The draft report on the Committee’s oversight visit to KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) was presented for consideration, and all the Members agreed that it was an accurate record of the visit. Some words and phrases were changed for the document to be consistent with the content of the visit. It had been found that there were cooperatives in KZN which were supported by technology which other cooperatives could use in their operations.
Members said the Committee did not have the expertise for testing technology, and should not adopt models that intentionally bound other departments. After a protracted debate, the matter was laid to rest by adopting the pilot project and the technical support services. They said the name of the service provider (Kohwa Holdings) would be omitted. Technical support was what would be needed going forward, and that did not depend on only the Kohwa model. The cooperatives had to be supported not only by Kohwa farm technology, but by all technical services that supported small businesses and cooperatives. There was an 88% failure rate among cooperatives, and what made them fail was because they lacked technical support.
Members also agreed that the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) had not assumed its leadership role in the development of cooperatives in South Africa, and as a result there many duplications of models by other departments, as well as confusion. To address this, the Committee suggested that the Department should organise a strategic workshop that involved other departments so that there would be a clear understanding of who did what in the process of developing cooperatives. The Committee adopted the KZN report with amendments and agreed to a debate of the report in Parliament.
The Committee was also presented with a Community Economic Development model based on cooperatives for adoption. The purpose of the presentation was to seek support for implementation of the model. Target groups for cooperatives’ development were existing cooperatives that were not productive; land claim beneficiaries that were not using their land productively; and unemployed youths and women. The advantages of using cooperatives as a tool for Community Economic Development included the reduced dependency of under-developed communities on government handouts.
Contributing factors to the 88% failure rate of cooperatives was that anti-apartheid international donors had stopped funding South Africa when a democratic government had assumed power. The role of a cooperative bank included providing funding for new cooperative enterprises and savings facilities for the community at large. Teams which needed to implement the model were NGOs with the necessary know-how in order to assess the training needs of members and community leaders, as well as facilitation of the registration of cooperatives. Key government departments and government agencies needed for the success of the model included the DSBD with a changed perspective; the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA); the DRDLR and the DAFF. Public sector funding sources included the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD), the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), the Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA), the Construction SETA, the Agricultural Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA), and the Department of Social Development.
There was an appeal for the adoption of the model, as well as participation in it, so that under-developed communities could actively participate in their own development and regain their human dignity. It was moved that the model should be presented at the ANC Policy Conference, as it went to the heart of the policy position of the Party.
The minutes of the Committee meeting held on 1 March 2017 were adopted with amendments.
Consideration of outstanding minutes
The Chairperson went through the minutes of the meeting of 1 Mar 2017 page by page, allowing the Members to comment and reflect on the minutes.
Mr R Chance (DA) pointed out that on page 3, it was not correct to say the Committee rejected the request, but rather that the Committee had reluctantly agreed. It was wrong to say 90% of jobs to cooperatives, but rather 90% of jobs to small businesses and cooperatives by 2013. Programmes on the last line of page 4 should be replaced by functions, or programmes and functions, as monitoring and evaluation was not a programme, but a function.
The Chairperson proposed that a Member should move the adoption of the minutes.
Mr H Kruger (DA) moved the adoption of minutes with amendments, and was seconded by the Rev K Meshoe (ACDP).
Mr Kruger said he had attended a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture a day before and there had been concerns that some of the functions that were lying with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). He asked the Committee to look closely at the composition of the ministries and the duplication of functions in the ministries.
The Chairperson asked for elaboration, and Mr Kruger replied that a concern had been raised in the Portfolio Committee about certain functions that lay with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reforms, but the mandate of the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries was similar. It was a similar situation with the Department of Small Business Development. It had the capacity to do the function as a mandate of this department, but was without the resources. There was a need to rethink the whole situation so that the resources would fit the mandate. Actions must not follow the money. Money must follow the actions. In this case, there were a lot of plans but unfortunately the money was not following the plans
The Rev Meshoe asked how the situation Mr Kruger was talking about impacted on the work of this Committee.
The Chairperson said she was confused, and asked for the topic to be discussed in terms of the agenda.
Mr Kruger replied that it was just a comment arising from the minutes, which showed the Department suffered similar problems to other Departments. This Department was not unique in this problem. Other Departments suffered from the same problems.
Mr N Capa (ANC) welcomed the comments, and added that the Committee must make sure that the Department intensified the effort of taking its role of coordination in the development of small businesses, cooperatives and SMMEs.
The Chairperson said that there were two issues that she wanted to address, which were related to the minutes. Tthe first issue was what the Committee was going to do to communicate with the Minister of Small Business Development, Ms Lindiwe Zulu, to facilitate a situation whereby the Minister would appear before the Committee. There was a Global Entrepreneur Congress next week that the Minister and the Director General (DG) would be attending, so the Committee was still working on the suitable time to appear before the Committee. As soon as a date had been decided, it would be communicated to the Members of the Committee. Also there was a report that was supposed to have been presented by the Director General (DG) of the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) which had not been presented. This had led to a situation that required the Committee to communicate with the Minister so that the DG could come for the presentation, as requested by the Committee.
The Chairperson asked if there were any comments, and whether the issues that had been raised in the preceding paragraph were acceptable, or if there were any changes that Members wanted to make.
Mr S Mncwabe (NFP) replied that the issues raised by the Chairperson were acceptable, and there was no contrary view.
Draft KZN Oversight report
The Chairperson asked if there were any comments on the report. She asked Mr Chance to go through the KZN draft oversight report.
Mr Chance said he would cover the main points. He read from page 6, paragraph 2, which said the R350 000 funding of cooperatives must not be seen in isolation but became a part of the whole strategy of developing the cooperatives. The funding was on a short term basis, given the fact that it fell outside the scope of policy, particularly as the Co-operative Incentive Scheme (CIS) should not be seen as an end in itself. It should be part of the bigger plan, after it was very clear what strategies were needed to overcome the obstacles for market-orientated cooperatives to exist. Mr Chance said he would be pleased to know whether that factor had been taken into account in granting funds to the cooperatives when the Department came to present to the Portfolio Committee for the review of the policy of developing cooperatives.
The Chairperson noted that that was the issue that the Committee had been trying to address with the DSBD. Firstly, the Department had reported to the Portfolio Committee that it did the post-disbursement monitoring and evaluation to check what was funded by the Department in terms of the CIS, which funded the equipment, irrigation system, and fertilisers. There was no working capital and funding for training. There was no consideration for people working on a one hectare farm to go to the toilet when they wanted to relieve themselves, and there was no protective wear for bad weather. Service providers in the development of cooperatives must ensure that such protective wear was delivered. The Department was concerned only about processing the application of the CIS. Even when the DSBD talked about the functions that remained in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), it did not talk about the development aspects of cooperatives. The Department had overlooked the fact that the DSBD’s function was to deal with the actual development, which meant that it did something to develop that person. The DTI talked about funding, monitoring the post disbursement evaluation, and it talked about monitoring the development without mentioning who actually did the development. When the Department was asked to report about the 400 cooperatives, it had said that it could not provide the information because of lack capacity, and it would outsource. The Committee was not told who would have done the development part of the cooperatives and who would also provide a report to the Committee.
Mr Chance agreed with the Chairperson’s analysis and said it came back to the issue of key performance indicators (KPIs). How did the departments actually measure? It seemed like the measurements were by disbursements. Dishing out money was not the answer, but rather how the money was going to be spent. Before spending money, there was a need to establish that the cooperatives had the right to exist. Did that cooperative satisfy needs? Was it going to be doing business in three years to come?
He continued with the presentation, and gave a comment about page 6, where the report said that the implementation of corrective measures was still a work in progress. He commented that without a sustainable and functioning market economy in which the cooperatives had established a legitimate role to play, the cooperatives were bound to fail in the long run. This was where the CIS money was wasted.
On page 7, the report said funding must follow function, and this was not happening. The paragraph at the bottom of page 7 was very important, as it said that the Portfolio Committee was of the view that without strengthening agricultural research technology; the institutional development support systems as well as post harvesting systems, all government assistance in doing away with unemployment, inequality and poverty would be in vain.
A Member asked for the alignment of the objective of the oversight visit so that it went with the content, and must not to stand alone.
The Chairperson agreed that the sentence on page 7, which said that the Portfolio Committee was of the view that without strengthening agricultural research, technology development, the institutional support systems, enhancement of physical and economic connectivity of farm to market, post-harvesting operation system including the role of food processing industries and ultimately increasing the farmer’s income, rural development and inclusiveness, all government and DSBD efforts towards tackling unemployment and inequality would be in vain, should go to last page where the Committee was making the overall observations.
Mr Mncwabe supported the proposal, because it was really a recommendation.
Mr Chance contested point number 3 on the table (page 14), saying that was not the agreement of the Committee. There was rather a long discussion with the Deputy Minister on whether the craft function should be retained in the Department in terms of the strategic review. Also, the Committee in accepting the recommendation of the review, had said it should be a broad, not a deep policy position. The Committee had said it would not support the individual sectors, as that would spread the Department too thin.
The Chairperson replied that the Department was saying that the Committee should not focus on certain sectors. The Committee, on the other hand, was saying that the world outside was structured in that way. There was a training, construction Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA), Agriseta. The manner in which the business was structured was that there was an IT sector, a manufacturing sector, and an agricultural sector. 75% of the cooperatives that were registered were in agriculture sector.
Mr Chance further stated that he agreed with the sector approach. All he had said was that the Department was not going to set up capacity in the specific sectors.
The Chairperson said that the Committee was making the comparison between the Department and the Committee. The Committee was saying that the DSBD must have a sectoral approach and the DSBD had said it did not want to have a sectoral approach.
Mr Capa said that the challenge on the table was stating what the Department thought and what the Committee thought, and it did not come with a solution.
The Chairperson explained how this challenge came about. It had been part of her presentation when she had done the introduction of what the oversight was all about. The Committee was interacting with Departments and spheres of government that were supposed to be part of the steering committees, with a focus on the cooperatives. Those were the people that were supposed to be forming a cluster in the development of agricultural cooperatives. The Committee was following on the issue of transversal agreements, the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) process, and remedial action presented on 7 December 2016 by the Department. This was to check if the Department had made efforts to implement the remedial action and to catch up with the timeline of the IDP, and also aligning the budget with plans of other Departments. The Committee and the Department had different approaches, and were yet to find each other.
Mr Chance requested that all the presentations that were said to be available in the body of the text of the report should be made available to the Committee.
An ANC Committee Member asked when the Department was going to check the 88% failure rate of the cooperatives, and if the Department was sticking to the same approach that had resulted in failure. He said there must be a movement away from the failing approach. When was the Department coming back to the Committee on this issue? The Department was more interested in the number of funded cooperatives, rather than the quality of the cooperatives. When was this matter going to be resolved so that after another year or two there were no issues of another 88% failure rate of cooperatives.
The Chairperson asked that these contributions be deferred, and pointed out that this was just background information that had been presented at the meeting. The recommendations and conclusions would come in the last page of the report. The purpose of putting it here was to make it background information when the purpose of the day was introduced.
Mr Capa asked if the Chairperson meant that the Committee would come back to it when it was time to table the recommendations.
The Chairperson replied in the affirmative.
Mr Mabasa asked that on page 16, number 4 in the table, on the Department side, be changed so that “not” becomes “no”. On page 8,he referred to the sentence that read, “Over and above the policy pronunciations and prescript as painted above, the purpose of the latest visit was also informed by the strategic plan of the Department, including assessing whether the DSBD was effectively and efficiently executing its mandate of…”. Was the sentence talking to the overall objectives of the Department, or was it focusing only on cooperatives? He said he interpreted it to mean broadly, and if broadly, then that would make the Committee change 3.3 into “SOEs with the aim of facilitating the sustainability of cooperatives and SMMEs”.
Mr Capa asked about the sentence on page 14, that read: “In November 2015, the DSBD approved funding for 12 cooperatives in KZN and in 2016, these 12 cooperatives were adopted by the Committee as a pilot project to test the new model and the use of Kohwa farming technology.” He said he had an understanding that the pilot was a model of the cooperatives. He wanted to separate the model of cooperatives from the Kohwa farming technology, because he was of the view that the model could be piloted by any other farming technology, and not necessarily Kohwa farming technology.
Mr Mncwabe supported Mr Capa, and agreed that the sentence could end by saying “the cooperatives adopted by the Committee as a pilot project,” and leave out the service provider.
Mr Chance disagreed, and said that the pilot project was intimately connected to what the Kohwa farming solution was. It was using the whole methodology, and not just the technology. The question was whether the methodology used by Kohwa could be used in other projects, so the two could not be separated.
The Chairperson said that perhaps the Committee could remove the name of the company instead, and add that technical support services were provided. The success of the model depended on having a technical support system which did not currently exist in the Department
Mr Mabasa supported Mr Capa’s recommendation that the model must not be tied to a service provider as a matter of principle.
The Rev Meshoe asked what was wrong with tying the model with a service provider that was dealing with 12 cooperatives that were pilot projects. What was being tested was the technology that had come with Kohwa. If there had been two service providers, one might have been tempted to say that there would be confusion, but in this case there was only one.
Mr Capa said that there were two things: the cooperatives’ model, as well as the agricultural model. The acceptability of the farming technology was not for the Committee to judge. That was why he wanted them separated, because the use of technology was a different thing, while the use of the cooperatives model was something that was within the core function of the Committee.
The Chairperson said that was why she had said in her input that the Committee could retain the pilot project to test the new model and the technical support services. The technical support was what would be needed going forward, and did not depend on the Kohwa model. What made the cooperatives fail was because they lacked technical support
Mr Mncwabe supported the Chairperson. The matter should be ended by adopting the pilot project and the technical support. The name of the company should be omitted. He did not think the Committee had the competence to test the service provider’s farming method.
The Chairperson asked if Mr Capa was comfortable with that.
Mr Capa replied that he was comfortable, as long as it was put the way that Mr Mncwabe had put it, and the Chairperson closed the sentence with sufficient or effective technical support.
Mr Chance said that he was not even aware that Kohwa Holdings was familiar with the model that the Chairperson was referring to. He did not think that it was testing the Chairperson’s model. It was testing its own model. Separating the Kohwa methodology from the 12 cooperatives would be absurd, because the pilot would not exist without Kohwa. The Committee must distinguish between the model presented by the Chairperson to the Committee on the one hand, and the pilot on the other hand. The pilot project was testing two things: the elements of the Chairperson’s model, as well as the methodology provided by Kohwa to support rural cooperatives. In his view, the two were separate.
Mr Capa said this was where he differed with Mr Chance. What he had believed to have been piloted was the cooperatives approach model. He had discovered in the process that it appeared that two things were being piloted. He did not want that. He wanted the Committee to pilot what was within its competence.
Mr Mncwabe said the Committee must be advised on the route to take by the Chairperson, who was the political leader of the Committee. The summary given by the Chairperson was taking the Committee forward, and should be ended on that note rather than continuing in a protracted debate.
Mr Mabasa said it should not be assumed that Kohwa would always be favourably dynamic. When Government entered into contracts with companies, those contracts had a lifespan because monopoly by nature was not fanciful. As law makers, the Committee should do things in a way that the door for substitution remained open. The Committee did not have the expertise for testing technology and should not adopt models that intentionally bound other departments.
Mr Chance said he wanted clarity as to whether the Chairperson had presented her model to Kowha Holdings.
The Chairperson replied that she had presented the model to this Committee.
Mr Chance said that in that case, it was impossible for Kohwa Holdings to be testing the model as it knew nothing about it. This was why there had to be a separation of the two. The Committee may have endorsed the pilot, but it was not running it.
The Chairperson said there two things involved here, which Mr Capa and Mr Chance had earlier pointed out. There was a model, and that model said that for cooperatives to work, technical support was required. It also said that cooperatives existed to develop the communities. Who were the targets of this model? The targets were the people who relied on the social grant, households that were indigent, as well as people with a black skin who needed technical support. The model should be a technology that would assist in the development of cooperatives. Along the line, it had been discovered that there were people who had the technology and were willing to make the model to be tested. Without this group of people, the model could not be tested.
Mr Chance suggested that the Committee should speak to Kowha Holdings so that the Committee would be fully aware of where the latter sat within the model.
The Chairperson said what was done by Kohwa was merely phase 1 of the model. She wanted to make a ruling on this.
Mr Capa said the Committee had gone on this oversight visit, and there was a column for findings and recommendations. It should be stated clearly in that column that the involvement of Kowha had proved that efficient technical support was absolutely necessary. If these projects were not supported technically, they would not move.
The Chairperson said her suggestion at the beginning was to remove the name of the company and retain technical support services. She would like to close this matter by entering the submission by Mr Capa. The Committee would remove Kowha from the sentence, and put in technical support services.
Mr Chance read a comment on page 16, in the second paragraph, which said one city in South Africa had a budget that was nearly half of the budget of the whole DSBD. What did that say about this Department?
The Chairperson replied that she was not sure she was on the same page with Mr Chance in terms of the point he had made in his observation. The Department was mandated to champion development of SMMEs as well as cooperatives in SA, and also to coordinate the resources, planning and alignment of programmes. She referred to the issue of the budget of this Department and the budget of R600m of Ekurhuleni, which was a city with a revenue base. It was one of the municipalities that had been discovered had a good plan. The Department had noted this so that that could be used to the DSBD’s advantage. The Department would go to the Municipality, meet with them and align with its strategies and plans.
Mr Kruger said he had heard what the Chairperson had said and was in agreement with her. There was a need to come back to the model of the cooperatives and make sure it was rolled out to the municipalities and organs of the state. There was need to strategise and monitor the whole process so that there would be no duplication of models by other departments like the DRDLR. This would lead to a waste of money which was not available.
The Chairperson said there was only one department that had been given the mandate to champion SMMEs.
Mr Kruger said he agreed, but that was not happening at the moment. The DAFF had their own ideas about developing small businesses, cooperatives and farming. There were a lot of ideas. What if 90% of these models implemented by other organs of state were not working? The DSBD was the champion, but it was not working like that at the moment.
The Chairperson replied that it was not working, which was the very reason that had necessitated the establishment of the DSBD. Every department was doing it, but it had not yielded positive results. The DSBD had been established to make it work. The Department was to assume its position of leadership and ask other Departments such as the DRDLR to contribute in the process of development of cooperatives and SMMEs.
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee must move on with the report, as it had been discussing the model instead of the report.
Mr Chance said that at the bottom of page 28, there was a reference to all the objectives of the DSBD which had not been achieved. This should be highlighted at the end of the report. Page 29 referred to a 100% black female-owned progressive non-governmental organisation (NGO). What organisation was that?
The Chairperson replied that it was an NGO that had been invited. It was an entity.
Mr Kruger asked whether, after this meeting, the adopted report with amendments could be emailed to the Members of the Committee today.
The Chairperson replied that it would be emailed. She added that she proposed that the Members made observations that related to the work of the Department. The oversight was not about the Department. The observations made in the document related to what the Members saw in each project. What was seen in each project gave the information that was needed to make observations in terms of the Department’s capability to execute its mandate effectively.
Mr Chance said the Committee was handicapped because it had never had a presentation from the Department on its cooperatives strategy. The Committee had seen examples of what the Department was doing, but had never actually seen what they were doing. His recommendation was that the DSBD should come and tell the Committee what they were doing.
Mr Kruger said two important things must happen. The Committee should produce a model and give it to the Department to implement. Secondly, the Committee must finalise legislation on cooperatives so that everyone understood what cooperatives were all about as well as the regulatory environment it could operate in.
Mr Mncwabe said with regard to the last point raised by the Chairperson -- since the Committee had visited the cooperative in KZN -- what were the observations of the Committee? The Committee must ensure that that the DSBD was coordinating structures by going into the municipalities to ensure that all the projects in the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) would affect the process. He did not foresee any problem. The Committee would work with all the departments to assist the DSBD.
Mr Capa said he sensed that to a great extent, the model the Committee was talking about was an agricultural cooperative model. The Committee should be able to outline the essence of the model that had been piloted, as well as the key elements of the model. There should be a recommendation based on the information received as a result of the piloting, as well as the oversight visit. This recommendation should be very concrete so that whoever tried to implement an agricultural cooperative could not do so without the recommendation.
Mr Mncwabe said his conclusion after all the oversight visits was that the Chairperson had presented her model. The Committee would discuss it and if adopted by the Committee, it would be given to Mr Jeffrey Ndumo, Chief Director of the DSBD, to implement unless he had an alternative and viable strategy.
Mr Kruger asked if it was proper to propose a workshop with the Department so that people would have an understanding of the Department, and there would be an exchange of ideas and challenges. A workshop would afford more direction.
The Chairperson said there was still a bit of confusion in terms of the DSBD’s understanding of key policy instruments that had been given to date. One of such instruments was the adherence to the Inter-governmental Relations Framework Act, which related to transversal agreements that the DSBD had been empowered to use. When a transversal agreement was signed, it would be discovered that an element was required for the development of SMMEs and cooperatives which required the cooperation of a number of departments. She wanted a follow up on the proposal by Mr Kruger on the need for a workshop. That workshop would be championed by the DSBD and would involve other departments. If other departments were not part of the workshop, the confusion and duplication would continue.
Mr Chance said the idea of a workshop made sense.
Mr Mncwabe said that the Committee had seen that there was a different approach between what the Committee had said and what the Department had done. The two parties must find one another and throw out what did not work. The municipalities had to be involved, and the Department was not keen on doing that. When were the differences in approach going to be reconciled? Was it at the workshop or before then? He was not sure.
A Member of the Committee said it was a fact that the departments had to come to the same level of understanding. The first thing was to ask the departments to make a presentation on their role and how far they had gone in inter-governmental relationships. This would assist the Committee and then lead to a workshop. The DSBD must be able to influence and coordinate other Departments because this was the DSBD’s field. The 88% failure rate was not limited to the DSBD, but was a South African phenomenon.
The Chairperson said what should be put as an observation was that the DSBD had not assumed its leadership role in the development of cooperatives in South Africa, and as a result there were many duplications of models and confusion. In relation to the above, the Committee would recommend that that the Department should organise a strategic workshop that would involve other departments, so that there would be a clear understanding of who did what in the process of developing cooperatives. It should also be added as an observation that when the Committee visited these cooperatives, it had been discovered that the DSBD had not done what it had committed to do on 7 December 2015. Could the Committee then agree that those would be the recommendations? This would bring us to the end of the report. Did the Members want to adopt the report today with the amendment, or would that be done next week?
The Members replied that the report should be adopted today. Mr Mncwabe proposed adoption of the report, and was seconded by Mr Chance.
The Chairperson said the Portfolio Committee on Small Business Development had adopted its report on oversight to KZN which had happened from 30 January to 3 February 2017. The report was adopted, with amendment.
Mr Kruger asked if the Committee could ask for a debate in Parliament on the report, and request that many of the business portfolios take part in that debate.
The Chairperson asked if the Members were in agreement with the proposal for a debate in the house. The Members replied that they were in agreement.
The Chairperson asked if the Committee could move to the presentation which was the second item on the agenda. She asked Mr Mabasa to chair the meeting while she made the presentation.
Mr Mabasa took the seat of the Chairperson and asked Ms Bhengu to make her presentation on the cooperatives model.
A Community Economic Development Model, Based on Cooperatives: briefing
Ms Bhengu presented a Community Economic Development Model, based on cooperatives, to the Committee for adoption. The purpose of the presentation was to seek support for implementation of the model. Target groups for cooperatives development included existing cooperatives who were not productive; land claim beneficiaries who were not using their land productively; child-headed households; and unemployed youth and women.
The advantages of using cooperatives as a tool for Community Economic Development were that they attracted progressive private sector investment, government investment in infrastructure, as well as a reduced dependency of under-developed communities on government handouts. Some of the contributing factors to the 88% failure rate of cooperatives in South Africa were that anti-apartheid international donors had stopped funding South Africa because a democratic government had assumed power. The role of a cooperative bank included providing funding for new cooperative enterprises as well as a savings facility to the community at large.
The Skills Development Centre provided skills training to existing cooperatives. Some of the expected end results were active participation of households and cooperatives in the mainstream economy and a reduced number of poor families on the social grant and indigent registers. Teams needed to implement the model were NGOs with the necessary know how in order to assess the training needs of members and community leaders, as well as facilitation of the registration of cooperatives.
Key government departments and government agencies needed for the success of the model included the DSBD with a changed perspective; the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA); the DRDLR and the DAFF. Public sector funding sources included Department of Small Business Development (DSBD), the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), the Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA), the Construction SETA, the Agricultural Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA), and the Department of Social Development.
Ms Bhengu appealed for the adoption of the model as well as participation in it so that underdeveloped communities could actively participate in their own development and regain their human dignity. The model was not perfect. Blind spots and gaps would be identified along the way and could be improved upon going forward.
Mr Mabasa welcomed the presentation and asked Members for comments and observations.
Mr Chance thanked Ms Bhengu for the presentation and remarked that it required deliberation. He said it should be presented to the ANC Policy Conference in July, as the model went to the heart of the policy position of ANC as a party. It was a fundamentally different approach to the way the government was doing things at the moment. A lot had to be done as regards the shift in emphasis -- that everything had to be done by government to move community-driven projects
Mr Mncwabe said it should be made a priority to deliberate on it at the next meeting, as there was a lot to discuss. Doing it in a few minutes would not do justice to the presentation.
Mr Capa said he was impressed by what Mr Chance had said, and it was very important. The presentation talked about Umkhonto weSizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA) on page 5. It would have been good if the presenter was not partisan, and limited it to MKMVA. It should have been the South African Military Veterans’ Association (SAMVA) instead of MKMVA. There should also be a written version of the document in addition to the power point presentation.
Ms Bhengu thanked the Members for their comments and the opportunity she had been given to make the presentation. The document had been presented to the President and he had supported it. It had also been presented to the ANC study group. She concluded by asking Mr Mabasa to tell Members what the ANC study group had said about the document.
Mr Mabasa congratulated Ms Bhengu for the wonderful work that had been done. The consequences of this hard work would be realised in the outcome not only of this Department, but other departments and spheres of government. The study group had gone through the document, broadly accepted its principles and had adopted it as a study group. He agreed with the suggestions of Mr Capa on the document.
Mr Capa said there was a request that deliberations on the document be made a priority in the next meeting of the Committee so that Members could get deeper into the document. What was the response of the Members to that request?
Mr Chance said the proposal of the model should be incorporated into the workshop that Mr Kruger had suggested so that it would be part of what would be done at the workshop. To look at this model in isolation would be missing an opportunity. The DSBD was coming to present its third quarter report and that should be the priority, while the model by Ms Bhengu should be the second priority for next term.
The Secretary of the Committee announced that the Chairperson had been given permission to represent the Committee at the Congress next week. The oversight would take place from 27 to 31 March in Mpumalanga. The structure of the manner of the oversight would be circulated to Members.
The meeting was adjourned
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.