Performance indicator was the no audit qualification in the medium to long term. The achievements, challenges and action steps facing the Guardians’ Fund Accounting Turnaround Project were given. The key MTSF performance indicator was the implementation of a sustainable and reliable financial accounting environment and the production of statements that complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and that were led to an unqualified audit report

Mr Pule Sekawana, Chief Director:Human Resources, DOJ,  then presented on the Human Resources department. The strategic goals of the HR department were organisational efficiency, Human Capital development and organisational development. A breakdown of employment was given. The Departmental Staffing Profile and current vacancy rate as at January 2007 was given. This excluded the NPA, judges and magistrates as well as temporary and contract workers. The current vacancy rate was 11,2 %. Turn-around time for filling posts was three to four months. Measures had been taken to improve this turn-around time including outsourcing of positions (see document for further details).

He listed achievements of the DOJ. The major challenge facing the Department was one of compliance and financial disclosures. The idea was to promote a culture of performance management. He outlined what the Department had done in terms of Employment Equity.

A breakdown of the current disciplinary matters was given – with fraud being identified as the major problem. The branches that faced the most disciplinary challenges were those of Court Services and Masters as they dealt with money. In terms of regions, Gauteng faced the most disciplinary problems.

He outlined the HR Projects for 2007/2008. Firstly, the Recruitment Improvement Plan was aimed at addressing the vacancies. R2,5 million had been put aside for this. Secondly, the Comprehensive Organisational Re-Design aimed to focus on cost. This was running slightly behind schedule. Thirdly, the Competency Modelling was to come up with a new framework for the Department. Fourthly, the Job Profiling, Job Analysis and Job Evaluation had always been a bottleneck in the Department and led to delays in recruitment. Fifthly, the Department was required to submit a skills audit every two to three years to the Department of Public Service and a work skills audit every year to the Department of Labour. Sixth, the Department hoped to fast-track disciplinary cases. Seventh, they hoped to develop a Human Capital Plan. Amongst other measures the Department would shortly establish a Judicial Institute which would be a good feeder for the Department. There were also measures to Enhance a Learning Organisation. The ninth project was an Employee Wellness Programme. He cited the example of interpreters and the stress levels they experienced. The Department also wanted to implement Performance Management Training (see document for greater detail).

Ms Shali Chikane, Chief Director of Human Resources, DOJ, then dealt specifically the issues surrounding the Legally Qualified Project. There had been a task team to deal with the harmonisation of Legally Qualified Salaries. This task team consisted of Treasury, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the NPA and the Legal Aid Board, and was headed by the Department of Public Services and Administration. This team was concerned with how to attract people to the Department and of how to prevent job-hopping and poaching from the private sector.  This task team identified five milestones in terms of its process-mapping. Phase one was the determination of relevant occupational groups and distinct work levels. Phase two involved the bench-marking of job descriptions, and analysis and evaluation of these descriptions. Phase 3 involved consultation with internal stake-holders. Phase 4 involved obtaining the mandate for collective bargaining. Phase 5 involved the determination of the Minister of Public Service and Administration.

The task team had so far identified occupational groups. A benchmark job description had been compiled. About 80% of job evaluations had been done. The meeting of career paths had been completed.

Several things needed to be completed.  The structural and costing models needed to be done. There needed to be a conversion of systems between all the departments. The consultation with internal stakeholders was still ongoing. Collective bargaining posed a problem. The team, however, enjoyed the full support of the Minister of Public Services.

In terms of the limitations on the projects, they had to evaluate all their resources in terms of the project. The final recommendation for the project was to be made at the end of June.

Ms Sharon Thomas, Head of ISM, DOJ, outlined the achievements of the integrated systems management. The roll-out of E-Scheduler Solution was to take place by March 2007. One of the achievements was the incorporation of the E-Scheduler statistics into the Justice Management Solution (JMIS). This allowed the Department to draw information from all their business applications.  The JDAS solution was not as easy to roll-out as the E-Scheduler as it went from a manual to an automated system.

The 2007/2008 Action Plan was presented, and related specifically to what would impact upon service delivery to the public. She indicated that other backend projects were not listed but were still occurring. The Desktop renewal project involved the replacement of old computers. Enhancements to Track and Trace related to the administrative part where documents were within the Ministry and Department. The Migration of the Court Process Solution (CPS) meant that the CPS was to be rolled back to the E-Scheduler. The development of the Justice Payment Gateway to ensure that the MMT or PPP which would monitor bank accounts would be ready on the Department’s side. The Development and Deployment of Bail anywhere meant that anyone would be able to pay for bail at any court. The integration of CAS (SAPS) with the E-Scheduler would allow for the obtaining of electronic information. (See document). The Challenges and Action Steps were also outlined (see document).

Ms Kedibone Tsolo, Director: Advocacy and Public Participation, DOJ,  presented on Public Education and Communication, whose role was to communicate what the Department was doing to other parties. She spoke on the challenges facing the PEC. The key MTSF performance indicators were presented and she  outlined the programmes for 2007/2008. (See document).

Discussion
The Chairperson said that he was going to invite Mr de Wee and his delegation back when they were not pressed for time to have a longer discussion. He asked the delegation to respond to the questions in writing.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP: Gauteng) raised the issue of maintenance. He stated that some people would visit the courts day after day and were told that their money was not there. The tracing agents were also not always finding people’s records. He wished to know the Department’s stance on this issue

Mr Mzizi said that when it came to sexual offences against children, enough was not being done by the Department. They needed information to prosecute and enough was not being done to assist children in being able to talk and in getting special rooms at the courts.

Mr Mzizi noted that Mr de Wee’s presentation on Programme Support and Administration he had spoken of donor coordination. He asked what donor that was and what the criteria were for funding.

Mr Mzizi noted, in terms of the monitoring of the TRC (Select Committee Presentation:  Chief Directorate:  TRC: progress)that not everyone went to the TRC as they were worried about being exposed. He also wanted to know how the Department verified next of kin when compensating victims.

Mr Mzizi, in regard to the extension of maintenance and estates reports, asked whether the tracing agents were now funded, as they had not been previously.

Mr Mzizi asked whether the officials of the Small Claims Court were funded. He also stated that people needed to be empowered so that they would know what to say in the Small Claims Court, and what procedure to follow.

Mr J.W. le Roux (E Cape, DA ) had several questions around security. He wanted to know if there were statistics available and whether they were getting better or worse.

Mr le Roux commented that the Auditor General’s main problem seemed to be around the handling of the trust systems.

Mr le Roux asked whether the large staff turnover within the Department could be due to problems with morale. .

Dr F van Heerden (FFP, Free State) referred to the Select Committee Presentation given by Mr de Wee. He asked what kind of reparations were to be given by the TRC. He asked whether the tracing agents employed would also be involved in Maintenance.

Dr van Heerden then referred to the report presented by Ms Gomm. He commented that there was a fund for victims of crime and he asked the Department to expand on it, in particular how accessible that fund was, what the requirements were to access it.

Dr van Heerden asked what the position would be if someone was not granted bail by the police but should have been, and how the families would b able to protest that.

Dr van Heerden commented on the 90 % performance agreements cycle. He asked what constituted performance. He sought clarity on what the situation was with regards to civil and commercial matters and whether this came into consideration when performance was being monitored.

Dr van Heerden then posed two general issues to the Department, asking whether there was any possibility of allowing attorneys to voluntarily sit on the benches of civil and criminal courts.  He also suggested that the Department investigate alternative bar associations as many trained lawyers could not become members of the practising profession as it existed at present.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC: Mpumalanga) stated that in the provinces the magistrates complained that security was lacking. She asked what was being done to improve this.

Ms Nyanda asked how effective the Department’s awareness campaign was.

Ms Nyanda commented on the high turnover,  despite the staff shortages and lack of magistrates. She asked what measures were being put in place to counter these problems. She also asked why legal bodies were being given so little money despite these rollovers.

The Chairperson commented that magistrates needed additional offices and that holding cells were awful. Magistrates’ offices were also lacking furniture. He commented that the Department of Public Works frustrated many officials. The civil works offices were old and dilapidated.

The Chairperson then also asked the Committee to expand further on the following questions: 
- The matter of rollovers.
- The lack of interpreters, since in some areas there were three interpreters to six courts. He asked how these courts were able to operate efficiently.
- The general lack of consideration and helpfulness of officials, demonstrated by the fact that cases were postponed, there was a general lack of service and officials were sometimes drunk. He asked how the Department and Committee could motivate officials to be more aware, considerate and to work harder.
- The Department’s retention strategy and how they were going to keep the “cream of the crop”.
- The reasons for so many vacancies and why there were more staff in the national than the regional offices.
- An outline of what the recruitment policy was, and the employment status and stigma surrounding ex-prisoners.
- The question of fraud and whether it would not be important to have CCTV cameras installed.
- The need to improve the media strategy of the Department.
- The Legal Aid Board, which was inexperienced and had a tendency to bargain with inmates to plead guilty which was simply unacceptable. The Committee had questioned the Legal Aid Board on this matter and they had said that they only plea-bargained if it was likely to lose the case. However, the inmates had said that they always bargained.
- The reasons why the State was losing so many criminal cases.

The meeting was adjourned.