National Youth Commission
Review of State Institutions Supporting Constitutional Democracy
24 January 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF STATE INSTITUTIONS SUPPORTING
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY
24 January 2007
NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION
Chairperson: Prof Kader Asmal (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Terms of
reference
National Youth
Commission response to Committee questionnaire
National Youth
Commission Act, No 19 of 1996
National
Youth Commission Amendment Act, No 19 of 2000
National Youth Commission Annual Report 2005/06
National Youth Commission website
SUMMARY
The National Youth Commission was the first of the Chapter 9 and associated
bodies to appear before the Committee. Members sought greater clarity on how
the Commission interpreted their role as set out by their enabling legislation,
about its claim regarding non-cooperation from government departments and
excessive overseas travel. The Committee raised concerns about the Commission’s
apparent lack of coordination with associated commissions such as the South
African Human Rights Commission and the Commission for Gender Equality. It also
noted that the Commission should have greater interaction with parliamentary
committees and should increase its public visibility.
MINUTES
Chairperson’s opening remarks
Prof Asmal welcomed everyone to the meeting with the National Youth
Commission (NYC) which was the first body to appear before the Committee. He
said that he hoped that the proceedings would be vigorous and congenial. He
reminded everyone that although the NYC was not a Chapter Nine institution, it
was associated with the work of those institutions.
The NYC delegation comprised its Chairperson, Ms Nobulumko Nkondlo, its
Director of policy and research, Ms Margaret Tshoane and Commissioners Olwethu
Sipuka, Elrico van Rooyen and Mothupi Modiba. The Vice Chairperson was on
maternity leave and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had recently resigned.
Prof Asmal noted that there was enormous interest in the work of this
Committee. The public had a sustained interest in its work because it related
to the working of Parliament and of South Africa's democracy as a whole. It was
the first time since the foundation of democracy that a review of the Chapter
Nine and associated institutions was being done.
He explained that the Committee had sent a detailed 25 point
questionnaire to the eleven bodies up for review and all of them had responded
within the set timeline. That first interaction would take place that day and
the Committee could decide to recall the NYC or any other body before them
again as the review proceeded.
The Committee’s constitutional expert, Dr Leon Gabriel (Manager
Information Services, Parliament), explained that the NYC had not been asked to
orally present on their written submission because it had been received in good
time and the Committee had had ample opportunity to go through it extensively.
The Committee would that morning focus primarily on the responses to the
questionnaire but might also pose additional questions.
Prof Asmal explained that the Committee was not a court of law, a
disciplinary committee, an enquiry or even a portfolio committee. The Committee
performed a systematic oversight role which differed from the normal oversight
role where annual reports etc were interrogated. The Committee would be performing
a general oversight role of all the bodies. In addition to the replies to the
questionnaire, the Committee could also refer to the terms of reference which
in some cases would be broader than what had been sent to the bodies.
Two members of the Committee had been requested to build up some expertise
around the NYC and would be leading the questions. Other members could of
course also raise questions.
Discussion
Prof Asmal pointed out that the NYC’s responses to the questionnaire
had been fairly broad and that the Committee would therefore require more
specific details. He felt it necessary to explain that the Commission before
them that day was fairly new, and presented total discontinuity with the
previous one. The Commissioners had only been appointed six months earlier.
Despite the fact that they had only taken office a short time ago, senior
officials had not been available to attend the first joint meeting between the
Committee and the bodies to be reviewed, because they had all been away on overseas
visits. All other bodies had sent their CEOs and chairpersons to the
preliminary meeting. The Committee had drawn some conclusions about the NYC’s
inability to do likewise and had felt that since they had been given twelve
days in which to reply to the invitation, the Commission could have made
alternative arrangements to ensure that they would be represented. This would
be discussed in the interaction too.
Prof Asmal requested the NYC to explain how it had gone about preparing its
submission as well as who had been involved in that process.
The NYC Chairperson, Ms Nobulumko Nkondlo, responded that the NYC welcomed
their inclusion in the review which they thought would enhance their work and
youth development in general. The outcome of the review would provide an
interesting perspective on how youth
development would be taken forward.
The NYC’s executive committee had met after receiving the invitation to
the joint meeting. They had also engaged with the youth desk in the Presidency
so as to get greater clarity on the work the Committee would be doing.
The executive committee agreed that the Commission had to, at national
level drive the promotion of youth development and rally departments and other
stakeholders behind their efforts. It had, over time developed a structure that
assisted in coordinating their work with that of the provincial commissions. So
as part of their preparation of their responses they had met with their
provincial counterparts. Via a teleconference with all provincial commissioners,
the NYC held a briefing on the process and the importance of their getting
involved in the preparation of the responses. They then sent the questionnaire
to the provinces to allow them to make input.
They also convened a stakeholders’ forum to talk about the work that was
taking place and which they understood would play an important factor in the
NYC policy review that had also started in 2006. Youth organisations were
sensitised to the process and were encouraged to participate.
The policy and communication units were involved in the process to collate all
the input that had been received.
Prof Asmal requested that Dr Gabriel read the NYC’s response to the
first question (see documents) which required them to explain how they related
their work to the legislative background provided by their enabling act, the
National Youth Commission Act (No 19 of 1996) Dr Gabriel noted that their
response which comprised four points basically paraphrased and combined some of
the objects of the Act.
Prof Asmal found it odd that the response had made no mention of object (f)
required the Commission to promote uniformity of approach by all organs of
state including provincial governments, where youth-related matters were
concerned.
The NYC had responded that it was difficult to coordinate the activities
of various provincial government institutions, but the Chairperson reminded
them that the coordination never the less remained a very important object.
He continued that the NYC said that they could
not do anything about their own budget, which they did not fix
themselves. Section 8, however empowered them, in consultation with the
Government, to prioritise resource allocation to youth affairs. He was unaware
of any other commission having such power and wondered why these three most
important functions were not reflected in the NYC’s response.
Ms Nkondlo informed the Committee that her delegation would assist her in
answering the questions. She also pointed out that Commissioner van Rooyen was
currently the acting CEO.
The Chairperson decided to allow the NYC delegation time to think about
the question he had posed and, in the interest of a more relaxed interaction,
allow members to pose some of the questions they had prepared.
Ms C Johnson (ANC) said that in addition to the NYC’s responses she had studied
their annual reports, strategic plans and website. In the Annual Report and
Strategic Plan they listed nine objectives while in the questionnaire they
mentioned only four. The information contained in the responses and that
contained in the reports reflected a discrepancy in the NYC’s interpretation of
their enabling act. The NYC had referred to their mandate in developing their
principles, guidelines and recommendations. Ms Johnson requested them to
elaborate more in this point.
Ms Johnson wondered how the Commission interpreted and applied their enabling
Act as well as the Act's amendments made in 2000. She asked them to comment on
whether they thought that what they were doing was in sync with the functions determined
in the enabling legislation.
Ms Nkondlo responded that the NYC’s understanding of their objectives was
outlined in their response to the questionnaire. When they were developing the
response they assumed that the Committee was aware of the enabling act and that
the NYC was not required to rewrite what had already been stated in the
legislation. They tried to reflect what, amongst everything stated in the
legislation, they understood to be their function.
The Strategic Plan and the Annual Report reflected the specifics related
to their activities. When the new commission took office they had had a
strategic planning session to study the Act and to see how they could ensure
that what was contained in it was included in the NYC’s daily work. They understood
that the NYC had to coordinate, monitor, lobby and advocate for and coordinate
the broader youth development work within the country. This was their
understanding of the Act and was consistently reflected in their Annual Report
as well as in other documents.
Prof Asmal pointed out that the Committee was interested in what the NYC’s
areas of emphases were and why these departed from the core objectives.
Ms Johnson noted that the NYC identified their key focus areas as policy and
research, advocacy and lobbying, and coordination and capacity building. She
wondered whether the NYC was sufficiently capacitated to realise these
objectives.
Ms Nkondlo replied that the NYC’s capacity had evolved over time and
that it had built human resource and other capacities to ensure that it could
respond to its mandate. She reminded members that the Commission had to respond
to enormous challenges facing youth in South Africa. She admitted that at times
it had deviated and focussed more on implementation which was not its core
function. In order to ensure that the youth agenda was understood it had to
develop best practice models.
She suggested that the Committee might also consider their strategic
planning document which said that the NYC needed to ensure that policy and
research as well as monitoring and evaluation were emphasised as these were its
core functions. Resources had to be allocated for this.
Prof Asmal said that the NYC had been in existence for ten years and yet there
were some aspects, which to the best of the Committee’s knowledge, had never
been carried out. Many of these were mentioned in the annual reports but more
specifically were also legal requirements. The
legislation afforded them some executive functions yet they claimed that they
did not have any power of implementation. While the Commission could interpret
the legislation as much as it wanted, the Committee was concerned that the
visible work of the NYC had largely been absent. He wondered whether activities
such as campaigning would be incorporated in the new programme of action.
Commissioner Modiba responded that the NYC felt that it had over the past ten
years quite effectively discharged some of its work. The Umsobomvu Youth Fund
was the result of campaigning and had been aimed at addressing the issue of
integrating young people into broad economic participation. The Commission had
believed that they needed a youth enterprise funding agency of some sort and
actively lobbied for the adoption of the fund. They were working with the fund to
try and further to improve its work.
The NYC consistently provided reports on the status of youth, identified
key areas of focus and tried to direct government departments’ focus to these
issues. The NYC agreed that they “had not been perfect over the ten years” and
that in some areas there was room for improvement.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee was concerned that in the response
document, the NYC gave their own insight of the priorities but excluded some
very important statutory obligations.
Ms Johnson commented that the NYC’s budget had increased from R13,8 million in
2002 and would be increasing annually at 7,8% until it reached R21,6 million in
2008. National Treasury felt that the NYC’s responsibilities had increased and
thus required an increase in its allocation. The Committee was curious as the
manner in which its responsibilities had increased, especially because the
enabling act certainly had not changed.
Ms Nkondlo explained that the NYC did not operate in isolation of other
institutions. These institutions needed to give the necessary support and
leverage to the work of the NYC. Government departments and society in general
had to appreciate that more youth development initiatives had been taken up.
The NYC had had to grapple with a specific kind of environment. It was
advocating for issues such as the establishment of an interdepartmental
committee on youth affairs which would assist the Commission in coordinating
its work properly. The NYC also had to ensure that resources were wisely spent.
Prof Asmal pointed out that much of what Ms Nkondlo said was contained
in the NYC’s response. The Committee wanted more direct answers. The NYC had
responded that due to budget limitations they could not do many of the things
they were supposed to do. However the budget reflected that despite this claim
they had under spent. As Ms Johnson had pointed out, their budget would
increase and in which new areas would the NYC spend the additional money.
Ms Nkondlo replied that the NYC was in the process of restructuring
their programme so as to align their work with their mandate. In order to
strengthen their policy unit, they would increase their research capacity. The
NYC needed to do much work in order to promote youth development amongst
government departments and other stakeholders.
In addition to promoting youth development, the NYC was responsible for
monitoring programmes like the National Youth Service (NYS) programme. One of
the challenges the NYC had had to deal with, was that they did not have a
monitoring and evaluation system that could ensure that they strengthened their
mandate. Much of the resources they would in future receive would go into
ensuring that issues were aligned.
Prof Asmal wondered why, if they claimed to need more money to perform
their duties, the NYC had underspent to the tune of about R2 to 3 million.
Commissioner van Rooyen responded that the new commissioners had been in
office for just over six months. Upon taking office, they had undertaken a
review to see if their activities were aligned to their mandate and whether
they were able to effectively implement them. Due to the internal restructuring
in realising their strategic objectives and mandate, there had been a slower
process of expenditure. As far as he was concerned this did not mean that they
had underspent.
The filling of certain vacancies had for instance been delayed. These
were in the process of being filled now. The CEO had resigned last year and
this position would be filled too. By end of February, all vacancies would have
been filled. Resources had also been allocated for stakeholder engagement.
Money had to be spent responsibly: a proper process had to be followed so that
they did not spend because they had the money but spent according to key focus
areas and priorities. The money would be spent by the end of the financial
year.
In the last six months work had been done around the "youth
budget" in order to review what the government departments and private
sector were doing for youth development. Last year National Treasury had
engaged all national departments about their "youth budget" to see
what amount of money could be allocated to specific youth programmes within
each department.
The increase in the NYC budget would go towards the National Youth Fund
specifically. In the 2006 State of the Nation Address, the President had
announced that youth advisory centres would be increased and that 10 000 young
people would be enrolled in the NYS, which would be a key focus area. This
undertaking had been provided for in the new budget. In the upcoming 2007 State
of the Nation Address, the number of young people to be enrolled in the NYS
would be increased considerably once more. All these areas would be resourced.
The monitoring and evaluation role would also be improved. The NYC was in the
process of completing the Youth Development Index (YDI) so that evaluations of
Government departments or the private sector would be done against specific
indicators.
Prof Asmal wondered whether the NYC’s involvement in the NYS would be
around training or just administrative aspects.
Commissioner Sipuka explained that the NYC’s main role was to provide
the overall strategic coordination of the programme. They also had to lobby and
advocate so that the maximum number of young people got enrolled in the
programme.
Prof Asmal asked whether advocacy was not part of the NYC’s normal work
activity and asked how much money had been allocated to this effort. He
wondered whether the NYC was not now merely acting “as an advertorial” for the
Minister (in the Office of the President) and for the Deputy President.
Mr Sipuka said that their understanding was that coordination and other
related activities should have a budget aligned to it. The NYC still maintained
that they had to have a budget totally committed to coordination. Over the
festive season the NYC had to go around the country to ensure that departments
had bought into the NYS. They had to be sure to visit the sites that saw active
youth involvement. Such activities had to be resourced.
Prof Asmal noted that 60% of the expenditure went towards administration
and said that the Committee would have to determine whether that amount was too
little, too much or average.
Ms D Smuts (DA) was interested in what the latest national age profile
was.
Mr Modiba said that close to 40% of the total population was made up of
youth, that is, 14-35 year olds. More significantly about 60% of the
continent’s populating could be classified as youth. At the recent 5th
African Development summit it was stressed that youth development needed to be
intensified since young people formed part of an important constituency vis a
vis the overall demography of the continent.
Prof Asmal said that one of the members of the Committee had wondered whether
the percentage of youth in South Africa was not perhaps greater than the 40%
the NYC had earlier indicated. Age distribution was an important factor when
considering the importance of the youth commission.
Ms Smuts struggled to understand how the NYC was distinguishable from
government. The NYC even sat in the government ministerial clusters nowadays.
The National Youth policy they were coordinating was a government policy. In
their responses they had said that they advanced government’s agenda. Although
under their statute they were a commission and as such separate from
government, she had the impression that they were totally integrated with it
and were taking forward government policy. National Treasury encouraged each
department to integrate certain aspects, thus further creating the impression
that the NYC was deeply integrated with government.
Mr Modiba explained that the role of the NYC was to influence amongst
others the focus, programmes and expenditure of government. Consistent with
this role they had to attend meetings and bring youth-specific issues to the
fore. Some of the recent social cluster discussions for example were in
relation to integrating the NYS programme with key government programmes such
as the Expanded Public Works Programme. It was the NYC’s responsibility to give
data and other scientific information that could facilitate the proper
integration of these youth developmental interventions.
He denied that the NYC was an extension of government. The legislation stated
that the NYC was located within the Office of the President, thus the NYC had
an executing authority in the President and was accountable to him. Its role
and responsibility were to investigate and motivate for the adequate
integration of youth development into government programmes.
Prof Asmal pointed out that the Inter Departmental Committee was not
really working effectively because departments sent very junior officials to
represent them. He wondered what role the NYC played, considering that it had
succeeded in setting up youth desks within departments.
Ms Nkondlo responded that, as the legislation stated, the NYC had a
responsibility to promote uniformity across government departments as far as
youth development was concerned. The NYC had advocated for the establishment of
the youth desks because they were of the understanding that departments had a
responsibility to provide services to the entire spectrum of the community. The
NYC’s responsibility was to ensure that the youth sector was prioritised. The
desks were an interface. At the end of the day, the NYC had to be able to get
information about this and monitor that what was budgeted for, was discharged.
Ms Tshoane explained that the presence of youth desks in certain
departments did not necessarily mean that youth development was coordinated
across them. The youth desks focussed on youth development within their own
departments. The NYC’s role was to ensure coordination between what was done
within departments and the private sector. Youth desks might not necessarily do
the monitoring and evaluation either. In order to ensure that youth development
indicators were in place, the NYC assessed departments. She did not think that
there was any other institution that played such a coordinating role.
Prof Asmal presumed that as the national body charged with overseeing
youth matters, the NYC was not merely coordinating, but also giving leadership.
Ms Smuts asked in what way the NYC played a unique role. They planned to
undertake a scientific study on the status of youth in the country but she
wondered whether this was not already being done by other departments. The NYC
had compiled a database of existing research, but that also had clearly already
been done. Furthermore they said that they made sure that mechanisms to promote
access of information to the youth were in place and that they increased the
profile of programmes such as the NYS. Surely these functions were already
being performed by the Government Communication and Information System. Ms Smuts’
attention had particularly been caught by the claim that the NYC monitored and
evaluated the impact of the government’s social economic programme and the
extent to which it reduced youth vulnerability. The first thing that sprang to
her mind was AIDS orphans and child-headed households. She asked what the NYC
had done differently with regard to these issues.
She also noted that the NYC were now consulting youth organisations and
was curious as to which ones they had approached and requested that at some
stage they might provide the Committee with a list of these organisations. She
was interested in determining whether the NYC was an independent body that
consulted youth organisations from across the board.
Ms Nkondlo responded that the NYC through the Youth Convention aimed to take
the process into the provinces so that they could also participate. Provincial
summits attended by youth organisations were held prior to the national
convention in July 2006. A list of the ones that had been invited could be
forwarded to the Committee.
The NYC was currently working on broadening and revising their database so as
to ensure that they created broader youth participation. Using this database
they would ensure that those organisations that had not been invited would be
included in future interactions. The website allowed all youth organisations to
register so that they could become part of the NYC database and could
participate in developing policies and have input into the NYC’s activities.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) sought clarity on why there was a youth desk in the
Presidency that existed side by side with the Commission which itself was
located there. He asked what the difference between the two desks was and
whether the NYC had jurisdiction over that particular youth desk.
Mr Modiba responded that the NYC could only speak about their mandate
and thus the Presidency was best placed to answer the Member’s question. All he
could say was that the NYC’s activities brought it in constant interaction with
the youth desk.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee had not heard from the Minister or the
President, but said that they would be approached for elucidation of this
particular matter. He cautioned however that the NYC could not “perform Pontius
Pilate acts” all the time. He reminded them that the legislation required the
NYC to promote uniformity of approach by all organs of state and wondered how
the two similar structures coexisted. He felt that it was fair to question the
relationship that existed between them.
Ms Johnson said that at the end of 2006 the NYC had reported to
Parliament's Joint Monitoring Committee on Youth, Children and People with
Disabilities (JMC) that they had only one researcher. Given that restraint, she
wondered what kind of research the NYC had done and what research it planned to
undertake in 2006.
Prof Asmal added that research was very expensive and that there were many
state institutions that did it either on contract or “as an act of solidarity”.
He wondered why the NYC then wished to set up a larger research entity.
Ms Nkondlo explained that their mandate required that when the NYC spoke
on youth matters it was well informed to do so. Since many others were involved
in research activities and the NYC had only one researcher, they had taken the
decision to coordinate their work with that of other researchers. In two weeks
they would have a research lekgotla to discuss how this plan could be
streamlined and implemented.
Prof Asmal pointed out that the NYC’s budget was about a fifth of that of
a university that catered for 14 000 students and employed 180 academics. He
wondered whether in a developmental state such as South Africa, they were
getting value for money from the NYC. Much research was being done. South Africa’s Constitution was the only one that that had an entire section dedicated to
children. There was also the International Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Every two or three years South Africa had to compile a report in
response to that convention. Likewise reports were compiled for the convention
on the rights of women, convention on race and discrimination and the
convention on torture. He wondered whether the NYC had ever seen a South
African government report on children, on women or on torture, that had been
submitted to the United Nations? He wondered whether the NYC as a body charged
to look after the interests of young people had ever seen and commented on the
value of these reports.
Receiving no response from members of the NYC delegation, Prof Asmal
continued and expressed the hope that the NYC would stop updating their mandate
and undertake to scrutinise Government behaviour and activity. He would support
research being done on this and would ask National Treasury to give them a bit
more money so that they could scrutinise government reports. This would be an
important activity as the reports related to South Africa’s external face.
Dr T Delport (DA) noted that the NYC worked at focussing the interest of
government on specific issues. He wondered what the NYC had done to address the
plight of children in prisons, street children, and orphaned families. He was
curious about how they had used their position to influence government to focus
on the problems encountered in a developing country. He asked where he could find
any documentation or memoranda in this regard.
Ms Nkondlo responded that the information was available and that members
could have access to it. She explained that while the NYC previously sat only
in the social cluster, it now made presentations to and sat in numerous
government clusters. It made presentations around issues they felt were youth
related. Commissioner van Rooyen headed the interactions with the Justice,
Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster which was currently addressing
matters related to youth in prisons.
Prof Asmal wondered whether the NYC had been “virtuous privately”. He
stressed the importance of press statements and the publication of submissions
to cluster committees. This contributed to the NYC’s public face and visibility
about the youth issues that had been raised. He requested that any such
information be forwarded to the Committee.
Commissioner van Rooyen said that in 2006 a conference had been held
after research was done into youth that were in conflict with the law. The NYC
had worked with all national departments in releasing the report. One of the
issues that had been highlighted was reintegrating such youth into society. The
second critical issue was the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programmes.
There was a large percentage of recidivism which meant that many times
intervention programmes within correctional facilities were not effective.
Young men and women often returned to prison.
Another critical issue was reintegration. This was one of the big challenges
and affected both business and government. The NYC was working on a strategy
and would be presenting it to the JCPS cluster. They would present the idea
that young people who had committed minor crimes should be placed in youth
centres rather than in correctional facilities. They would then be trained in
life, leadership, skills that would assist their successful reintegration.
He felt that it was critical to find an answer for why so many young people
were in conflict with the law. One also had to investigate what drew and kept
street children on the street. The NYC had over the festive season successfully
recruited about 11 000 young people to the NYS, to render voluntary service.
Prof Asmal said that he had the impression that the NYC did an enormous
amount of work in workshops, conferences and clusters – it virtually functioned
like a government department. This was not what they were meant to do.
He said that he belonged to an organisation that looked after street children
and everyone knew what was drawing them to the streets. He had discussed the
matter with the Chairperson of the Justice Portfolio Committee and they agreed
that, apart from unemployment, drugs and alcohol abuse was the biggest problem
facing young people. He would have thought that this would have been an area
around which the NYC was campaigning vigorously as this was destroying the
heart of the youth. Instead they were undertaking study tours to Dresden and
making cluster analyses.
He added that there was no evidence that the NYC had ever run a campaign and
wondered whether they had ever thought that part of their function was to
“tread on the toes of government departments”. He hoped that in their programme
management they might use some of their R20 million budget to run a campaign on
drug abuse, or child abuse or the abuse of young women under the age of twenty.
This would give real dynamism to the Commission.
Mr J van der Merwe (IFP) commented that there was a perception that the
commission would have to rebut – many people thought that they were too
involved in conferences, workshops etc to pay attention an get involved in the
practicalities of problems. They merely talked but did not attack the issues
that effected the youth.
Ms Nkondlo was aware that there was a perception that the NYC had to run
programmes on issues that affected the youth. She said that the NYC had over
time been able to influence the work done by the departments. Through their
interaction with the departments they made sure that issues were addressed. The
NYC also zoomed in on departmental and government priorities.
She added that while departments ran visible programmes, the NYC’s
involvement was behind the scenes. Yet at the end of the day it was the
departments that got all the credit. She acknowledged that one of the
challenges facing the NYC was ensuring that their work was profiled. They were
revamping their website to make it more interactive.
Prof Asmal interrupted Ms Nkondlo and said that the Committee required
very precise responses. The legislation required the NYC to implement measures
to redress the past in relation to various disadvantages suffered by the youth.
Implementation did not mean attending meetings or addressing clusters and
government departments. Section 8 required the NYC to monitor and review
policies and practices of organs of state. This too had to be done publicly as
in the case of the activities of the Auditor General.
He said that in terms of the new regulations for annual reports, every
government and statutory body had to list a set of deliverables. Members were
interested in what the NYC’s deliverables were and what measures had been put
in place to meet these objectives. He asked the NYC to supply the Committee
with these deliverables that showed that they had - in accordance with the
legislation - implemented measures to redress the imbalances of the past. These
were not evident from the annual reports and wondered if there were any public
reports on these issues.
The NYC had to review the policies and practices of anybody or
institution as far as they affected the youth. There should be investigation
about what departments had done about youth issues. For example, he wondered
what the NYC was doing about labour and the legislation around youth
employment.
Mr Modiba replied that if one looked at the Act, the provision of a
framework for youth development was central to the monitoring and evaluation
role.
Prof Asmal agreed that monitoring and evaluation was mentioned but
pointed out that there was also talk of implementation. He suggested that when
working on their programme of action they considered Section 3 (e) of the Act.
Ms Tshoane explained that the NYC had decided to pilot programmes which
were later handed over to the departments. One such programme involved young
people living with HIV/Aids giving motivational talks at correctional
facilities in order to educate the young people there that one could live with
HIV. Measures were then put in place to hand the programme over to the
Department of Correctional Services (DCS) but, because the NYC and the DCS had
not developed terms of reference, the programme had never progressed.
Another such programme for the NYS was about to be implemented. They
would adopt one or two municipalities in which to implement the NYS to
demonstrate best practice. After a period of time it would be discharged to the
municipalities.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee would like to know what the broad objects
and priorities were. These were political questions and related to the
rebuilding of South Africa. Government departments had to reflect their
priorities and deliverables in their annual reports which were later
interrogated to see whether they had met their objectives. If the Committee
were to report to Parliament that the commissions were effective they would
have to report on their deliverables. The Committee thus looked forward to
getting the revised programme of action long before June when the Committee’s
mandate would be concluded. Parliament's Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) could
then consider its deliverables the following year. The Committee would note
that the NYC would forward this information. He added that it was not necessary
for each new commission that took office to develop its own programme of
action. Their term lasted only three years, and developing a programme of
action each time would take too long.
Ms S Rajbally (MF) asked the NYC for clarity on what was entailed in
their flagship programmes and how far these had progressed.
Ms Tshoane responded that the flagship programmes were the NYS
programme, the Young People – Living Ambassadors programme, the Youth
Unemployment Learnership programme and the Youth in Conflict with the Law
programme. With the review of the National Youth policy, the flagship
programmes might change. Issues such as information communication technology
and the environment, might be discussed too.
Ms Johnson noted that the NYC felt that its enabling legislation was not
empowering them as it "did not provide any means of recourse for deviation
or negligence on matters of youth development”. She believed that the NYC could
refer to Chapter 3 of the Constitution if they felt that they were not getting
cooperation. Did the NYC feel that there was lack of cooperation from
government departments or was it that there was something wrong with the
legislation?
Prof Asmal wondered why they might feel that they needed changes to the
law to be more effective.
Mr Modiba responded that the mandate of the Youth Policy Development
Framework would come an end in March. The NYC had identified this as a window
of opportunity to develop a policy that would be more effective. The current
framework had limitations because it was not enforceable. Government
departments were not compelled to implement it.
Prof Asmal pointed out that there was no commission in the world whose
reports were implementable immediately. If this were the case, it would mean
that commissions had executive power. The South African Human Rights Commission
(SAHRC) produced extraordinary reports and reviewed the performance of
departments. This too was a political question and related to being visible in
the pubic eye.
He wondered what their response to the non-cooperation from entities was. He
had never heard of this challenge they were faced with. He said that they had
to dispose of the idea that they ought to have the power to take government
departments to court. Did they not think that there were other ways of ensuring
observance of the legislation and their recommendations.
Mr Modiba responded that the NYC felt strongly that they should lobby
towards the adoption of a youth policy. The African Union recommended that such
a policy be adopted and some African states had already adopted such. The NYC
did not see why South Africa could not do the same. Through such a policy, one
would be able to ensure that government departments prioritised youth matters.
While departments did have desks dedicated to youth development, they were not
given the serious stature that the NYC had been “agitating” for. Once a policy
was in place, departments would be measured against it. The NYC was of the view
that this would improve its functioning.
The Chairperson said that under Section 12, the NYC was required to
report to the President every year. They however reported to the Minister in
the Office of the Presidency which was very different. He wondered if the
Commission could indicate whether they had, in the last ten years, written a
report to the President, saying that they were not getting cooperation from
departments.
Mr Modiba responded that the new Commission believe that in the six
months they had been in office, they had already begun to turn the tide. They
had set up the inter-ministerial committee on the NYS programme, which was
attended by the majority of cabinet ministers. The NYC received reports, it
monitored, evaluated and directed at that level. They were confident that
despite shortcomings as far as cooperation, the NYC had started a process that
was turning the tide as far as prioritisation and compliance with the framework
was concerned.
Mr van der Merwe wondered why the NYC did not report uncooperative
departments to the President or to the Public Protector. Prof Asmal added that
they could also be reported to Parliament's Joint Monitoring Committee.
Ms Nkondlo said that since they had come to office, they had had two meetings
with Parliament's JMC. Amongst others they had discussed how the JMC could
assist the NYC in resolving some of the challenges such as non cooperation from
departments. The NYC had said that greater assistance from the JMC would
enhance the Commission’s work.
She explained that the NYC had been submitting reports to Minister Pahad
as per the requirements. They normally met with him on a monthly basis to raise
some of the challenges. They had considered to what extent his Office would be
able to assist the NYC in leveraging the effect of their work. She thought it
would be useful if all cabinet ministers could attend the inter-ministerial
committee so that they could ensure that their officials prioritise youth
development.
Prof Asmal said that in June the Committee would recommend that the JMC
should have discussions with the NYC around the new national youth policy, so
that all these issues could “be publicly ventilated”. There was legislation
before the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Portfolio Committee which
affected young people and the Committee looked forward to the NYC’s
presentation on that. According to reports he received, the NYC had appeared
only before the Joint Monitoring Committee and Standing Committee on Public
Accounts (SCOPA).
He said that one of the things the Committee aimed to answer was whether
Parliament was effectively performing its functions for Chapter 9 and
associated bodies. According to the 2005/2006 report, the NYC appeared before
the Joint Monitoring Committee only twice. He felt that this seemed a little
bit light-hearted. Most bodies appeared before portfolio committees to get
publicity to further their causes and to draw attention to the obstacles and
difficulties they faced. He said that the “shame factor” was perfected in
portfolio committees – departments were shamed into changing and taking action.
The Committee would therefore be recommending that the NYC’s interaction with
the Joint Monitoring Committee and some portfolio committees be stepped up. It
would be important for the NYC to meet with the Education Portfolio Committee
to discuss issues on further education and training. The Committee would also
look forward to the NYC’s review of the sector education and training
authorities (SETAs) and if they were meeting the employment needs of young
people. He emphasised that the Committee wanted to know what the NYC would do
to enhance their employment objectives. He added that better interaction with
the parliamentary committees would be in the NYC’s best interest, especially
since the press always attended these meetings when sensitive matters were
being discussed. He could not think of anything more sensitive than the NYC’s
interaction with government departments.
Ms Johnson noted that the NYC had taken the lead in reviewing the
national youth policy. It was up for completion in March 2007. She wondered how
that process was progressing, and what challenges they had had to face.
Ms Tshoane reminded the Committee that in 2006 the NYC had had a policy review
convention at which young people discussed a number of issues that affected
them. In developing the new National Youth Policy, all the issues they had
raised would be taken into consideration. The NYC had interviewed some
consultants who would assist in writing up the policy. There was also a working
group comprising policy experts, researchers and youth organisations. The
working group had so far met once and had just presented a brief on how they
would do the policy review. In February they would be doing sectoral
consultations so that all stakeholders could make input into the policy.
Mr S Simmons (UDSA) noted that the NYC had no jurisdiction over
provincial and local government youth structures. He wondered how they would
overcome this challenge.
Ms Nkondlo said that the NYC was aware of this challenge. Through
advocacy they tried to ensure that these offices were also present in the
provinces. At present they had youth commissions in all the nine provinces. The
limitation related to the fact that these offices were established via their
own provincial acts. This limited the integration of their work with that of
the NYC. They had managed to establish the chairpersons’ forum whereby they had
a measure of working coordination. The NYC had done much advocacy for the
localisation of youth development. This was where services were needed.
Prof Asmal said that one of the weaknesses of the questionnaire was that
the Committee had omitted to ask about the details of the provincial sections.
He asked if the delegation had details related to the composition and budget of
these bodies. The Committee could not talk about the NYC without referring to
the provincial bodies too.
Ms Nkondlo replied that they would collate the information and send it
to the Committee immediately. She agreed that the work of the NYC could not be
reviewed without considering the work of the provincial commissions. The NYC
met with premiers too.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee may have to call one or two of the
provincial commissions to appear before it to assess what these bodies did in
terms of deliverables. Although the NYC had contact with the premiers, the
Committee was interested in what was being delivered on the ground. He noted
that there appeared to be some kind of confidential assessment and appointment
system of which there were many anecdotal stories. He asked the delegation to
provide the Committee with its assessment and appointment system. He assured
them that this information would remain confidential.
Ms Johnson said that the Umsobomvu Youth Fund, the National Youth
Service had their functions and the NYS unit shared similar functions. She
wondered whether this did not amount to a duplication of functions.
Ms Nkondlo denied that there was any duplication of functions. The NYS was
conceptualised to eventually be discharged through other stakeholders. The
national youth service unit was the implementing entity of the NYS. Umsobomvu
funded some of the initiatives of young people on the ground. The NYC utilised
its own mandate to ensure that the programme was properly coordinated and
monitored. There was also a Partnership Project Team which the Presidency was
supposed to convene. The National Youth Service Unit was supposed to account to
that strategic leadership. The work was happening and the NYC was supposed to
make sure that every time they went to departments, they advocated for the
unlocking of opportunities for the NYS so that if young people were recruited,
programmes could be implemented.
Mr Dithebe noted that there had been talk of the need to develop a national
youth development agency of sorts. He wondered if such an agency would be
developed and if it would have to exist aongside the NYC?
Mr Modiba replied that the notion of the National Youth Development
Agency was a product of the work the NYC had undertaken in response to the
expiry of the Youth Development Framework in March. They sought to solicit the
views of youths and to undertake certain other processes that would culminate
in their taking policy direction. The discussions emanating from the convention
was that there should be a merger between the Commission and Umsobomvu to give
greater impetus to the implementation capacity of whatever machinery they would
eventually have in operation.
Subsequently there had also been a report from the Human Sciences Research
Council (HSRC) that looked at the same matter but that had come to a different
conclusion. As Ms Tshoane had indicated a Working Group had been set up and
they had been charged with investigating all these issues. The Community Agency
for Social Enquiry (CASE) had also been commissioned research on the youth
budget which would have implications on for instance the structural
arrangements. Other processes were also being undertaken and would talk to
constitutional realities. All contributions would be considered and a single
direction as far as the constitutional direction would be selected. It would be
premature to comment now as there was no formal position yet. The matter had
been discussed at the convention and they were in the process of collating all
the opinions on the future of youth development in the country vis a vis
institutional arrangements.
Prof Asmal wondered whether this explanation meant that the NYC had
accepted, in principle that a merger may result in a higher standard of
activities. Had they accepted that there might be a case for a merger and that
they were now looking at how it would be implemented?
Mr Modiba replied that they were considering the pros and the cons.
Their responsibility was to evaluate them. Umsobomvu was a specialised
institution that dealt with a specific aspect of development and had
established a niche for itself.
Prof Asmal read a 2006 statement that he thought had been made by an official
of the Commission, Mr Sello More. The statement read:
“Currently there was a lack of comprehensive youth policy in South Africa. The
current broad policy management has no specific measurable achievable or
realistic goals against which we could measure what we achieved or failed to
achieve. Youth practices are normally not documented in South Africa. We are
working in silos. There is no proper integration particularly among the
structures and institutions of government.”
Prof Asmal thought that this was most severe and asked the delegation to
comment.
Ms Nkondlo put on record that Mr Sello More had been the NYC’s researcher who
had left the NYC for “greener pastures”. She felt that the comment was
appropriate. As one spoke of championing youth development and empowering young
people, there was excitement, commitment and the will to centralise and
prioritise youth development so as to champion the cause and to empower young
people. Nevertheless the challenge of ensuring that an integrated approach was
followed, remained. It would not be possible
to put processes in place effectively, if there was no integration.
The NYC had also looked at their own approach and considered to what
extent they had utilised their mandate effectively in performing their task. As
an institution, the NYC had to be honest and admit that it had at times
succumbed to the pressure and challenges existing within youth development. It
had also at times deviated from its mandate. The institution had to ensure that
it aligned itself and ensured that integration started internally. Further they
had to ensure that the work envisioned at national level was communicated to
provincial and local structures. They also had to consider how they used the
Presidency, in which they were located. She added that young people had to
organise themselves too because the responsibility could not be placed on
commissioners and the NYC only. The review would identify these gaps so that
they could move forward successfully.
Prof Asmal presumed that in two years' time the Commission might make a
self evaluation and not leave it to the researcher to do so. He nevertheless
thought it a very honest evaluation.
Ms Tshoane added that the reason the NYC had advocated for that
statement to be made was because the youth policy had never been adopted. Two
years after its development, a youth policy framework was developed and adopted
instead. It was problematic to develop a policy framework when one did not have
a policy. The framework that was adopted did not contain any indicators for
measuring progress. The policy would not be complete if there was no strategy
attached to it. Such a strategy should have indicators with timeframes and
should show who would be responsible for implementing it.
The Chairperson wondered whether there was any inhibiting factor that
prevented the NYC from taking the initiative and taking charge of the Youth
Policy.
Mr Modiba explained that the policy had to be adopted by Cabinet. The
NYC could only lobby for the adoption. They had undertaken to do just that, had
tested the waters and it “seemed quite favourable.”
Prof Asmal realised that the final decision lay with Cabinet, what he
was interested in was whether there was any factor that might affect them
giving input on the matter.
Mr Modiba said that there was nothing inhibiting their input. The NYC
would be drafting the policy and presenting it to Cabinet. This had been the
process they followed in 2000 too, but then the policy had not been adopted.
Moving to the NYC’s collaboration with other bodies, Prof Asmal noted
that they claimed that most of their interaction was with the Independent
Electoral Commission (IEC). He requested written documentation of this
interaction. He asked the delegation to elaborate on the synergies they said
existed between themselves and other Chapter 9 bodies. In reply to Question 3
of the questionnaire, the NYC had indicated that there was no overlap with
these bodies. He thought that this could not be the case and could see the NYC
overlapping with the SAHRC, the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), the
Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural,
Religious and Linguistic Communities and even the Pan South African Language
Board (PANSALB). He suggested that the NYC reconsider the statement that there
was no overlap. Considering that young women between the ages of fourteen and
twenty were the most vulnerable in society, he wondered what was the NYC’s
interaction with the CGE and SAHRC in particular?
Mr Dithebe added that it appeared that the legislation envisioned
coordination between bodies.
Ms Tshoane clarified that the response indicated the extent to which
there had been interaction so far. They had had some meetings with the CGE as
well as the SAHRC. Youth Development issues were also human rights issues after
all. There was a lot of overlap and the NYC had considered how it could
establish collaboration. She admitted that the interaction with these two
bodies had ended at a very preliminary stage and that no programme of
interaction had been established. They hoped that they would engage with these
bodies more in the course of their policy review.
The Chairperson wondered if they could give the Committee a statement of what
had transpired when they met with the CGE.
Ms Nkondlo said that they had met with the Deputy Chairperson of the SAHRC and
that the minutes of that meeting were available. Programme officers would be
sent to investigate and develop a joint programme around youth and human rights
issues. They would be certain to follow up on the discussions they had had with
other bodies.
Prof Asmal pointed out that unless budgetary needs were met, very little
coordination would take place. The legislation nevertheless required
coordination and he added that there was strength in coordination. He wondered
what the NYC had done, in coordination with the SAHRC, as far as drug abuse,
which was the biggest violation of the dignity of young people, or child abuse.
He assured them that this question would be put to the SAHRC too as they were
the older body and as such had to take initiative for coordinating their
activities.
Prof Asmal noted the NYC’s response to Question 15 which referred to
institutional governance arrangements. He asked them to elaborate on how the
secretariat’s work sometimes overlapped into the political sphere. He also
wondered what the institutional arrangements were between the Commissioners who
were appointed by the President and its Secretariat.
Ms Tshoane said that at times it was difficult to draw the line between
the political and secretariat level.
Prof Asmal commented that that then represented a gap in the
institutional arrangements. The NYC was the ultimate, responsible body, while
the Secretariat were the servants within it. There should not be a political
overlap. The Secretariat had no mandate to speak on policy matters unless they
did so with the approval of the Commission. If there was overlap it was an
indication that their institutional arrangements were not entirely foolproof.
The Committee would thus recommend that institutional arrangements had to be
foolproof. He added that in some of the commission these concerns were much
more serious. The effectiveness of the institutions was ultimately determined
by the relationship of the commissioners and its secretariat.
Prof Asmal wondered what happened if there was a conflict between commissioners
or a commissioner and the Chairperson? Such cases could not be left to Human
Resources to resolve or mediate.
Commissioner Sipuko said that he was assigned to dealing with human
resource matters and addressed such cases. The NYC took the decision to
actively participate in the work of the Secretariat so there was deployment
from the Executive Committee to the Secretariat. He added that other than these
measures they adhered to the legal framework within which all disputes had to
be resolved.
Prof Asmal appreciated the clarification. He had assumed that the Human
Resource Director was a power unto himself. Problems that could not be resolved
at Human Resource level were thus dealt with by the Commission itself. The
ultimate authority was the Commission, but if there were problems between the
Commissioners and the Chairperson, the matter was taken to the Presidency.
Ms Johnson wondered whether the NYC wanted the Committee to look into
the fact that there was no continuity in the appointment of the Commissioners.
Ms Nkondlo agreed that the discontinuity was a problem. The new
commission started its work immediately after the outgoing commissioners ended
theirs. No handover process that would aid transition was in place. She felt
that this was related to resource allocation too. It might also result in a
backlog as far as programmes were concerned since new commissioners had to take
time to familiarise themselves with the work they were expected to perform.
A difficult handover process also affected the stability of the
institution as the Secretariat was now tasked with explaining the internal
systems to the new commissioners. There were also issues related to the culture
the new commissioners would be bringing into the NYC. If one wanted to improve
the efficiency of the NYC and its internal governance, a creative solution
needed to be found.
Prof Asmal commented that Parliament was at fault in recommending new
commissioners and allowing for no continuity. The Committee felt that in the
interest of institutional culture there had to be continuity. This could be
done in different ways. One such was that the outgoing commissioners wrote a
document detailing the problems, challenges and processes of the institution.
He noted that since the entire commission had been replaced, the process had to
have been particularly difficult.
Ms Nkondlo explained that the Deputy Commissioner was on the previous
Commission too and thus assisted with the handover. Additional measures had to
be put in place however. When this Commission left office in 2009, a proper
hand-over method needed to be place.
Ms Johnson noted that the Annual Report spoke of a large number of
vacancies and lack of human resources and she wondered whether the staff
turnover was quite high.
Mr van Rooyen replied that when the Commission had taken office there had been
certain vacancies. They had decided to hold off making appointments until they
had completed the realignment of the structure with the strategy and the
mandate. All vacancies should be filled by February.
Prof Asmal said that the NYC had not given them the full staff
complement of the institution. This should be supplied as soon as possible
along with vacancies and salary levels. This information was very important in
the light of the fact that 60% of the budget was spent on administration.
Ms Rajbally noted that there were vacancies at some very integral levels and
wondered what impact these vacancies had on the NYC’s activities.
Commissioner van Rooyen replied that they had put a strategy in place to
address the gap left by these vacancies. They had appointed people who were
acting in those positions. The Presidency’s financial department was providing
the necessary assistance. Price Waterhouse Coopers had been appointed to assist
as well. The NYC had experienced some challenges but had to date had no
difficulties in meeting their obligations.
Mr van der Merwe asked if the salaries reflected were all inclusive or
whether there were any extras. He also wondered whether Commissioners were
appointed on a full-time basis. What function did the NYC’s Deputy Director
Parliamentary Officer perform?
Mr Modiba confirmed that commissioners were appointed on a full-time
basis. They had a system for administering telephone cost for each office.
Apart from that there were no additional things beyond normal administrative
costs. The Parliamentary Officer was meant to be the link between the NYC and
Parliament. She observed debates and advised the Commission about their
contribution to these debates. He admitted that in the past they had not
optimally used this position but he insisted that it was a useful office. Part
of the problem was that it was located within the communication unit and did
not have a direct link to the research, policy and programmes unit. It was
being migrated to the appropriate office so that it could be optimally
utilised.
Prof Asmal said that to have the position was up to their executive
discretion. His experience was that unless the parliamentary officer had
specific functions it was the “most depressing demobiliser”. He wondered what
the Parliamentary Liaison Officer did when Parliament was not in session. The
Committee felt that these officials should have clear line functions. He added
that they were deployed at great cost to the NYC. In addition the level of the
position was low, while the expectations were high.
Mr van der Merwe wondered if Commissioners had any car allowances.
Commissioner van Rooyen said that the media had “made a big fuss” around the
salary packages of commissioners. Salary packages were not determined by the
commissioners but according to guidelines provided by the Department of Public
Service and Administration (DPSA). The notion that commissioners determined
their own salaries was untrue. He added that if one earned R500 000, 60% of
that amount was taxable. The other 40% included medical aid, housing, car
allowances and so on.
Mr van der Merwe noted that there was a director and deputy director of communications.
He very seldom saw anything related to the NYC in the media and wondered
whether the communication referred to internal communication or also to the
media.
Mr Modiba admitted that the NYC had found that because communications
was such an important aspect, they needed to improve the efficiency of that
unit. Part of the problem was that unless they were dealing with sensational
issues, the media tended to underreport on the various NYC interventions. It
was the NYC’s responsibility to build relationships with the media fraternity.
He conceded that the director for communications had not assumed the status of
spokesperson or political communicator of the NYC. Communications was a broad
area that included campaigning and branding for instance. The NYC needed a
dedicated spokesperson who would deal with the political issues attended to at
the Executive Committee level.
Prof Asmal pointed out that the Committee had not seen the visible
effects that would justify the two positions Mr van der Merwe had referred to.
Ms M Matsomela (ANC) wondered what other sources of funding the NYC had.
Ms Nkondlo explained that the budget was allocated by National Treasury.
Through partnerships like the one with the Flemish government, additional
monies were received. They were looking at how they could enhance their
resource mobilisation so that they could do more programmes. The partnerships
they had structured had assisted in ensuring that when they had to embark on a
programme they had financial assistance.
Prof Asmal said that according the Auditor General the state allocated
R15, 3 million in 2005/06 and that the total budget was R17, 7 million. This
meant that an amount of R2, 4 million was received from external arrangements.
He asked them to supply the Committee with information on who apart from the
Flemish provided them with funds. He had also not been aware that they had
guidelines for determining salaries and that the DPSA was involved. This was
not fair to any commission. In all other areas portfolio committees spent hours
looking at salaries.
Ms Matsomela referred to the commission’s response to the question on their
relationship with the public. They had responded that the NYC was not designed
to implement programmes but to advise government on issues of youth
development. This was contradictory to the provisions of the Act.
Prof Asmal said that the implementation programme was causing problems.
Their responses as far as their statutory rights were concerned, were
incomplete.
Ms Nkondlo responded that the NYC was of the opinion that youth
development was a cross cutting function and that there were already resources
allocated to departments which were implementing programmes. They did not think
that it was viable for them to get involved in implementation in the way
departments did. The NYC undertook flagship programmes so as to arrive at best
practices. These were then handed over to departments who had huge budgets
which could be used for implementation.
Prof Asmal referred to three media articles that had appeared in the
last six months. He wondered how the assertion that everything was under
control could be reconciled with the Auditor General’s statement that there was
a lack of budgetary control. There were also reports that because call centres
functioned with only four councillors it was difficult to respond to calls and
that information given to youth was often not very detailed.
Mr van Rooyen said that he stood by his statement because the Commission had in
the last six or so months put corrective measures in place. They looked at the
risk management report they had received from PWC and had put certain measures
of control in place. They had weekly management meetings where directors were
required to report on how they spent their budgets. These were controlled and
measured against their strategy. A director of communication would for instance
launch a communication strategy but before the budget was approved that
directorate’s budget was scrutinised to see whether it had sufficient funds to
successfully launch a campaign. They had also put in place a fraud prevention
strategy and were not shying away from the challenges but were dealing with
them. He reiterated that matters were under control.
Prof Asmal said that in a few months they would see what the Auditor
General’s audit opinion was. The Auditor General’s previous audit report also
indicated that bonuses had been paid in 2006. He wondered, considering the
financial state the NYC was in at the time, why bonuses were paid to
commissioners.
Mr van Rooyen clarified that the payment of bonuses was in line with the
performance management contracts that staff signed in accordance with the
guidelines received from the DPSA. In line with those requirements, performance
management reviews took place and bonuses were paid accordingly.
Prof Asmal pointed out that commissioners were not public servants but
ad hoc appointees by Parliament and anomalous. They were not bound by public
service regulations. As a minister he had refused to approve performance bonuses
across the board if there had been no improvement in the department. He
wondered how a performance bonus of R21 000 could be paid to an accounting
officer, when there had been a loss of R600 000. He urged the Commission not to
try and justify the bonuses but to supply the Committee with an explanation.
Mr Modiba explained that bonuses were not decided by the Commission. There were
a number of things that had been picked up and tilted towards being irregular.
The CEO who had resigned had not been paid what was due to him yet because they
had picked up “certain irregular activities”. They were conducting
investigations and the executive committee had taken the decision to appoint
forensic officers. There were specific instances where stricter controls needed
to be exercised.
Ms Johnson wondered whether commissioners were allowed to have outside
business interests and if they had to disclose when they did.
Prof Asmal wanted to know where the register of disclosures was kept. He felt
that a register should be mandatory as was the case with all civil servants.
The Committee would later in the year make recommendations as far as
disclosures were concerned when they worked on the institutional arrangements
for the oversight of these bodies. Commissioners as public figures had to
disclose.
Ms Smuts added that for her it was unacceptable that in cases where there was a
conflict of interest, commissioners were ‘discouraged’ from bidding for
contracts. They should not be allowed to bid at all.
Prof Asmal said that this was not only Ms Smuts’ view but that of the
entire Committee. If there was a conflict of interest, one could not
participate but had to make a disclosure and then remove oneself from the
proceedings. The Committee would give the NYC one month in which to provide
them with all disclosures and the dates on which they were was made.
Prof Asmal said that in the past there had been reports that the KwaZulu
Natal provincial office was on the verge of collapse and had no administrative
capacity, no budget and one small office. In the Eastern Cape, reports said
that there was chaos, gross irregularities, no accounting officer, suspension
of the chair and expulsion of a commissioner. These were omitted from the
responses. The Committee wanted an evaluation of these matters because the
legislation said that they could coordinate activities. He charged the NYC on
behalf of the Committee to update the information related to the provinces.
Prof Asmal noted that the 2005/06 Annual Report reflected that seven overseas
trips were undertaken. He realised that some of them may have been paid for by
the hosts. He questioned what the relevance of visits to Yemen and Bahrain
might have been. This question was very important. If there was to be sustained
work by the commissioners and the staff, these trips had to be limited to ones
that were necessary. He asked how many overseas trips the current Commission
had taken in the six months since their appointment. If the trips had been made
to assess institutional arrangements in Africa, it would be very good but that
was not the case.
Ms Nkondlo responded that when they came into office they found that there were
many invitations. Some related to Department of Foreign Affairs’ (DFA)
missions. The NYC would consider how these impacted on their work. An
international relations strategy was developed and had been adopted.
Some of the trips formed part of cooperation agreements they had with
other governments. The one they were on at the time of the joint meeting of
this Committee was one such trip. They had to attend a study visit as part of
the cooperation agreement with the Flemish government. The study visit took
place once a year. Young people from civil society and local government, who
worked as youth development officers, took part in the study programme. A
commissioner was deployed to work with these youths. All the Commissioners had
to participate in the 2006 visit however. They had to discuss the re-design of
the cooperation agreement.
The Commission had taken the decision that 60 or 70% of the work should be
focussed on the continent. The NYC sat on a standing committee that was trying
to convene youth development matters in the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) region. Commissioner Modiba had attended the African
Development Forum meeting where representatives were expected to explain how
far South Africa had come in meeting the millennium development goals. She
added that the DFA had expectations that they formed part of their delegations
and this expectation sometimes impacted on their work. They would be meeting
with the DFA to discuss this matter soon.
Prof Asmal pointed out that the primary function of the bodies had to be
in South Africa because that was what they were charged with and nothing should
deflect them from that. The Commission therefore had to have a policy about
overseas trips. Unnecessary trips impacted on the budget. Considering that
salaries and administration took up a large part of their budget, there was not
much left for the work they had been designated to do.
Mr Dithebe wanted to know whether there had been instances where
external funding had to be returned because the NYC did not have the capacity
to spend the money.
Mr van Rooyen replied that to the best of his knowledge no money had ever been
returned to the Flemish government due to the NYC’s inability to utilise the
funding in line with their priorities.
Prof Asmal noted that they met with the Minister in the Office of the President
once a month yet in their reply they said that they could not influence the
budget. He wondered why they did not try to use those meetings to influence how
the budget was allocated.
Mr van Rooyen explained that unlike departments that submitted their
budgets to National Treasury, the NYC submitted theirs to the Presidency who in
return put forward a complete budget to National Treasury. They had developed a
resource mobilisation strategy that would also look at how to lobby for an
increase in their budget.
They were also engaging the private sector (the National Development
Agency and the National Lottery) to look at what money they could contribute to
the national youth development strategy. He felt that the private sector also
had a responsibility to come on board to assist in the development of the
country.
Prof Asmal concluded that the members of the Committee came from all
different political parties. It was the decision of the majority party not to
have a majority in this committee. The Committee did not act in a partisan or
party political manner. It was in the national interest to see that the Chapter
Nine and associated bodies, which were uniquely South African, met their terms
of reference and other obligations. The Committee had learnt a great deal in
the three hour session they had had and had not come to any conclusions. They
may ask the NYC to return should there be other questions. If there were a
second meeting, it might not necessarily be an open meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.