Socio-Economic Development: Self-Assessment Report on Socio-Economic Development in South Africa
JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
25 January 2006
SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
Chairperson: Mr M Mohlaloga (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Draft Report of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Socio Economic Development (not available to the public until finalised)
SUMMARY
The Committee met to consider the latest version of the self-assessment report in response to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). The Committee researcher noted the changes that had been made. The main areas of concern for committee members was that much of the data contained in the report was not sufficiently up-to-date and many of their previous suggestions had not been covered adequately in this final draft. Issues around HIV/AIDS as well as funding for non-government organisations made for lively debate by committee members.
MINUTES
Consideration of the final draft report on the Committee’s response to the APRM questionnaire
The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the first draft report had been tabled in the Joint Co-ordinating Committee (JCC), but that its adoption was subject to the Committee agreeing on a final draft. He said that the version before the Committee now captured Objectives three and four as discussed by the Committee.
The Committee researcher, Mr Z Mvulane, noted the changes that had been made to this version of the report and committee members responded with further suggestions.
OBJECTIVE 1: Promoting self-reliance in development and building capacity for self sustaining development.
Mr Mvulane pointed out that for this objective there had been substantial changes in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), participation and development within the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as well as stakeholder participation. It provided a framework for participants in the IDP. A new section dealing with the role of women in the development of South Africa has been included. The report gave a comprehensive outline of what has been done about South Africa’s debt since 1994. Public submissions revealed that there was little improvement around development issues. Communities raised issues around the IDP. These had been highlighted.
Ms Kalyan (DA) asked whether investment perception and the impact of foreign immigrants on the economy had been included in the latest draft. She also noted that the clerk’s minutes of 9 January 2006 indicated that the Committee had wanted the impact of sanctions in the economy before 1994, investor perception, foreign skills as well as issues around development and women and youth to be included. Where had these issues gone? She asked how relevant the inclusion of donor assistance was to this objective.
Mr Mvulane responded that the impact of foreign skills was covered in Objective 3. The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) had done a thorough analysis of South Africa’s skills profile. This data would be included in the final report.
Mr Njikilana (ANC) said it was important to measure responsiveness to development programmes. All information should be clearly stated since the report would be going to the African Union (AU).
The Chairperson said that it was important to state clearly whether people’s lives had been improved due to donors.
OBJECTIVE 2: Accelerating socio-economic development to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication.
Mr Mvulane pointed out that the meeting held in Johannesburg focused on the scale of poverty and the extent to which it had been alleviated and eradicated. The extent to which HIV and AIDS had impacted on poverty levels had also been examined. This version of the report looked at how the international community perceived South Africa’s response to poverty. He pointed out that this section of the report contained substantial input from civil society organisations.
The Chairperson noted that the report indicated that in 2004 11.5% of South Africans lived on less than $1 per day. He pointed out that this information might not be based on the most recent studies. He informed Members that University of South Africa (UNISA) had conducted a study, which determined that this percentage had decreased to 8%. He advised the research unit to consider this study when making the amendments. He pointed out that this study also looked at expenditure patterns for different income categories.
Ms Dudley wondered why the impact of the controversial gambling and lottery legislation had not been included. How did this legislation impact on social development issues and poverty levels? Members should remember that this report would assist other countries too.
Ms Mashiane commented that much of the trend indicators in the report were based on studies that were not so recent. It was important that the report brought recent developments into focus. She suggested that Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) might be a useful resource.
The Chairperson concurred and mentioned that StatsSA had released a study the day before which focussed on employment trends and the impact this had on poverty levels.
Ms Kalyan and Mr Njikilana both felt that the conclusion needed to be strengthened to pick up on all the main points made in this section.
OBJECTIVE 3: Strengthening policies, delivery mechanisms and outcomes in key social areas, including education and combating HIV and AIDS and other communicable diseases.
Ms Kalyan said that it was important to consider the budget allocated for devices to assist people with disabilities. The Chairperson wondered if it was possible to get more information relating to the backlog that was being experienced with regard to devices for disabled people.
Ms Dudley commented on the fact that the section made mention of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act. This legislation was highly controversial. She said that statistics indicated that the majority of South Africans were opposed to this legislation. People against this legislation had attended public hearings in large numbers to voice their objections. She was of the opinion that it was important for the report to comment on this controversy and to indicate whether the legislation was beneficial or not.
Ms Mashiane felt that this ‘opposition’ should be properly quantified. Real numbers should be brought used to illustrate the opposition to the legislation.
Ms Kalyan commented that if this piece of legislation was qualified in the report, one could make an argument for doing the same for all legislation mentioned in the report. She asked whether it was in the Committee’s mandate to evaluate legislation or to list it.
Ms Dudley responded that if there were exceptional circumstances, such legislation would warrant some comment in the report. The controversy should be acknowledged. Many South Africans felt that to terminate a pregnancy was to commit murder.
Mr Njikilana said that for some the same sentiments could be applied to the poverty programme. For some abject poverty led to death. He said one should carefully consider to what extent one could factor in all these different aspects. One could not focus too much attention on just one matter and ignore the others. Deciding to comment on this legislation would impact on the entire document.
The Chairperson stated that Parliament had commented on this legislation ten years before when it was passed. The termination of pregnancy for some translated to infant mortality while for others it was ‘menstrual restoration’. He acknowledged that there were many different views but stated that the Committee would only state what the legislation said.
Ms Dudley requested that her comments regarding this issue be adequately noted in the minutes. She commented that the section dealing with women’s health in South Africa should link to the rape and abuse of women and children and the prevalence of pornography. The report should address the impact of pornography in greater detail. When someone was raped or abused it impacted on issues around health since these victims of abuse would need medical care.
Ms Kalyan commented that the statistics used for this section were also too dated. There had to be more recent information.
Mr Njikilana suggested that the report should also explore the link between domestic violence and rape and health issues. He commented that there was an absence of local data in this section. He said that in addition to the information that could be gathered from the Department of Health, NGOs and universities could also be approached for more relevant up to date information.
He commented that he found it strange that the Department of Health and the Department of Home Affairs did not state the cause of death when issuing death certificates.
Ms Kalyan said that there was no synergy between the two Departments. The Department of Home Affairs was dependant upon information from the Department of Health. The Chairperson pointed out that in cases where there was no foul play the medical professionals would merely indicate that the cause of death was natural. The report should perhaps indicate that the categories were relatively ill defined.
Mr Njikilana was concerned that as far as issues relating to HIV and AIDS the report relied too heavily on input from the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). Some of TAC's criticism was very harsh. He asked whether the TAC was the only organisation that commented on the Government’s perceived failure to implement its comprehensive Antiretroviral (ARV) plan.
He was curious about whether the comments in the report were based on an analysis and review of Government’s work or on the findings of the TAC and other organisations. Ms Dudley concurred that this might be a reflection of the TAC’s opinion regarding the Government’s public messaging. She said that while one could certainly take issue with Government regarding this matter in this instance she was of the opinion that the problem lay with the different partnerships.
The Chairperson noted that some of the comments that were made by TAC and which were captured in the report did not appear to bear any relation to some of the claims that were being made in the report. If the fact that 20 000 people in the private sector and 45 000 people in the public sector had access to ARVs in 2004 was not a satisfactory figure, what was the figure that would have indicated that sufficient progress had been made. After all 2004 was the first year of the implementation of the plan. Mr Njikilana said that other organisations were also involved in the process. Why was only TAC’s opinion noted? He added that the issue was tricky and controversial and had the potential to ‘bedevil’ the report. It was not advisable to rely on information from one organisation only.
The Chairperson said that he was confused since the report now contained sections that it had not contained before. He was not sure as to whether it was necessary for this report to capture comment from the public since the report on the public hearings already did so. The report was already too comprehensive. He reminded the Committee that the purpose was to explain the situation as it was. He added that in the public hearings a lot of comments had been aired that were not in line with that that TAC was saying.
Ms Kalyan said that contrary to popular opinion people were not opting to refuse ARVs for fear that they might lose their social security grants. Ms Dudley responded that she had experienced that people were weary of talking the ARVs if it meant jeopardising their grants in he event of their health improving. She said that these sentiments needed to be included in the report. The Chairperson again advised that the report should state what was happening. How big a grant did people get once their CD4 count increased again? The report’s analysis of this situation should be based on facts. He reminded the Committee that according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) South Africa’s strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS was the most comprehensive in the world.
Ms Dudley felt that the document should not be about facts and figures only, especially since the facts were not entirely reliable. She said that here should be a balance between facts and people’s perception of the situation. The fact that the messaging around Aids was perceived as being confusing and unclear, as well as the perception that one could lose one’s grant if one’s health improved due to taking ARVs should be included in the report.
Mr Njikilana commented that the longer the Committee discussed this matter the more he became convinced that the report should try to keep the discussion on this topic as brief as possible. The report should indicate that the topic was ‘dogged with controversy’. The Chairperson agreed hat the report should indicate that there was still a need for consensus.
Mr Njikilana was curious about why the report only mentioned malaria and tuberculosis (TB) as communicable diseases. Were these the only tow significant communicable diseases? In the case of TB he suggested that the report should indicate how successful the Directly Observed Treatment Shortcourse (DOTS) strategy, which was central to self-assessment, has been.
Ms Dudley was of the opinion that these two diseases needed to be commented on. She said that the DOTS campaign was not without its difficulties. Ms Kalyan was curious about how prevalent malaria and TB were. The report should put the two diseases in context. She asked what the report referred to when it stated that learners with TB received special education services. Mr Mvulane said that this referred to the services that Government provided to ensure that the disease did not spread among learners. Ms Kalyan asked whether this was a reality in schools. Were children who had TB isolated from healthy children? Mr Mvulane responded that the special education service mentioned referred mainly to immunisation and medication once the disease has been detected.
Ms Kalyan and the Chairperson were of the opinion that the report should make mention of the immunisations and medication to avoid confusion. Ms Dudley advised that this information should be verified by the Department of Education since it might be an assumption and not fact.
The Chairperson asked whether the exemption for school fees has been included on the report. Mr Mvulane said that changes had been made to the School Exemption policy. He admitted that this section of the report needed to be strengthened.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensuring affordable access to water, sanitation, energy, finance, including micro finance, markets, Information Communication Technology (ICT), shelter and land to all citizens, especially the rural poor
Mr Mvulane said that as far as the section that dealt with water and sanitation was concerned not much needed to be added. Issues had been covered quite comprehensively. He said that conceptions around ICT had been broadened. Lowering the cost of communication was one of the main challenges.
Ms Mashiane (ANC) asked whether the table indicating access to water was based on the most recent figures. Ms Dudley commented on the 62 million that had been allocated towards eradicating the bucket system. The Chairperson felt that the report should indicate who had set this target.
Mr Njikilana asked what the role of ICT in distance learning had been. What role did municipalities play? The report made reference to a number of companies that had access to Internet. He suggested that it should also indicate how these companies were represented across the first, second and third economies. Mr Njikilana said that he was uneasy about the fact that many of the issues that he had asked should be raised in the report had been left out despite the fact that the information would not have been difficult to obtain.
The Chairperson was concerned that he report contained very little regarding local government.
Mr Mvulane said that as far as housing was concerned researchers had been given the indicators that had been highlighted in the questionnaire. Issues around the Rental Housing Act, the Housing Consumer Protection Measures Act had been raised. Access to housing and land also featured strongly.
The Chairperson asked whether the exact housing backlog was known. Was the Department likely to turn a corner in this regard? What would need to be done to deal with the backlog?
Mr Njikilana noted that the graphic articulation of the goals and achievements with regard to housing was not clear. There had been a number of conventions held around issues related to housing and shelter. The report did not adequately represent the role of the private sector in this matter either.
Ms Kalyan noted that because there was no national database double enrolment across provinces was possible. Ms Mashiane pointed out that registering houses with the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) would eradicate double enrolment. She felt that all conclusions contained in the section dealing with Objective four should be reworked.
OBJECTIVE 5: Progressing towards gender equality in all critical areas of concern, including equal access to education for girls at all levels
Prince N Zulu (IFP) said that he welcomed the new section on gender. He said that the gender machinery should be closely scrutinised. While in some Departments leaps had been made as far as gender equity was concerned, the South African Police Service (SAPS), the judiciary as well as Defence still needed to make much progress.
Ms Kalyan pointed out that the Women’s Parliamentary Caucus, mentioned in the report, has not been functional in two years. She also noted that some of the figures relating to female representation in the National Assembly needed to be verified.
Mr Njikilana said that the report should indicate what the level and character of the wealth owned by women was. The Chairperson mentioned that a StatsSA study indicated that the level of unemployment amongst women has risen since more women have become active job seekers in recent years.
OBJECTIVE 6: Encouraging broad-based participation in development by all stakeholders at all levels.
The Chairperson pointed out that at the last JCC meeting the special panel that was meant to review Parliament and its activities was discussed. The hiring of such a panel of consultants held serious cost implications. The consultants’ fee was too high. It was decided to consider whether the assessment could be done internally. The Adhoc Committee on political governance and democracy would now assess Parliament’s activities.
Mr Mvulane indicated that as far as this section was concerned specific recommendations had been made. These were easily followed up by researchers. Much needed to be done regarding the accessibility of information. Parliament had to make sure that communities had access to information relating to parliamentary activities.
Ms Dudley said that civil society addressed concerns regarding Government’s ‘attack on nongovernmental organisations (NGOs)’. Why did the President question the motives of some of the donors? The Chairperson asked whether NGOs would be getting any funding at all if Government was so hostile towards them. Ms Dudley responded that even though civil society was consulted, they still felt that government was hostile towards them. When speaking with ‘members from the governing party’ they often gave a more positive opinion for fear of losing the little funding they were receiving. The Chairperson said he realised that the TAC would have this opinion. He asked how one would measure this hostility. Mr Njikilana asked how many of the 52 000 NGOs in the country felt that Government was hostile towards them? Ms Dudley spoke frankly and said that all the ‘wealthy white’ NGOs, dealing with children and abused women felt this way.
The Chairperson reminded the Committee that they had agreed to leave this debate out of the report. Ms Dudley felt that it should be included since this ‘perceived hostility’ was a challenge many NGOs faced. They experienced resource constraints due to lack of funding. Their ‘lack of coordination’ as stated in the report was a matter of opinion.
As far as Parliament’s accessibility was concerned, Mr Njikilana said that accessibility was multifaceted. One could access members of parliament via faxes, Parliamentary Liaison Officers (PLOs), etc. He said that the lack of resources mentioned in the report was two pronged. This should be clarified in greater detail. He said that he was struck by the report’s mention of liaison offices in some provinces. He has not yet heard of any. The Chairperson was also curious as to whether they had been established. Mr Mvulane said that these offices were still in planning. Some should have been operational by January. Mr Njikilana said that if they had not yet been established the report should state so clearly. The Chairperson suggested that mention of these offices be left out of the report and that only constituency offices should be referred to. Mr Njikilana suggested that the report should indicate that the extent to which Constituency offices were effective was still subject to interrogation and research. The Chairperson commented that much of the work members did in the constituencies was done with their own money. Members were ‘subsidising Government’. He said that the report did not indicate that people’s assemblies have been common for years. They often take the shape of Imbizos, ward committees, etc. Mr Njikilana advised that the resolutions of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) should also be included.
Ms Dudley commented that the report should indicate that the opposition parties should play a greater role. The public participated through the participation of smaller parties. These parties should be granted greater opportunities to participate in debates, etc. Mr Njikilana responded that the entry barrier into parliament was very low allowing many small parties to participate easily. Of course there were other modalities for how things should be done internally that had to be adhered to.
In conclusion the Chairperson stated his concern about the fact that many of the suggestions that had been made on earlier occasions had not been included in this draft of the report. The research unit would have to return to the drawing board to work on these and other points raised in the meeting. Members agreed that they would meet again on 2 February to adopt the report. The report would only then be made available to the public.
Consideration of the Committee’s Annual Report
Ms L Mashiane said the assumption that all Members had read the report was incorrect. She pointed out that many Members had no access to email when they were at home or in their constituencies.
The Chairperson pointed out that the following two weeks had been scheduled as Committee weeks. There was no way of knowing that Members were not going to spend that time with their Committees.
Ms S Kalyan asked whether it would not be useful to attach the advertisement for submissions, which had been published in newspapers, to the report. The report indicated that a Committee report would be submitted to the JCC. Did this refer to the report that was being discussed at the moment? The committee clerk confirmed that it was the one being discussed.
Ms Kalyan was concerned that point 4.3 of the report did not give enough clarity regarding who was responsible for the inadequate communication with the provinces. The Chairperson pointed out that issues regarding the advertising of public hearings had been raised. This was largely due to the fact that media coverage was not adequate. Ms Dudley suggested the point be amended by saying hat print media was not adequate to reach the audience.
The Chairperson confirmed that not all provinces had conducted the community meetings at the time that the report had been completed. The report was now in the final processes of being drafted.
The meeting was adjourned.