Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of the Quality of Life and Status of Women on Budget Vote 1: Presidency, for 2006:

The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women, having considered the relevant programmes of the Memorandum: (a) Memorandum on Vote No 1 – “The Presidency”, Main Estimates, 2006-2006, referred to it, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.

The Committee noted the following points.

The Committee is asked to comment on this vote primarily because it includes information on the allocation in respect of the Office on the Status of Women. The Committee also, however, has observations on other parts of this vote.

The Committee notes, under ‘recent outputs’ under programme 2 (Support Services to the President and Deputy President), that there is a working group on women. The Committee would like clarity on the relationship of this working group with the various parts of the national gender machinery, namely the Commission on Gender Equality, the Office on the Status of Women, and the Committee itself. The Committee would also like to know the percentage and the racial balance of women among members of all the other working groups, namely those on trade unions, black business, commercial agriculture, religious leaders, higher education, and youth.

The Office on the Status of Women falls under Programme 5: Policy Coordination. The sub-programme for the Office is described as facilitating the development of a national gender policy framework, and coordinating activities in the areas of gender equity and equality. The Committee is concerned, firstly, that we are in 2006 still talking about the ‘development’ of a national gender policy framework. We feel that at this point we should have such a framework and be intent on ensuring it is implemented.

We would also have liked to see the vote stating explicitly that the Office is focused on coordination of government activity in respect of gender equity and equality. We worry that if the objective of the Office is expressed too broadly, it could be counter-productive and difficult to monitor what is being achieved on the core mandate. Coordination of government activity includes, importantly, strengthening and coordination of sectoral focal points in the different departments of national government, provinces and municipalities. The Committee is aware from its interaction with its counterpart committees in the provinces as well as meetings with focal points, that there are many problems with the focal point system. These include the fact that (a) not all departments have such focal points, (b) focal points are often appointed at very junior level or from administrative posts, (c) focal points rarely are included in high-level deliberations within their departments. The provincial Offices on the Status of Women report that they feel unsupported by the national Office. (In some areas a gender focal point person is given this duty as add on to his or her work, thus not able to do justice to this function)

We are also concerned by reports that the provinces are not aware of developments in respect of a national gender policy framework. We feel that lack of awareness and lack of implementation are among the causes of the current situation where there is great unevenness across provinces in gender structures and approach. Thus some provinces do not have an Office on the Status of Women. Some provinces do not have a parliamentary committee dealing with women or gender. Only one province (Gauteng) requires that departments produce a gender budget statement showing the programmes and associated allocations to promote gender equality. The national framework was intended to bring alignment across the provinces. This has not happened.

In terms of recent output, the document notes that a review of compliance with the Beijing Platform for Action was done and a gender mainstreaming training manual developed. We are disappointed that the Beijing review has not been shared and discussed with the Committee. We need to know what the plans are in respect of Tabling this review in Parliament and making it available to the wider public as well as to provincial structures. In respect of the manual, we would have liked to see in the National Estimates some indication of plans for using this manual in training.

The performance budgeting framework used in South Africa provides an excellent opportunity for the Budget Vote to provide such information. However, the document does not provide answers to questions such as: (a) has budget been allocated for the purpose of training? (b) who will be the trainees/ how many will be trained in budget year 2006/07? (c) will training be restricted to focal points or will it include other officials, including men, who are responsible for important mainstream functions such as planning and budgeting? The question of planned utilisation of manuals is especially important in that the indicators and targets section of the sub-programme vote notes that a further manual, on mainstreaming gender, disability and children’s rights, bearing in mind the urban/rural divide that is so large, is to be developed during 2006. Development of such manuals is of limited value if they are not subsequently used.

In our report of last year, the Committee stated that, as part of its monitoring role, it would like the Office on the Status of Women to undertake research that responds to the short and long-term indicators set in terms of the National Policy Framework on Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality. We are disappointed that we have not heard of progress in taking up our recommendation as it is now more than five years since the Policy Framework was adopted.

The Committee resolves that the Office on the Status of Women be asked to report in the annual report to be produced in September this year on the number of gender focal points within each of the national departments, the level of staff occupying these positions, in which directorate/office they are located, the proportion of time allowed to these staff for doing focal point-related work, and the amount of budget allocated for the work. The Office should similarly report on the situation in relation to Offices on the Status of Women in each of the nine provinces.

2. The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons on having considered the request to the National Assembly to recommend the appointment of commissioners to the President for the filling of vacancies on the National Youth Commission; in the Presidency, referred to it, reports as follows, date 2 June 2006:

The Committee invited the public to nominate persons for consideration and recommendation to the President for the filling of vacancies on the Commission. Nominations and applications were received from 54 candidates. The Committee met on 12 May 2006 to consider the nominations, and agreed that the following persons be shortlisted and be interviewed on 24 and 26 May 2006 respectively.

Mr Xolile Majola, Ms Nobulumko Degracia Nkondlo, Mr Elroy van Rooyen,

Mr Magic Nkhwashu, Ms Vuyiswa Gladys Tulelo, Ms Ntombikayise Nomawisile Sibhida, Mr David Xolile Kham, Mr Khululekani Ntshangase, Ms Lefika Chetty,

Mr Sithembele Africa Peter, Mr Olwethu Sipuka, Mr Mothupi Phaladi Modiba,

Ms Nonkululeko Mohomane, Mr Mntuwekhaya Sheperd Daki, Ms Rene Alicia Smith and Mr Donald Kubayi. Out of the 16 short listed candidates, Mr D Kubayi was not allowed to exchange his opportunity for the interview with Mr V Mukharhi, a friend and was subsequently disqualified.

After having considered the shortlist and after having interviewed 15 candidates, the Committee recommends that the House, in accordance with section 4 of the National Youth Commission Act No 19 of 1996 (as amended as Act No 19 of 2000), make a recommendation to the President that the following candidates be appointed as commissioners to the NYC:

1. Ms N D Nkondlo

2. Mr M P Modiba

3. Ms V G Tulelo

4. Mr O Sipuka

5. Ms N N Sibhida.

Report to be considered.