Millennium Development Goals Reports: consideration
Meeting Summary
The Committee discussed three reports on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS). The Chairperson also informed the Committee that it would not be having the meeting with the Competition Commission and the Competition Tribunal on the Walmart/Massmart merger. Both entities had indicated that they attend the briefing as the government had lodged an appeal against the merger. The Committee awaited a legal opinion on the matter.
The first report on the MDGs was a progress report written by the Committee on 19 April 2011 on dealing with the MDGs. The Committee noted that the report spoke of a workshop that would be scheduled with the Department of Economic Development, Statistics South Africa, and the National Planning Commission on the figures provided for the Committee by the Department on their briefing on 11 March 2011. Members did not recall why the Planning Commission was supposed to be invited to the workshop. When the Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary for clarity on the matter he was not even sure himself. It seemed that there was confusion in the way the information was captured in the minutes. It was decided that the workshop would serve to inform the NPC of the information that was given to the Committee by the Department. The Committee adopted the report.
The second report focused on the progress made towards attaining the MDGs. The Committee noted that second goal of the MDGs was to improve the quality of basic education. According to the report, this goal was likely to be reached by 2015. They wondered if this was still on track. The Chairperson clarified that the EDD’s briefing had said that measures had been put in place to ensure that this target was reached. Members saw that the title of Goal 2 of the MDGs did not talk to access to education. The entire paragraph for 3.2.2, which looked at the progress of goal 2, spoke mostly to the increase in access to education and not really to the quality of basic education. The Committee Secretary was asked to take note of this matter. A Member referred the Committee to point 4.3 of the report that spoke to challenges with poverty alleviation. He said that there were other factors that could be added to the two factors recorded in the report. One of these factors was unemployment. The Committee agreed, as well as the Senior Researcher, saying that the challenges could be expanded upon to include gender, income and other forms of inequality as well as unemployment. Members focused on 4.4 of the report, which looked at the creation of decent jobs. They noted that there was too much focus on the creation of jobs at the local level, which meant that the provinces were being left out. They thought the goal for creating decent jobs had to happen at all levels of government. Also, the public and private sector had to work together to contribute to the creation of decent jobs, and municipalities had to be strengthened so that they could contribute to the creation of decent jobs at the local level. The Committee agreed that conclusion 4.8, which looked at the impact of HIV/AIDS on productivity in the workplace, would be slotted in at 4.6, which looked at the importance of MDG 6 – to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. Members also agreed that the issues of inequality could not be ignored and had to be prioritised in the recommendations of the report.
The third report on the MDGs was from the Researcher for the Committee. The researcher clarified that she had been told to choose one MDG to focus on that related to the Committee. She had explained to the Chief Researcher that almost all of the MDGs formed part of the work of the Committee, and that it was impossible to choose just one. She focused on the most important MDG, which was job creation. The report only focused on Goal 1, which was to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, but more specifically on Goal 1b, which was to achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people. The Committee noted that all the MDGs were integrated into the work that the Committee did and they could not be ignored. Members thought that a directive such as the one given to the researcher to choose one MDG to focus on had to come to the Committee or the Chairperson first. If they had known about it they would have said something. The Committee was now faced with the challenge of deciding if this decision made by the researcher was right or wrong. It was agreed that the Committee would meet on Tuesday, 2 August 2011, to discuss the report.
The Senior Researcher and Coordinator of the MDG Project in the Parliamentary Research Unit the Committee that the Parliamentary Research Unit was approached by the House Chairperson, Mr Cedric Frolick, in May 2011 to assist with drafting a concept paper for Committees to report on the MDGs. The Research Unit was asked to identify some of the focus areas and to submit them to the House Chairperson’s Office for consideration. The idea was that the relevant committees would draft a report that would go into a consolidated report to Parliament. Based on the feedback the Research Unit received from the House Chairperson, it was requested that both the Committee Section and the researchers should work on the MDG reports. Each committee report had two parts. The first part looked at “parliamentary processes” and had to be drafted by the Committee Section. The second part of the report focused on the Committee’s oversight responsibilities. This had to be guided by a briefing to the Committee. The Research Unit was also asked to look at the budget of the departments to see if it spoke to some of the MDGs, and how it dealt with them, and how the departments captured and monitored their progress towards achieving the MDGs. All reports had to be submitted to the House Chairperson by today. All the reports had to be consolidated and another chapter would be added to the consolidated report that would analyse the recommendations and findings in the committee reports. It would take three or four days to do this, and it had to be submitted to Honourable Frolick on 3 August 2011. This would be discussed at a stakeholder workshop to be held on 19 and 20 August 2011. Relevant stakeholders would be expected to comment on the report. Provinces will also provide their own reports on the progress of the MDGs in August. The input will then be collated by Parliament in the form of a second report, which will be tabled in Parliament in September. This report would be discussed and reworked for the Speaker who has to report on it in
Meeting report
Opening Remarks
The Chairperson informed Members that the Competition Commission and the Competition Tribunal were supposed to have briefed the Committee on the Walmart/Massmart merger. The Competition Commission had prepared itself for such a briefing; however this would no longer be the case as the government had lodged an appeal against the merger. The Competition Commission reported that it was taken aback by the government’s response to the merger. The Competition Tribunal had issued a formal statement indicating that it could not attend the briefing because of the appeal status.
The Chairperson indicated that she had asked Mr Arico Kotze, the Committee Secretary, to seek a legal opinion on the matter. The Committee would await that opinion. The Committee would continue with the other items on the agenda.
Consideration of the Progress Report by the Committee for Economic Development on Dealing with the Millennium Development Goals (19 April 2011)
The Chairperson noted that the Report had been sent to Members some time ago. Minor amendments were allowed to be made, but if there were any substantial amendments, the entire Report would have to be redrafted.
Mr S Marais (DA) noted that the report spoke about a workshop that would be scheduled with the Department of Economic Development (EDD), Statistics South Africa, and the National Planning Commission (NPC) on the figures provided to the Committee by the EDD on their briefing on 11 March 2011. He thought that the workshop should not be limited to the information provided in that meeting.
Mr Z Ntuli (ANC) wondered if the workshop was only about the statistics provided by the EDD at that briefing.
The Chairperson said that the question was whether the Committee had agreed that this was what the workshop was going to be about.
Mr N Gcwabaza (ANC) clarified that he did not recall that the Committee had limited itself to discussing only the information provided by the EDD on 11 March 2011.
Dr P Rabie (DA) said that the aim of the workshop was to obtain accurate figures, as it would be difficult to do adequate planning without correct figures. He suggested that the Committee include all the relevant parties in the workshop.
Mr Marais added that the Committee needed to be able to interpret the figures and statistics provided by these entities so it could understand their relevance for planning purposes going forward.
The Chairperson recalled that Stats SA was going to be invited for the workshop because the Committee needed to understand the context of the information provided by the EDD on 11 March 2011. However, she did not recall why the NPC was supposed to be invited to the workshop. When she clarified this matter with the Committee Secretary, he was not even sure himself. It seemed that there was confusion in the way the information was captured in the minutes. It was important that the minutes of the meetings bee captured correctly, as it confused Members.
Mr Marais asked if there was a recording of the meeting that the Committee could go back to.
The Chairperson answered that there was one recording but that it was a very bad one. This was a challenge and a shortcoming for the Committee. She suggested that the workshop would serve to inform the NPC of the information that was given to the Committee by the EDD.
Dr Rabie moved for the adoption of the report. Mr Ntuli seconded the adoption.
Report of the Portfolio Committee on the Progress Made Towards the Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals
The Chairperson noted that there were no proposed amendments to page 1 of the report.
The Chairperson asked the Committee to focus on page 2 of the report.
Mr Ntuli referred to page 2 and said that the words “amongst others” had to be added to the end of the sentence “While South Africa has a sophisticated infrastructure, a well-developed private sector and a stable macro-economy; it suffers inequality in education, specifically as regards access to quality education and access to quality health care”. The amendment was to show that these were not the only things the country suffered from.
The Chairperson agreed.
The Chairperson noted that there were no major changes made to page three.
Mr Marais referred the Committee to point 3.1 on page 4 of the report. He noted that this point spoke to the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG), which was to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. He also noted that point 3.1.1 spoke to “absolute” poverty decline. He pointed out that “extreme poverty” and “absolute poverty” might be different things.
The Chairperson noted that the EDD used the term “extreme” while the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) used the term “absolute”. She thought that consistency was needed, but also noted that the Committee agreed with the content of page 4 of the report. She asked the Committee to focus on page 5 of the report.
Mr Marais noted that the second goal of the MDGs was to improve the quality of basic education. According to the report, this goal was likely to be reached by 2015. He wondered if this was still on track.
The Chairperson clarified that the EDD’s briefing had said that measures had been put in place to ensure that this target was reached.
Mr Marais noted that the title of Goal 2 did not talk to access to education. The entire paragraph for 3.2.2, which looked at the progress of goal 2, spoke to the increase in access to education and not the quality of basic education.
The Chairperson reminded Mr Marais that he had to remember the context under which the paragraph was written. However, she understood what he was saying and thought perhaps the paragraph should be more specific. She asked the Committee Secretary to take note of this issue.
Mr Marais referred the Committee to Goal 3 on page 5, which spoke to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. He said that he always thought disabled persons should be included in this goal.
The Chairperson clarified that gender referred to males and females.
Mr Marais replied that he understood what the Chairperson was saying but the report in general did not talk to disabled persons.
Ms Berenice Paulse, Senior Researcher of the Social Development Cluster and Coordinator of the MDG Project: Parliamentary Research Unit, clarified that Goal 2 of the MDGs did not include disabled persons. It spoke to the ratio of boys to girls in education.
The Chairperson asked the Committee to focus on Goal 4, which was to reduce child mortality. She noted that no major changes had been made. She asked Members to look at Goal 5, which spoke about improving maternal health. No major changes were made. No major changes were proposed for goal 6, which dealt with combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. Goal 7, to ensure environmental sustainability, and Goal 8, which was to develop a global partnership for development, also remained unchanged.
The Chairperson asked the Committee to look at the conclusions that started on page 8 of the report.
Mr Marais referred the Committee to point 4.3 of the report that spoke to challenges with poverty alleviation. He said that there were other factors that could be added to the two factors recorded in the report. One of these factors was unemployment.
The Chairperson agreed saying gender inequality should also be included as one of the factors.
Mr Ntuli seconded these proposals.
Mr Ekhsaan Jawoodeen, Senior Researcher: Economic Affairs Cluster, agreed that the challenges could be expanded upon to include gender, income and other forms of inequality as well as unemployment.
The Chairperson noted that Members agreed with Mr Jawoodeen’s advice.
Mr Marais referred the Committee to 4.4, which looked at the creation of decent jobs. He noted that there was too much focus on the creation of jobs at the local level, which meant that the provinces were being left out. The goal for creating decent jobs had to happen at all levels of government.
Dr Rabie added that the public and private sector had to work together to contribute to the creation of decent jobs.
The Chairperson agreed with both Members saying that the private sector also had to be included in the goal for creating decent jobs. This challenge should not be limited to the local government level; provinces had to be included as well. Paragraph 4.4 had to be amended.
Mr Ntuli added that municipalities had to be strengthened so that they could contribute to the creation of decent jobs at the local level.
Mr Gcwabaza referred the Committee to conclusion 4.7 that spoke to reprioritising expenditures towards the attainment of MDGs. He said that the private sector had to be included in this venture. The private sector had to say what role it could play in achieving the MDGs.
The Chairperson agreed that the private sector had to be more involved in this initiative.
The Chairperson asked Members to focus on conclusion 4.8, which looked at the impact of HIV/AIDS on productivity in the workplace. She wondered if this should be slotted in at 4.6, which looked at the importance of MDG 6 – to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
Mr Gcwabaza agreed saying that HIV/AIDS affected productivity and had to be included under MDG 6.
The Chairperson noted that there were no further changes to the conclusion of the report. She asked Members to focus on the recommendations. She thought that the report covered most of the recommendations made by the Committee. However, more thought had to be given to how the private sector could be more involved in the process of achieving the MDGs. Finally, she added that the issues of inequality could not be ignored and had to be prioritised in the recommendations.
Mr X Mabasa (ANC) seconded the Chairpersons view that the matter of inequality had to be included in the report, as there were so many different kinds of social and economic inequalities that affected the country.
The Chairperson noted that certain inequalities such as income inequality contributed to many of the challenges experienced in the country.
Mr Marais stated that he supported the Chairperson’s view.
The Chairperson responded that it would be included as part of the recommendations in the report.
Economic Development Research Unit Report on the Millennium Development Goals
Ms Nwabisa Mbelekane, Researcher for the Committee, reminded the Committee that the Chief Researcher had asked her research team to prepare a report on the MDGs. Ms Paulse was in charge of this project.
Ms Paulse informed the Committee that the Parliamentary Research Unit was approached by the House Chairperson, Mr Cedric Frolick, in May 2011 to assist with drafting a concept paper for Committees to report on the MDGs. She did not attend the first meeting that was held with the Chairpersons of the relevant committees on 1 June 2011. At this meeting, the chairpersons were given a copy of the business plan and an indication of the focus areas for their engagements with departments. The Research Unit was asked to identify some of those focus areas and to submit them to the House Chairperson’s Office for consideration. The idea was that the MDG reports should focus on briefings from the relevant parties, and that there should be an attempt to engage with some of the information such as Annual Reports, Strategic Plans and budget reports of departments as they related to some of the MDGs and targets. There was also a request that Parliament had to consider the processes followed by the Committees. The idea was that the relevant committees would draft a report that would go into a consolidated report to Parliament. This would be discussed at a stakeholder workshop to be held on 19 and 20 August 2011. Relevant stakeholders would be expected to comment on the report. Provinces will also provide their own reports on the progress of the MDGs in August. The input will then be collated by Parliament in the form of a second report, which will be tabled in Parliament in September. This report would be discussed and reworked for the Speaker who had to report on it in
Based on the feedback the Research Unit received from the House Chairperson, it was requested that both the Committee Section and the researchers should work on the MDG reports. Each committee report had two parts. The first part looked at “parliamentary processes” and had to be drafted by the Committee Section. It focused on what relevant legislation applied to the MDGs, what processes had to be followed by the Committee, what kind of public participation initiatives had to be engaged in, and what oversight visits had to be conducted. The second part of the report focused on the Committee’s oversight responsibilities. This had to be guided by a briefing to the Committee. The Research Unit was asked to look at the budget of the departments to see if it spoke to some of the MDGs, and how it dealt with them. The Research Unit also had to look at how the departments captured and monitored their progress towards achieving the MDGs. All reports had to be submitted to the House Chairperson and the chairpersons of the committees by today.
Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the Committee would not be able to deal with the report today, as it did not have the information. Members had to focus on the draft report provided by the researchers. The Committee would discuss the report further on Tuesday, 2 August 2011.
Ms Paulse informed the Members that she had to consolidate all the committees’ reports. However, she would be adding another chapter to the consolidated report that would analyse the recommendations and findings in the committee reports. It would take three or four days to do this, and it had to be submitted to Honourable Frolick on 3 August 2011. The Committee could discuss its MDG report and make the relevant changes so that they could be incorporated into the consolidated report to be handed to Honourable Frolick on 3 August 2011. The Research Unit would wait for the Committee’s changes.
The Chairperson said it would have been better if the Committee could have discussed the report earlier. The Committee would have to discuss the report on Tuesday, 2 August 2011.
Ms Mbelekane asked if she could clarify something about her MDG report. She said that she had been told to choose one MDG to focus on that related to the Committee. She had explained to the Chief Researcher that almost all of the MDGs formed part of the work of the Committee, and that it was impossible to choose just one. She focused on the most important MDG, which was job creation. The report only focused on Goal 1, which was to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, but more specifically on Goal 1b, which was to achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people.
The Chairperson said that all the goals were integrated into the work that the Committee did and they could not be ignored. The Committee would have to look at the document next Tuesday. It would be helpful if the document could be given to the Committee by Monday morning.
Mr Marais thought that a directive such as the one given to the researcher to choose one MDG to focus on had to come to the Committee or the Chairperson first.
The Chairperson agreed. She understood why Ms Mbelekane had been directed to select one MDG. However, she wished that she had known about this directive so that she could do something about it. It was important that these matters were dealt with in the Committee. The Committee was now faced with the challenge of deciding if this decision made by the researcher was right or wrong.
The Chairperson said that the Committee would meet on Tuesday to process the report from the Research Unit.
Other Matters
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Committee had been invited to a workshop on the MDGs on 19 and 20 August 2011. Five Members had to attend. The Committee had to submit a list of the names and contact details of those that would attend by 2 August 2011. The list would be forwarded to the Committee Secretary.
The meeting was adjourned.
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.