New Headquarters Rental Costs

Reply received:  February 2012  QUESTION 46 / NW51E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: Thursday, 09 February 2012
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 01 of 2012
Mr M Mnqasela (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:

(1)        What is the (a) yearly rental for and (b) floor space of the (i) new and (ii) previous premises used as the Headquarters of her Department;

(2)        on what dates did her Department pay the (a) final rental in respect of the previous premises and (b) first installment in respect of the new premises to which the Headquarters relocated;

(3)        who is the registered owner on the title deed of the new premises;

(4)        whether her Department publicly invited tenders; if not, why not; if so, (a)(i) when and 
(ii) where was it published, (b) which company was awarded the tender and (c) which 
(i) companies and (ii) properties were shortlisted;

(5)        in respect of the specified companies and properties that were shortlisted, what was the (a) floor space and (b) rental of each of these properties?
NW51E

REPLY:

(1)(a)(i)    The yearly rental is R33,195,583.80 (VAT inclusive).

(1)(a)(ii)    The floor space is 25,388.50 square meters.

(1)(b)(i)    The yearly rental was R25,694,247.90 (VAT inclusive).

(1)(b)(ii)    The floor space was 30,858.72 square meters.

(2)(a)       Date of final rent paid will be once the Department has vacated the premises.
(2)(b)       The first instalment will be on the date of occupation of the new premises.

(3)           The registered owner of the new premises is Manaka Property Investments (Pty) Ltd.


http://www.pmg.org.za/node/30871

Home Affairs Travel Agents

 http://www.pmg.org.za/node/29273
QUESTION 604 / NW647E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 04 March 2011

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 4 of 2011
Mr G G Boinamo (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:



(1)        (a) Which travel agencies or travel service providers does her Department use currently and (b)(i) how and (ii) when were they appointed in each case;



(2)        what was the (a) budgeted amount and (b) actual amount paid to each specified service provider for Departmental travel expenditure in the
(i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09 and (iii) 2009-10 financial years?

NW647E



REPLY:



(1)(a)                 The Department of Home Affairs utilises the following corporate travel service providers:



·                     Wings Naledi Travel

·                     Magic Travel

·                     Connex Travel

·                     Duma Travel

·                     Nexus XL



(1)(b)(i)              The Department utilises the above-mentioned agencies on a rotational basis, as listed on the Department’s database of service providers.



(1)(b)(ii)             -           Wings Naledi                 January 2004

                        -           Magic Travel                  May 2007

                        -           Connex Travel    May 2004

                        -           Duma Travel                  February 2008

                        -           Nexus XL                      April 2011



(2)(a)&(b)           The information is specified in the table below:



Travel Agency

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

Total

Budgeted

257,576,000.00

189,036,000.00

188,500,000.00

635,112,000.00

Wings Naledi

33,178,716.48

19,997,385.05

55,427,636.66

108,603,738.19

Duma Travel

1,397,259.06

12,149,960.12

29,433,542.22

42,980,761.40

Magic Travel

-

22,526,294.41

65,330,114.01

87,856,408.42

Connex Travel

5,325,272.44

7,037,184.57

4,256,844.58

16,619,301.59

Actual Expenditure

39,901,247.98

61,710,824.15

154,448,137.47

256,060,209.60

Travel Expenses

 http://www.pmg.org.za/node/29273
QUESTION 713 / NW766E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 04 March 2011

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 4 of 2011
Dr C P Mulder (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:†



(1)        How many overseas visits has she undertaken since being appointed to her post in May 2009 and (b) how many days was she abroad in the performance of her duties;



(2)        (a) to what countries did she travel, (b)(i) how many and (ii) which of these visits took place at the invitation of a host country, (c) what costs did her Department have to pay for such visits, (d) how many of her Department’s officials accompanied her on each trip and (e) what was the purpose of each visit abroad;



(3)        how many overseas visits have officials of her Department undertaken in the performance of their duties, (b) what were the costs for each official in connection with each visit and (c) what was the purpose of each individual visit undertaken by each official?

NW766E



REPLY:



(1)(2)(3) The Honourable Member is, kindly, referred to the Departmental Annual Reports of the years under question.

Legal Costs

 http://www.pmg.org.za/node/29273



QUESTION 1104 / NW1226E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 01 April 2011

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 10 of 2011
Ms A T Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:



(a) What budgetary allocation has been made for (i) defending and (ii) possible cost orders for litigation involving her or her Department as a respondent for the (aa) 2011/12, (bb) 2012/13 and (cc) 2013/14 financial years and (b) to which budgetary programme are these funds allocated?

NW1226E



REPLY:



(a)(i)&(ii)            (aa)       2011/12 R22,717,000.00

                        (bb)       2012/13 R23,852,000.00

                        (cc)       2013/14 R25,045,000.00



(b)                    The allocations were made under Programme 1: Administration: SCOA item: State Attorney: Legal Advice.

Immigration Affairs Budget

http://www.pmg.org.za/node/29273

QUESTION 1183 / NW1318E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 15 April 2011

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 of 2011


Mrs A T Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:



With reference to page 52 of her Department's Strategic Plan for 2011/12 to 2013-14, (a)(i) why has the budget for Admission Services in the Immigration Affairs programme been reduced from R301 million in 2010/11 to R173.4 million for 2011/12 and (ii) what are the details of the impact this reduction is expected to have on Admission Services, (b)(i) why has the budget for Immigration Affairs Management within the Immigration Affairs programme been reduced from
R46 million in 2010/11 to R21.4 million for 2011/12 and (ii) what are the details of the impact this reduction is expected to have on Immigration Affairs Management?



NW1318E



REPLY:



(a)(i)      The budget for Admission Services of R301 million in the 2010/11 financial year took account for the commitments required for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup (SWC). It was, accordingly, reduced to R173.4 million for the 2011/12 financial year.



(a)(ii)     The impact on Admission Services will be minimal, as this figure is the budget for normal operating costs without the commitments of the 2010 FIFA SWC.



(b)(i)      Similar reasons as (a)(i) above.



(b)(ii)     Similar reasons as (a)(ii) above.

Training for Civic and Immigration Services

http://www.pmg.org.za/node/29273

QUESTION 1184 / NW1319E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 15 April 2011

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 of 2011
Mr M Mnqasela (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:



(1)        With reference to the National Treasury Estimates of National Expenditure 2011 (Vote 4, Home Affairs), why has the training budget for (a) Citizen Affairs been reduced from R1 590 000 in the 2010/11 financial year to R979 000 in the 2011/12 financial year and (b) Immigration Affairs been reduced from R7 622 000 in the 2010/11 financial year to R1 418 000 in the 2011/12 financial year;



(2)        what are the details of training within each programme that (a) is planned for the 2011/12 financial year and (b) will not take place in the 2011/12 financial year due to the budget cuts?

NW1319E



REPLY:



(1)(a)&(b)           The Department of Home Affairs has centralised all training at its Head Office in Pretoria, and all training, within the Department, now, falls within the line function of the Learning Academy.



(2)(a)                 The Learning Academy has prioritised the following training for, both, Immigration and Civic Services in the 2011/12 financial year:



·                     Management Development Programmes:



            These programmes will be directed at managers in the front line in, both, Civic and immigration Services. It will include, among others, courses on policy interpretation and implementation, strategic management and budgeting.



·                     Pilot: National Certificate: Home Affairs Services:

The Department has created a qualification, namely the National Certificate: Home Affairs Services. It has been registered with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), and it will be piloted in the first quarter of the 2011/12 financial year. The qualification has three specialisation areas, namely Civic Services, Immigration Services and Refugee Affairs. Officials from Civic and Immigration Services will form part of the pilot project.

·                     Frontline Officers Training in Operational Excellence (uniform processes):

These training programmes will cover areas in Civic Services (births, marriages, deaths and identification), as well as, in Immigration Services (Permits, Port of Entry, Visas and Asylum Seekers). The training will focus on legislative changes, and will, also, be incorporated to update the training material where applicable.



In short, there has been a concerted effort to improve the training that has been offered in the two Core Business Branches to ensure that issues of operational excellence, and better service delivery for Home Affairs clients are continually, and systematically addressed.



(2)(b)                 Not applicable.

Analysis of Department of Home Affairs 2010/11 Annual Report

Analysis of Department of Home Affairs 2010/11 Annual Report: briefings by Parliamentary Research Unit & Office of the Auditor-General of South Africa

Summary: 

The Committee’s Researcher presented an analysis of the Department of Home Affairs 2010/2011 Annual Report. The Department’s three main strategic outcomes were: 1) secured South Africa citizenship and identity 2) immigration managed effectively and securely in the national interest including economic, social and cultural development 3) a service that was efficient and corruption free. These outcomes were reflected in the three main programmes of the Department namely; Citizen Services, Immigration Services and Administration. The three outcomes were divided into twelve indicators, which the Department measured itself against. Achievement of the targets had improved from previous years, particularly in comparing the strategic plan with the annual report.

Programme 1 related to Administration, the Department achieved nine out of the 20 performance indicators set out in this programme. Three of the targets not achieved related to internal procurement and finding suitable service providers. Two of the delayed targets related to an asset register only being finalised towards the end of the financial year. Programme 2 related to Services to Citizens. This programme had 19 indicators and 21 targets. Of the 21 targets, 11 were achieved. Three of the targets not achieved were in part attributed to the prolonged public service strike and a further two targets were contingent on other entities or lack of funding for procurement. A notable target that was exceeded was 2.2 million IDS being issued over the target of 1.99 million. Programme 3 related to immigration services. There were 16 indicators set for immigration in the mentioned four outcomes. Of these, only three were fully achieved. Of the targets not achieved, seven were attributed to no measuring tool being in place. Three of the targets related to immigration policy legislation and regulations were contingent on parliamentary processes and the establishment of the Border Management Agency was contingent on the Justice, Crime Preventions and Security government Cluster (JCPS).
The Department could be commended for achieving an unqualified report, however the report did not indicate qualitative improvement in service delivery. This was a concern given the significant over-spending by the Department.

Members raised questions of the timeline of the receipt of the report and the classification of the R1.2 billion over-spend as minor. It was agreed that these questions would be more appropriate if raised during direct engagement with Department at a future meeting.

The Office of the Auditor-General also provided an analysis of the Department’s annual report. There was strong commitment from the leadership and management of the Department to get a clean audit by 2014. The leadership had shown the right attitude to getting towards a clean administration of audit outcomes. After 16 years of qualified audits, 2010/11 was a milestone for the Department to achieve an unqualified audit. Regarding oversight, it was important to engage with the Department to discuss what monitoring mechanisms would be put in place and what timeline the Department would be working with. A lot of work needed to be done but the first hurdle of an unqualified audit had been cleared. A clean administration was needed so that entities could focus energy on service delivery. This built confidence in the entity. Audit outcomes for the Department revealed an unqualified outcome. In the engagements the question had to be asked, did the Department put processes in place to ensure sustainability and stability for years to come? Concerning the report on predetermined objectives, there were findings on the measurability. The oversight should ask what plans were being put in place to ensure that predetermined objectives could be measured and what timeframe the Department was working with to achieve this goal. There was non-compliance with the Public Finance Management Act, the Public Service Regulations and Treasury Regulations. Oversight was concerned with how was the Department addressing this, what were the processes being put into place, what time frame would this be achieved in and how best to ensure sustainability moving forward. The Department corrected material misstatements. The movement from 2009/10 had improved in terms of moving from a qualified to an unqualified audit opinion.

Members asked about extent to which the AGSA had audited service delivery, what was meant by visibility of leadership as an oversight focus and what the best approach was- was it better to over-spend or under-spend

Minutes: 

Analysis of the Department of Home Affairs 2010/2011 Annual Report
Mr Adam Salmon, Researcher, Parliamentary Research Unit presented an analysis of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) Annual Report.

The 2010 State of the Nation Address outlined the following key priorities that had an impact on Department of Home Affairs:

•Improving services when applying for identity documents
•Intensifying efforts against identity theft
•Improving public service performance and monitoring
•Continuing effort against corruption, including those in procurement and tender processes
•Ensuring the infrastructure and logistics for the 2010 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup
•Regional integration.

The Department’s three main strategic outcomes, which related to the programmes in the budget were: 1) secured South Africa citizenship and identity 2) immigration managed effectively and securely in the national interest including economic, social and cultural development 3) a service that was efficient and corruption free. These outcomes were reflected in the three main programmes of the Department namely; Citizen Services, Immigration Services and Administration. These outcomes were also reflected in the Minister’s Performance Agreement. The Department had also attempted to translate these outcomes into the performance agreements of all employees. The three outcomes were divided into twelve indicators, which the Department measured itself against. The first outcome related to secured South African citizenship and identity had four measurable indicators: 1) to ensure that registration at birth was the only entry point for South Africans to the National Population Registrar 2) to issue identity documents to all citizens 16 yeas of age and above 3) to secure processes and systems to combat fraud and corruption 4) to integrate key systems and upgrade IT infrastructure for improved security and data integrity. The second outcome related to immigration managed effectively and securely and had four measurable indicators: 1) effectively contributing to the successful hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup 2) to implement an integrated immigration management system 3) to participate an contribute towards the establishment and functioning of a Border Management Agency 4) to review the policy and regulatory framework to manage economic migration. The third outcome related to efficient, accessible and corruption-free service and had four measurable indicators: 1) to improve leadership capacity and capability, 2) to ensure ethical conduct and a zero tolerance approach to corruption 3) to obtain a clean audit report and 4) to ensure effective, efficient and accessible service delivery to clients. Achievement of the targets had improved from previous years, particularly in comparing the strategic plan with the annual report.

Programme 1 related to Administration, and had six sub-programmes, namely Minister, Deputy Minister, Management, Corporate Services and Property Management. The Department achieved nine out of the 20 performance indicators set out for this programme. Three of the targets not achieved related to internal procurement and finding suitable service providers. Two of the delayed targets related to an asset register only being finalised towards the end of the financial year. The Department managed to exceed three of its indicators related to training and refreshing of IT equipment, as well as the notable achievement of its first unqualified report in 16 years. The strategic plan however only mentioned 17 indicators for the administration programme, one of which was not relevant for 2010/11. The Department over-spent its budget allocation by 11.6% amounting to R176 million, which was attributed to the settlement of debts with regard to consultancy services, information services, legal services and leases. In addition, a virement total of R37.2 million was shifted from Administration to other programmes. The Department was allowed to shift up to 8% of its programme allocation from one programme to another and it did not exceed that amount. Some general questions in the analysis of the Administration programme performance included the following: What were the reasons for the problems in the internal procurement procedures which led to not achieving some indicators? What were the reasons for the delay in the finalisation of the asset register? What led to the variance in the number of indicators in the strategic plan(17) and the annual report (20)? What was the justification for over-spending in and shifting funds from, the administration programme when so many indicators were not achieved? What if any had been the results of counter corruption strategies established by the Department?

Programme 2 related to Services to Citizens. The purpose of Programme 2 was to secure efficient and accessible services and documents for citizens and lawful residents. There were six sub-programmes, namely, Management, Status Services, Identification, Home Affairs National Identification System (HANIS), Civic Channel Management and Provincial Civic Services. This programme had 19 indicators and 21 targets. Of the 21 targets, 11 were achieved. Three of the targets not achieved were in part attributed to the prolonged public service strike and a further two targets were contingent on other entities or lack of funding for procurement. The targets for the late registration of birth (LRB) and issuing IDs to those 16 and older were stated in the strategic plan as percentages (95%), however the performance that was given as achieved was in numbers, which could not be evaluated since the total number of citizens for these target was not mentioned. A notable target that was exceeded was 2.2 million IDS being issued over the target of 1.99 million. This was attributed to the Department’s campaigns prior to the Local Government Elections. Targets that significantly underachieved were the time to issue unabridged birth, death and marriage certificates being issued in six to eight weeks as opposed to three to four week and 24 days for the issue of manual passports as opposed to 10 days. These failing were attributed to the dispute relating to the Who Am I Online project and problems with quality of newly implemented digital photographs as well as cable theft power outages. The Department over-spent its R1.51 billion allocation for citizen services by 16.8% or R258.3 million. In addition, an amount of R56.6 million was shifted from citizen services to other programmes. Over-expenditure was mainly due to increased printing costs of passports and the overhaul of HANIS. Some general questions in the analysis of the Services to Citizens programme performance included the following: Why were targets for LRB (1.1.2.1) and issuing of IDs to persons 16 and older (1.3.1.1) reported in numbers, whereas the indicators were measured in percentages? No total amounts for the relevant population groups were mentioned. Given the significant over-spending virement associated with the citizen services programme, why were just under half of all targets achieved? What amount was over-spent on the overhauling of HANIS and what if any positive outcome had resulted from this? Had delays to the turnaround time performance for delivering all passports been resolved and what was the current average service time versus the target of 10 days?

Programme 3 related to immigration services. The purpose of Programme 3 was to facilitate and regulate the secure movement of people into and out of the Republic of South Africa through ports of entry, to determine the status of asylum seekers and to regulate refugee affairs. There were six sub-programmes for immigration services, namely, management, admissions, immigration control, provincial immigration control, foreign missions and refugee affairs. There were 16 indicators set for immigration in the mentioned four outcomes. Of these, only three were fully achieved. Of the targets not achieved, seven were attributed to no measuring tool being in place. Three of the targets related to immigration policy legislation and regulations were contingent on parliamentary processes and the establishment of the Border Management Agency was contingent on the Justice, Crime Preventions and Security government Cluster (JCPS). This indicated a significant lack of planning and management in this programme. When considered against the immigration achievements prioritised for the FIFA World Cup, the lack of monitoring measures for temporary and permanent residence was a considerable security risk. This was in part reflected in the reported target achieved of establishment of a risk based framework for immigration. Key achievements under the immigration programme included establishing and appointing a Chief Director of Asylum Seeker Management to provide strategic leadership of the asylum seeker and refugee processes. A chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board was also appointed. Strengthening the human resources capacity within the sub-programme was also identified as a priority and a number of vacant posts were filled. Refugee Affairs also developed and managed the implementation of a framework to guide those Zimbabwean nationals who wanted to voluntarily forgo their application for asylum in support of the Documentation of Zimbabweans Project. A project team was established to deal with the backlog of applications, and this team was relatively successful. The team also implemented a Track and Trace system, which was rolled out to all offices. An inspectorate tracing unit was set up during the FIFA World Cup to monitor the incoming and outgoing traffic. This unit collaborated with foreign missions and the police. The programme over-spent its final allocation by 21% amounting to R253 million for a total of R1.28 billion. This was attributed to providing services abroad through the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) for foreign allowances and operational expenditures. DIRCO issues passports, IDs and visas in foreign countries and the DHA had to pay them back. In the past the Department had not paid them back and this was one of the reasons that led to a qualified audit in the past and was the main reason for the significant over-spend. In addition, the Department received an overall virement of R103 million transferred from other programmes. Some general questions in the analysis of the Immigration Services programme performance included the following: Why were there no measuring tools in place for seven of the uncompleted targets for Immigrations? Given the already poor performance for refugee and immigration targets, would the implementation of a risk based framework for immigration not have a further negative effect on Human Rights and Skills import requirements? What were the measures put in place to ensure that DIRCO was paid on time for its service DHA? The target for the establishment of the Border Management Agency was still outstanding almost two years after the target was set. What were the reasons for delays in the JCPS or elsewhere?

On human resources (HR), the organisation structure was aligned to municipal boundaries as per Chapter 3 Act No. 108 of the Constitution, which should provide for better integration of governance and intergovernmental relations at the provincial level. There was a review of the whole HR structure, which included leave management, exit management, staffing management and payroll management this review was aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness. The Department identified and funded 417 positions for this financial year. Of the 417 positions, 178 posts were filled. The Department indicated only 7.4% vacancy rate, which was significantly lower than previous years. The Department recruited and trained a lot of immigration staff, particularly around the World Cup. An absentee management programme was implemented which reduced the absenteeism rate to 0.12% from almost 6%. This was better than the national average. The Department also developed a performance management system, which linked the organisational performance toe individual performance contracts. The Department established a learning academy and was developing a national certification for Home Affairs Services. On gender analysis, the Department comprised 53% women (4933 out of 9259) but only around 40% percent of professional and higher employees. Some general questions in the analysis of the Human Resources performance included the following: The Department indicated that it had a national vacancy rate of 7.4%, however during oversight to the provinces, Parliament had witnessed vacancy rates of up to 45%. And the DHA indicates a 33% resignation rate. How could this be explained? Given the high rate of resignation at the DHA, what retention strategies had been implemented? The Department indicated a number of 3452 terminations and 139 disciplinary actions. Why were terminations so high and why such relatively low amounts of disciplinary action taken?

The financial information reflected that the Department had an unqualified audit report. The significant uncertainties were related to the Gijima contract and the various pending legal claims, which amounted to R1.2 billion. These pending claims could have a significant knock-on effect. The material losses amounted to R28.5 million for debt that were written off this related to employees and foreign expenses. Material losses of R38.2 million were the results of adjustments made to tangible capital asset balance. Additional matters of importance were concerning the usefulness of information, as 33% of indicators were not quantifiably measurable as well as the procurement and contract management, where senior managers did not disclose their business interests. Some general questions in the analysis of the financial information included the following:  What financial impacts would the settlement of the Gijima dispute have on budget requirements in coming years? What would be done to remedy the significant lack of measurable targets in the Immigration programme? What was the nature of the R32 million debts that we written off? What was the current state of the procurement policy in the Department and what were some of the measures used to ensure its enforcement, if any?

In conclusion the DHA could be commended for achieving an unqualified report; however the report did not indicate qualitative improvement in service delivery. This was a concern given the significant over-spending by the Department.

Discussion
The Chairperson opened the floor to discussion

Mr G Macintosh (COPE) asked whether the reports were delivered within the one month after the accounting officer for the Department received the audit report.

Mr Salmon replied that the reports were indeed received within the one month timeline.

Ms A Lovemore (DA) asked why the pending legal claims that amounted to R1.2 billion were referred to by Mr Salmon as minor when the claims were listed by the Auditor General as a significant uncertainty? Why did the researcher not highlight the fact that the audit commission was deficient, as the accounting officer did not prevent unauthorised and fruitless expenditure? There were numerous emphasis matters that were not highlighted.

Mr Macintosh stated on a point of order that Mr Salmon was a researcher, not a politician, nor a member of the opposition, nor the government. The Committee should handle him more gently than Ms Lovemore did.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Macintosh and stated that there was no need to interrogate him as he was the Committee’s researcher.

Mr M Mnqasela (DA) stated that the work done by the researcher was commendable and without quality research the Committee would be unable to function properly. He reiterated Ms Lovemore’s question on the audit commission. Why was it taking the Department so long to put structures into place in dealing with the movable and immovable assets? He referred to the Committee’s oversight visit to Maseru as an example of the uncertain structures. The Committee needed more information in dealing with asset management.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Mnqaselas questions were valid, but they were directed to the wrong person.

Mr Mnqasela stated that he was highlighting questions to be raised when the Committee engaged with the Department.

Ms S Rwexana (COPE) stated that the researcher should not respond to the questions, as the Committee was preparing for engagement with the Department in a future meeting.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Salmon should respond to the issues raised if he could

Mr Salmon agreed that the Department would be the most appropriate authority to answer the questions raised, but it was important that Members had clarity on the issues. The reason why the Auditor General did not classify the legal costs as significant was because the Department had not incurred the expense yet. The legal case was finalised after the end of the financial year and thus did not deter from the unqualified report. One question that could be asked would be the lack of service delivery as a result of the legal case. The fact that the case was not implemented had a significant impact on the Department. 

There were only three matters of emphasis: the significant uncertainty, material losses and additional matters. The audit commission was an ongoing concern from previous years. The Auditor General’s report was mainly concerned with significant underperformance, miscalculations and errata. This audit approach did not necessarily speak to whether the Department performed well or not in terms of service delivery.

Mr G Macintosh (COPE): asked about the distinction between an unqualified audit and a clean audit.

The Chairperson stated that the Auditor General’s Office would be able to answer that question in the next presentation. The Chairperson thanked Mr Salmon for his research and invited Mr Kevish Lachman to make his presentation.

Briefing by the Auditor General on the Annual Report 2010/11 of the Department of Home Affairs
Mr Kevish Lachman, Business Director for the Auditor General’s Office (AGSA) stated that the function for the Auditor General was to enable oversight and provide the Committee with the tools to help it carry out its functions. The goal of the AGSA was to contribute towards the clean administration of audit outcomes, and work towards a clean administration by 2014. In order for the AGSA to do this it must have no material misstatements, no audit findings on the report of predetermined objectives and no findings of non-compliance. If these were present it would lead to internal control deficiencies. If there was an unqualified audit opinion, that was only half the job, there must be clean administration as well.

There was strong commitment from the leadership and management of the Department to get a clean audit by 2014. The leadership had shown the right attitude to getting towards a clean administration of audit outcomes. After 16 years of qualified audits, 2010/11 was a milestone for the Department to achieve an unqualified audit. Regarding oversight, it was important to engage with the Department to discuss what monitoring mechanisms would be put in place and what timeline the Department would be working with. A lot of work needed to be done but the first hurdle of an unqualified audit had been cleared. A clean administration was needed so that entities could focus energy on service delivery. This built confidence in the entity.

There were three key areas for the oversight leadership for focus on, namely: 1) clarity and simplicity of reports, so that the messages were understood by stakeholders 2) visibility of leadership to guide, mentor and be involved in the processes and 3) the role of governance structures to facilitate good quality information so that the right decisions could be made.

Audit outcomes for the Department revealed an unqualified outcome. In the engagements the question had to be asked, did the Department put processes in place to ensure sustainability and stability for years to come? Concerning the report on predetermined objectives, there were findings on the measurability. The oversight should ask what plans were being put in place to ensure that predetermined objectives could be measured and what timeframe the Department was working with to achieve this goal. There was non-compliance with the Public Finance Management Act, the Public Service Regulations and Treasury Regulations. Oversight was concerned with how was the Department addressing this, what were the processes being put into place, what time frame would this be achieved in and how best to ensure sustainability moving forward. The Department corrected material misstatements. The movement from 2009/10 had improved in terms of moving from a qualified to an unqualified audit opinion.

In terms of the legislative requirements for predetermined objective, there were five documents that the AGSA had identified as critical in ensuring that performance information was reported in a manner that was required legislatively. These five documents included the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury Regulations, Framework for managing programme performance information, Framework for strategic plans and annual performance plans plan and National Treasury Instruction notes.

The three audit criteria were: 1) compliance with regulatory requirements, the sub-criteria were concerned with existence, timeliness and presentation 2) usefulness of information, the sub-criteria were concerned with measurability, relevance and consistency and 3) reliability, the sub-criteria were concerned with validity, accuracy and completeness of information. The AGSA looked at the report in terms of theses areas

Discussion
The Chairperson opened the floor to questions.

Ms Lovemore asked about extent to which the AGSA had audited service delivery. On the issue of reliability what degree of detail did the AGSA go into, for example the vacancy rate was 7.4% but did this number include un-funded positions?

Mr Lachman replied that the AGSA was in the process of migrating to provide a separate audit report and were looking at readiness of this report for next year. In reference to the section on predetermined objectives, paragraph 14 and 15 talked about the usefulness of information, these spoke to the question of service delivery performance and how it was reported in the annual report. The AGSA did not perform a full service delivery audit. The AGSA looked at the information that was reported and than reported it in terms of predetermined objectives. The engagement with the Department would likely provide more clarity on issues of service delivery. On the issue of reliability of the information concerning vacancies, the AGSA went in depth we do make sure that it was consistent.

Mr Macintosh asked for clarity on what Mr Lachman meant by visibility of leadership as an oversight focus area.

Mr Lachman replied that visibility of leadership referred to the ability of the leadership to be seen by the people that they lead so that they could influence the activities of the people that they were leading.  It was a question of internal and external visibility: being seen and getting involved in resolving issues. With Home Affairs it was commendable that the Director General and the Minister had gotten involved in the transformation of the Department.

Mr Mnqasela asked what the best approach was- was it better to over-spend or under-spend.

Mr Lachman responded that it was best to meet the budget (laughter). It was important to distinguish between an under-spending and a savings. The ideal situation would be one where you produce the same level of services that you required, but cost effectively in a manner through efficiencies that would produce a savings.

The Chairperson closed the meeting.
http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20111011-parliament-research-unit-briefing-annual-report-201011-department-hom

Costs of Legal Claims against Home Affairs

Home Affairs: What are the costs of defending a dysfunctional department?

Annette Lovemore, Shadow Minister of Home Affairs
12 October 2010

The pending legal claims of R6.862 billion against the Department of Home Affairs have been well publicised since the release of the department’s 2009/10 annual report during last week. However, what the annual report does not tell the South African public is how much has been spent by the Department on defending legal challenges and on paying the costs of those challenges during the past financial year. This is most concerning, as in many instances, the legal challenges are ones in which the Department has failed to deliver basic services, or acted in a potentially unlawful manner. R6.7 million was budgeted for legal consultants, but the actual costs incurred for such consultants was R23.7 million (up 124% from R10.6 million in 2008/09). And yet, no indication is given of actual costs incurred in settling these claims against the department.

A quick review of cases heard in our courts during the 2009/10 financial year reveals a disturbing trend with respect to this Department. The following selection of cases, and comments by attorneys and judges involved, provides a glimpse into the level of dysfunctionality that leads to the department losing one legal battle after another:

•    May 2009, Lawyers for Human Rights press release
“On 10 May 2009, the day the Department of Home Affairs welcomed its new Minister, Home Affairs illegally deported an asylum seeker to the Democratic Republic of Congo...The deportation is a blatant violation of South Africa's domestic and international legal obligations, which prohibit returning an asylum seeker to an area where he risks persecution. Further, the deportation occurred just two days before his case against Home Affairs was to be heard in the Johannesburg High Court.

This is the fourteenth court case brought by LHR in the past three months challenging the unlawful arrest and detention of asylum seekers.  In eleven of these cases, the court ordered the release of the applicant from Lindela Holding Facility.  In the remaining two cases, Home Affairs agreed to release the detained person on the morning of the court hearing, after the detainee had been subjected to months of unlawful detention.”

•    January 2010, South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, Aruforse v Minister of Home Affairs and Others
Judge Meyer commented: “A detained person has an absolute right not to be deprived of his freedom for one second longer than necessary by an official who cannot justify his detention... ordered to cause the immediate release of the applicant from the Lindela Holding Facility in Krugersdorp...The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of this application.”

•    May 2010, News 24: South Africa’s Lawyers for Human Rights at the weekend secured the release of a Zimbabwean human rights defender, Petro Chatiza at the South Gauteng High Court... Gina Snyman of Lawyers for Human Rights represented Chatiza... “Home Affairs have caused this man an abhorrent injustice. Our courts have consistently held that a person should not be detained for one second longer than authorities can justify the detention, but Home Affairs acts with no urgency or recognition of the rights of the people it detains,” said Snyman in a statement. “It’s also appalling that our client had to borrow a smuggled telephone from a fellow detainee to get word out of his detention, and that we only knew of it via Amnesty International in London.”

•    July 2010, Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown, Ncube v Minister of Home Affairs and Others
Review of refusal to grant a work permit
Judge Revelas commented : “The history of the matter...serves to illustrate the continued unfair treatment of the first appellant and the irrational and malevolent manner in which his attempts to legalise his status were dealt with by Home Affairs...”

The Department is currently facing a court challenge by four couples, in an attempt to force the issue of the relevant spousal permits, while two asylum seekers have initiated a court case in Cape Town to force the Department to consider asylum applications at any centre in South Africa. The Forum of Immigration Practitioners of South Africa (FIPSA) is dealing with many permit applications which are taking the department between four and six months to process, despite the statutory requirement that such applications are to be dealt with within 30 days. FIPSA is considering legal action to force the Department to comply with its own laws.

All of these cases, as well as the many others, along with the attached costs, are as a result of the Department simply not doing its job.

It is concerning when people have to take the Department to court in order for it to perform its mandated duties. Furthermore, this comes at great expense not only to the South African public – money which is now subsidizing the legal battles of a dysfuncional Department - but also at great cost to the person who is being denied services from the Department.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) will submit questions to the Minister in this regard, and will make the reply public. More importantly, the DA will continue to use all available tools to compel the Department to deliver on its own value statement and become efficient and professional, thus obviating the need to defend patently justified court challenges.

http://www.da.org.za/newsroom.htm?action=view-news-item&id=8786

R97 million unauthorised expenditure

Unauthorised Expenditure by the Department of Home Affairs: National Treasury briefing to the

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Date of Meeting: 17 Aug 2011

Chairperson: Mr T Godi (APC)

Summary: 

The National Treasury told the Standing Committee that unauthorised expenditure by the Department of Home Affairs amounted to R97 million. Expenditure was related to the conversion of a manual fingerprint database to electronic, and funds earmarked for capital expenditure used for current expenditure. The Treasury recommended that the amount be recovered from the baseline.

Members expressed displeasure with the long delay in bringing matters to book, seeing that the year in question was 2005/06. It was felt that individuals responsible for unauthorised expenditure had to be called to account and acted against. The Department was asked if the fingerprint project had produced value for money, to which it replied that it would grant national access to all security agencies.

……….

Minutes: 

National Treasury on unauthorised expenditure in the Department of Home Affairs

Mr Devan Naido , Chief Deirector: Economic Services from National Treasury told the Committee that the total unauthorised expenditure by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) stood at R97 million. Overexpenditure during the 2005/06 financial year, amounted to R52 million. An informcation and communications technology (ICT) project had been launched in the last quarter of that finance year. The Treasury had been interested to know the reasons for that. An amount of R4.6 million, earmarked for capital expenditure, had been used for current expenditure. The Department had declared that there were measures in place to prevent recurrence, but steps against a specific person responsible were considered. The Treasury recommended that the amount be recovered from the baseline.

Discussion

The Chairperson remarked that accountability was departmental.

Ms A Dreyer (DA) asked who the Director-General of Home Affairs had been at the time. Consequences had to be considered and actions taken against persons who had to be held to account.

Mr Issac Mabena, Deirector: Administrative Services from the Department of Home Affairs answered that it had been Ambassador Mzuvukile Maqethuka.

Ms Dreyer proposed that he be called in to answer.

Mr N Singh (IFP) remarked on the long time lapse that had occurred before matters were brought to book. The unauthorised expenditure by Home Affairs dated back to 2005/06. He asked why it had taken so long to bring the matter before the Committee. The person responsible in one instance may have disappeared or gone underground.

The Treasury replied that the danger of unauthorised expenditure had been consistently highlighted by it. The Department had neglected to write a letter to it about problems experienced. Engagement with the Treasury about facts was necessarily time-consuming.

The Chairperson remarked that the call had to go out to departments to act with speed, where unauthorised expenditure was concerned. If there was procrastination, the Treasury could not act.

Ms M Mangena (ANC) referred to the amount of R53 million, and asked what had happened. With reference to the DA proposal, she said that the DHA could have made an offer for R46 million to be recovered. She asked what had to be done to recover that amount.

Mr Mkuseli Apleni, the Director-General (DG) of Home Affairs, replied that the Department had allocated R92 million in 2004/05 for the back record conversion project. Service providers had been appointed. The project was initiated to establish an electronic fingerprint record of everyone in the country. Little work was performed during 2004/05, with work only commencing in March. The DHA was unable to spend the R92 million. R389 million was saved in that year. The Department submitted a rollover request. The contract was signed in September 2004. Judgement estimates were decided in October. R132 million was required for the project. In August 2005, the Treasury approved R97 million out of the R389 million saved, to be reserved. The amount was granted on condition that it be allocated in the Department if spending trends were to tend towards overspending. The Department eventually spent R226 million on the project. The baseline amount came to R132 million. Money was being placed outside of the process. R51 million was reserved. There was overspending on goods and services. R46 million was allocated to capital expenditure. Money was taken for licences. Licences were not software, but in that case it was interpreted as being so. Software was part of capital expenditure. The Auditor General found that to be wrong. Overspending may have been wrong, but the DHA did approach the Treasury for a rollover of funds, which was approved. R389 million was returned to the fiscal. The R97 million reserved for the Department, was not requested at the right time. No access to the R97 million would have a major impact, seeing that Home Affairs had not yet turned the corner as a department. The Committee was asked to consider condoning the expenditure.

Ms M Matladi (UCDP) pointed out that there was a difference between saving and underspending. If an amount was budgeted for service delivery and a department failed, it was not a saving. The DHA had admitted that it had been wrong not to go back to the Treasury about the matter. She asked what had been done to correct the situation.

The DG responded that the way to correct the matter was first to acknowledge the problem. A letter had to be written to Treasury.

Ms T Chiloane (ANC) asked about value for money for the project undertaken.

The DG responded that Home Affairs was the custodian of fingerprints. The change from a manual fingerprint record to an electronic one, meant that access to fingerprints for the police and others, had been established. The Department was proud of that achievement.

Ms G Saal (ANC) said that overspending was better than underspending. She asked for reasons why there had been the delay to report back about the promised money.

Mr Singh opined that it had been up to the Treasury to pick up the error. He was not in favour of condoning the expenditure. There had to be efforts to see how much could be made up by other means. It could be staggered, if necessary.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that no decisions needed to be reached on that day.

.................

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Copyright © Parliamentary Monitoring Group, South Africa

http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20110817-national-treasury-unauthorised-expenditure-requested-department-home-

The Minister should come clean on R4.1 billion contract

Annette Lovemore, Shadow Minister of Home Affairs
9 December 2010

The Democratic Alliance has submitted applications, in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, for copies of two reports on investigations into the Department of Home Affairs’ controversial “Who Am I Online” project.

Both reports detail investigations commissioned in 2008 by former Minister of Home Affairs, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, into the awarding of a multibillion rand tender for electronic systems to GijimaAst.

The first report, by the Office of the Auditor-General, was apparently delivered to the Ministry of Home Affairs in February 2009, but has never been made public. This is despite calls for disclosure of the contents of the report by the DA, the ID and by the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs.

The second report is by academic Harvey Wainer, and was, we are told, delivered to Minister Dlamini-Zuma in 2009. It, too, has never been made public.

In 2008, the Department of Home Affairs signed a contract with GijimaAst, valued at R1.9 billion, to implement the “Who Am I Online” system. GijimaAst is owned by billionaire Robert Gumede, a known friend and backer of President Zuma. The project was aimed at replacing the department's outdated systems with electronic processing, and formed part of modernising the Department by, inter alia, eliminating manual and paper-based systems used to issue visas, passports and identity documents.

Costs for the project spiralled exponentially during its short life, eventually reaching a total of R4.5 billion.

The Department has already paid GijimaAst R391 million. The company thus contends that it is still owed approximately R4.1 billion.

On 13 April 2010, Home Affairs sent a letter to GijimaAst cancelling the deal, telling parliament, at the time, that "the supplier for the 'Who am I Online' project had failed to perform and deliver in accordance with the contract". However, Home Affairs informed the company that the contract had never been valid and was unenforceable. This implies that the Department paid the company hundreds of millions of rand without a valid or legally binding contract being in place.
GijimaAst  is threatening legal action to recover these costs. Taking into account that the entire budget for the Department’s functioning for 2010/11 is R5.7 billion, a successful court challenge could well bring the Department to a standstill. (It is rather alarming to note that the pending legal claims against the Department total R6.8 billion – well in excess of the total annual budget.)

The South Africa state has already paid almost R400 million and will potentially fund an additional R4.1 billion for a project that:

(a) was awarded under circumstances that have been the subject of two forensic audits, the results of which have never been made known; and
(b)    has not delivered any measurable results.

The DA will continue to utilise all tools at its disposal, including the current applications for information, and, in the new year, requesting a presentation by the Minister on the subject, to uncover the true facts behind the awarding of this contract and its subsequent cancellation, not to mention who will be held responsible for the expenditure, over 18 months, on  a contract that was never considered valid.

http://www.da.org.za/newsroom.htm?action=view-news-item&id=8992

R6bn lawsuits hang over Home Affairs

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

THE Department of Home Affairs is being sued for R6,8billion, with victims of identity fraud and foreigners wrongfully detained demanding about R414million in damages, according to its annual report.

Oct 1, 2010 | Anna Majavu and Sapa | 7 comments

"Immigration claims arise out of unlawful arrests and detention of illegal foreigners, as well as damages arising out of failure by the department to timeously make decisions on permits," the department says.

The department's director-general, Mkuseli Apleni, however, told journalists in Pretoria earlier: "The [R6billion] of legal claims is only a probability... the public must be aware of this, we want to be transparent."
The department has received a negative audit opinion for the ninth year in a row. Its annual report, tabled yesterday in Parliament, revealed R321million in irregular expenditure.
Auditor-General Terence Nombembe gave Home Affairs a qualified opinion, with emphasis of matter.
Nombembe said he could not verify whether R1,6billion worth of assets really existed. He also found that the department is embroiled in lawsuits, with different people making claims of nearly R7million against it.
He said a further R3,2million of overtime payments to Government Printing Works (GPW) staff (who fall under the department) was irregular spending.
"Overtime by GPW employees exceeded 10 hours per week" - contravening labour laws," said Nombembe.
Since 2001, Home Affairs has been given six qualified opinions and three "disclaimers" or totally negative opinions.
Its former director-general, Mavuso Msimang, who was in charge of the department during the audit period, promised Parliament every year that Home Affairs would get a clean audit "next time".
It now seems it will be up to the new D-G, Mkhuseli Apleni, to make that happen.
But Apleni yesterday downplayed the department's negative opinion.

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2010/10/01/r6bn-lawsuits-hang-over-home-affairs

Home Affairs' bad finances (again)

Another year, another Home Affairs horror

Oct 13, 2010 | Anna Majavu | 11 comments

THE Department of Home Affairs has promised Parliament again it will get its books in order next year.

The department, with its annual budget of R5,2billion, was grilled by Parliament's Home Affairs portfolio committee yesterday after it got its ninth negative audit opinion this year.

Home Affairs director-general Mkuseli Apleni insisted that they were on the right track.
"The minister indicated that the department would achieve an unqualified audit within two years," Apleni said. "We are still not there but the indication is clear that we will be able to achieve this target."
Home Affairs had aimed at developing four centres of excellence - offices where everything runs smoothly - but had only been able to create two.
When asked why he could not even ensure that four centres were functioning at a very high standard, Apleni said: "We are also dependent on the Public Works Department for improving our buildings."
Apleni admitted that "pushing back the frontiers of fraud and corruption" was a "significant challenge".
But he downplayed Home Affairs' unauthorised expenditure of R99,8million, saying he hoped Parliament's standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) would write this amount off.
But Scopa chairperson Themba Godi told Sowetan that while the Treasury had written to them about the R99million unauthorised expenditure, he had not received any documents from Home Affairs to help them decide whether this amount could be written off.
MPs asked why Home Affairs promised last year to have a register of their R1,6billion assets in place by November 2009 but failed to do so.
Apleni said: "Unfortunately, the department has been moving at a slow pace. We are saying there has been an improvement."
Home Affairs also ran up R320million in "irregular" spending.
Apleni explained that R261million of that was paid to GijimaAst to develop an online ID system. Home Affairs has since cancelled the contract.

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2010/10/13/another-year-another-home-affairs-horror

Free Zim Dispensation costs R419 million plus...

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

The waiver of the permit fee for illegal Zimbabwean immigrants represents a financial loss of a whopping R419 158 240 to home affairs.    That is a lot of money to waive for a department that is in a bad financial condition.  It represents almost 10% of home affairs' R5bn budget.   In addition there is the opportunity cost of resources that have been redeployed from other sections within home affairs to work on the Zimbabwe dispensation project.   Plus the cost of the consultants that are working on the project.  The total economic cost of the dispensation could easily be in the region of R1bn.

According to home affairs, 275 762 illegal Zimbabwean immigrants have applied for legalisation.  The R1 520 permit fee that immigrants usually pay has been waived for them.

I'm not sure whether they pay the repatriation deposit (R2 040 when I immigrated 7 years ago).

At the same time, the cost of a re-issued ID has been hiked by 600% from R20 to R140.  A passport has been hiked by 110% from R190 to R400.

National Treasury is one of the best run departments in this country, but it baffles me that they approved the permit fee waiver for the illegal Zimbabweans.  Illegal immigrants spend at least R2 000 per year to maintain their illegal status.  This is in the form of bribes to immigration officials, bus drivers and police.  Some of them had to travel to the border every 3 months to get their passports stamped.  They can afford the R1 520 permit fee.

The department probably thought it was doing an act of goodwill, but how are taxpayers and South Africans meant to feel when the cost of their documents more than doubles and the illegal Zimbabweans get legalised for free?