Border Management Authority Bill public hearings, with Minister in attendance

Source: Parliament, 13/09/2016

The Minister of Home Affairs briefed the Committee on the outstanding
concerns surrounding the Border Management Authority Bill which had
been raised at a previous meeting. He described the three underlying
principles on which the Cabinet had based the functioning of the BMA.


These were that the BMA should be responsible and
accountable for the entire border environment, its role should be to
ensure its coordination, collaboration, oversight, control and
management, and the proper management of BMA would be achieved through
an integrated and cooperative system.


From the outset, the view of the Cabinet had been that the BMA would
be an integrated entity which would take control of the entire
management of the borders. This conclusion had been reached simply
because all entities that were currently managing the borders were
regulated by different legislation, establishing different
mandates.

As a result, mandates and visions were
fragmented, resulting in management being fragmented. What had been
problematic was the absence of a single entity among equals which
could play the role of integrating the fragmented mandates.


There had been a good progress on the outstanding issues. The
Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had engaged with the Congress of
South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the SA Police Service (SAPS) and
the National Treasury. All COSATU concerns had been addressed, while
cooperation between the SAPS and the SA Revenue Service (SARS) had
been outlined in a memorandum of understanding (MoU). The Cabinet was
of the view that the functions of the customs should be the
responsibility of the BMA, but there was no intention by the DHA to
take over the revenue collection. The revenue collected by the BMA
would be sent to SARS.


With regards to the police, it had been agreed that the managing of
the border environment and ports of entry would be the responsibility
of the BMA. Should criminal activity take place in the border
environment, the BMA should collaborate with the police. The Cabinet
felt that these approaches should be the basis of moving
forward.


COSATU said various concerns had been raised with regard to the first
draft of the BMA Bill, but these had been resolved through engagement
with the DHA. Among concerns had been the blanket ban on the right to
strike and picket, the protection of disclosures and the introduction
of privatisation and outsourcing at customs. It supported the approach
of having the BMA as a single government organ. COSATU was concerned
with illegal migration, which had severe impact on employment
opportunities, and believed that the BMA would provide a solution to
migration challenges.


The Committee Content Advisor said that the Committee had received ten
submissions, which proposed amendments to the preamble and
definitions, as well as a number of clauses. Members would have to
understand the issues raised in the submissions, in particular the
reasons why an amendment was necessary or not.


Members expressed their satisfaction with the material progress made
in resolving differences among the concerned departments and entities.
Some expressed their concern about the right to strike, stating that
the right could not outweigh the interests of the nation. Clarity was
sought on issues such as the transfer of workers to BMA, the
disagreement between the DHA and the National Economic Development and
Labour Council (NEDLAC), when all the outstanding concerns would be
addressed, on the vetting process and the role of the Department of
State Security, on the capacity of the BMA to enforce the law along
the maritime borders, and whether neighbouring countries had been
engaged.