Department of Women in the Presidency on its Annual Performance Plan, with Minister

Meeting report

Before the presentation by the Department of Women, an internal meeting by the Committee was held. This meeting comprised of the Committee, the researcher and content advisor. The researcher and content advisor presented, followed by a discussion by the Committee. Some of the issues discussed were performance, progress and budget of the department. There was a general consensus on all the issues and solutions raised, and how to go about solving those.

MPAT Progress Report 2016/17 including Comparison of 2015 and 2016 FY
Ms Val Mathobela, Chief Director: Strategic Management, Department of Women presented the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT), which was an annual departmental assessment that measured management practices in Strategic Management, Governance and Accountability, Human Resources and Financial Management. This was an evidence based tool that was used to assess a variety of standards that aimed to improve performance and service delivery in the public service. The assessment entailed moderation scores in various categories, such as Strategic Management, Governance and Accountability, Human Resources and Financial Management. The document compared performance for the 2015/16 financial year.

2016/17 Key Performance Indicators to be Amended
Ms Mathobela also presented the 2017/18 Key Performance Indicators to be amended, which analysed the targets that were set for the year, including their objectives, and then it also attempted to predict the performance for the next five years. The targets that were sub-programmes were:
-social empowerment and transformation
- governance transformation, justice and security
- research and policy analysis; and
-stakeholder coordination and outreach.

A measurement of performance for the past three years (2013/14; 2014/15; 2015/16) was analysed as well.

Discussion
Ms G Tseke (ANC) commented that when there was strategic planning, the Committee should be invited or involved and advised of what the Department was doing. Furthermore, the Committee wanted to go along with the Department so that the Committee did not merely see a revised performance plan.

Ms C Majeke (UDM) thanked the Department for tabling everything timeously. She echoed the previous speaker’s sentiments, and said that the issue was not with the changes but bringing in the changes late.

Ms T Stander (DA) raised a number of points, that there was a lot that could be asked since the inception of the Department, which changed from the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities to the Department of Women. What document had the Department produced? Where was it? What measurable impact did the Department make in the socio-economic transformation of women? How have women been empowered and transformed? This was the Department’s function and purpose, and that was why it was getting money.

Ms Susan Shabangu, Minister of the Department of Women in the Presidency, held that the Department’s responsibility was not to empower women but to ensure that every person and structure empowered women, and asked the Department of Trade and Industry what it had done to empower women.

Ms D Robinson (DA) noted that there were many changes taking place in the Department, and wanted to know what the legacy of the Department and Committee was. Furthermore, the Committee was there to serve women.

The Minister narrated the history of the country, and said that the 1994 democracy was where this all started, and noted that a need was felt to narrate the history of South Africa because the Department was not old, whereas it was often compared to old existing Departments. She said that there were various laws that mainstreamed in other departments that the Department did not create. When there was proclamation of the Ministry, things had to be contextualised and it started from scratch. The Department had to be restructured. She explained that part of the difficulty was to address administration challenges, and Department structures were unknown and were not done according to a statute. This meant that the Department structure had to be redefined. These facts were said in order to know where this Department was coming from. Furthermore, National Treasury acknowledged that the Department did not have enough budget. As a result of this, it was difficult to see through projects.

Minister Shabangu continued by saying that when something was not working, it needed to be changed; the Department changed when things were not working. In the last few years there were statistics analysing issues of women, and not even once had the Committee called the Department to engage about these issues. Moreover, the statistics were done by independent institutions, not by the Department. For instance, the one that was sent to the Committee was done by the University of Cape Town Research institution and this meant that the results were credible, and this research helped the President in identifying what needed to be focused on. She explained that in terms of the budget, funds were sourced externally. The chop and change was apologised for, but the environment caused for such to happen because people came up with programmes that were not viable and they ended up being changed. With regards to not involving the Committee, there was no intention of marginalising the Committee. However, the Department was also not receiving attention from the Committee when raising issues, because the Chairperson was written to, letters were sent and how this was discussed was not the Department’s mandate. She highlighted that a letter would be sent but if the Chairperson was not available, then someone else could be sent as a representative.

The Minister added that the changes were brought to the Committee, and if this was another department, these changes would have probably been hidden, and the Department of Women was honest enough to bring these changes forward because advice was needed in turn. She said that there were plans the Department wanted carried out but funding would be sought externally. Moreover, as these issues were dealt with, appropriate capacity was also needed, which brought this to the issue of a CFO; a capacitated person needed to be appointed. She said that the history was thought to be necessary in order to be just and lenient to the Department. Judgement should be based on the document the Department had, and evaluations that were done. When the Minister came in the Department, there was a backlog of administration. Therefore it was not that things were not done, they were done with the utmost best but the challenges hindered vast progress. An MNE was tabled last year and the Department was really committed but funds were a challenge.

Ms Tseke agreed with what was said by the Minister, and stated that the Committee thought it should get the Department on board for the mandate. Another issue that was raised was that of a revised APP which was complained about last year; it seemed like there was no consultation taking place, plans were simply carried out. The status of the report was a very good document and all that was left to do was for the Department to present it.

The Acting Chairperson, responded on the issue of change, that change of programme resulted in Parliament not being able to get flights for other Members. Moreover, changes also affected the cost of the programmes.

Minister Shabangu replied that this was not about ticking boxes, but it was about stretching the budget to meet more targets. The Auditor-General and the Audit Risk Committee met on a weekly basis, which meant that the Department consulted but it might be at the wrong time. The Auditor-General was part of the Department because it had to be consulted on a regular basis. She expressed that she hoped to be part of the Cabinet Reshuffle because of the many challenges faced by the Department. In addition, it was said that administration was bloated, the Department was stuck with people, and there was nothing that could be done. However, when administrators left, the Department tried to turn such vacancies to technical ones, but there were also those who did not and would not leave, and they could not be touched because they did almost everything right, for instance they came in on time for work and left when they were supposed to leave.

Ms Tseke replied that in relation to the unattended meetings, the Chairperson was the one who approved the meeting and the number of people, therefore this should be expected when only two Members attended a meeting. The whole Committee would like to be part of the meetings too because the failures of the Department were the Committee’s failure. While the discussion was on meetings, the Department was invited to conferences or workshops and it never attended and this became an embarrassment to the Committee. Therefore, this was a plea to the Department, when there was oversight; it had to join the Committee in order for people on the ground and various departments to see the effectiveness of the Department and teamwork.

Ms Majeke agreed with Ms Tseke on the issue of invitations, and told the house about her encounter where she saw the Chairperson alone at the airport, where the Chairperson was rushing off to a meeting. The point that was raised was that, it was not that the Committee did not want to go but it was the limited resources.

Minister Shabangu replied that the Department had 106 employees, 80 at the bottom and zero at the top, and such problems were inherited. The Committee was urged by the Department to be a part of meetings.

The Acting Chairperson asked whether the Department was working with the Premiers of the provinces, and whether there was a link.

Minister Shabangu replied that it was one of the answers that were answered in the written answers and it was a mixture as there was no cohesion. She said that the issues of gender had to be in the Premier’s office, and not administrators. The Department wanted to have the accountability when it came to evaluating provinces to see what they did about gender. In provinces, the Premier’s office took responsibility. It had to be the Director General that answered to drive the mandate, in that way when a province was asked for accountability and information, it could be able to provide such information.

Ms Robinson commented that the Department made her feel sorry for it, and it keeps saying there were no funds but the Committee had to hold it accountable. There was something that was said repeatedly, that there had to be Chief Directors, and this and that, someone who could be held accountable, but this was also a problem because these were people who earned high salaries. Why was it that it was people that earned high salaries that were held accountable, why could other people not be held accountable as well?

Minister Shabangu replied that if the government was understood, and to ensure that nothing bad happened, accountability had to be at the right level. There were administrators who were not the decision makers and recommenders, they were support staff. The people that should be held accountable were the ones at the top. If people were to account, who had to account? If a Senior Administrator attended a meeting, they did not participate in the management committee meeting and executive committees, it needed to be acknowledged that society was patriarchal and administration jobs were thought to be a woman’s thing.

Department of Women Annual Performance Plan 2017/18 and Budget
Ms Mathobela said that the strategic focus and strategic plan refinements 2015-2020 included the highlights of the 2017 State of the Nation Address affecting the Department of Women. Secondly, the presentation included the organisational and budget structure. Lastly, the refinements to the strategic plan stated that the Department did not table the Strategic Plan 2015-2020, except the refinements made in 2016. This also included the organisational environment and budget programme structure, five year targets and sub-programmes. She said that the strategic overview was an analysis of the Department’s mandate, which was to promote women’s socio-economic empowerment and gender equality across all sectors of society. The Department was certain that there was enough policy and legislation to address such issues, and was now looking into implementing those policies and legislations.

Mr Prince Booi, Acting DDG: Social Transformation and Economic Empowerment, Department of Women, said that under programme 1, the Department wanted to deal with the issue of administration in order to provide effective leadership, management and administrative support services to it. This programme included the sub-programmes, objectives, and quarterly targets for 2017/18. Programme 2 was social transformation and economic empowerment, which was to facilitate and promote the attainment of women’s socio-economic empowerment and gender equality. This programme also looks at sub-programmes and their objectives, together with the quarterly targets for 2017/18. Programme 3 was policy, stakeholder coordination and knowledge management, which was to undertake research, policy analysis, knowledge management, monitoring, evaluation, outreach and stakeholder coordination for women’s socio-economic empowerment and gender equality. It also consists of sub-programmes, their objectives, and quarterly targets for 2017/18.

Mr Mbazima Shiviti, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Department of Women, presented the MTEF compensation of employees budget for 206/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20. He also highlighted the budget allocation for the 2017/18 financial year, which was R206 163 million. The budget allocated funds for each programme, economic classification, sub-programme, ENE, and MTEF.

Discussion
Ms Majeke wanted to know, based on programme 3, what the status of the monitoring and evaluation framework was. What impact assessments would be conducted in terms of the progress made on women’s economic empowerment and economic cluster department during 2017/18? On the issue of economic cluster, which Department’s APP or strategic planning within the economic cluster would be analysed in 2017/18? Lastly, how did the Department decide on which engagements to attend and where the outreach and community mobilisation initiatives should be held?

Ms Tseke directed her comment to the Minister that, she would recall an incident about office rental, it was R11 million, now it was R15 million, that was three floors and each floor cost R5 million. The Committee was told that this would be dealt with by the Department of Public Works, and there was still no response regarding this matter. She said that another issue was that the auditing fees were too much, they were R3 million, and a comparison was made between the Department of Public Enterprise and yet the Department of Women was receiving a budget that was less than the former. On the issue of programme 3, what was the difference between the last two targets? She said that there were ten outreach initiatives and nation building social cohesion, what was the difference? Why could the two not be merged? She felt that it was the same thing. The last question was directed to the Acting Chief Director, that the Nine Point Plan that was spoken about in the presentation was broad. Page 33 of the presentation was not specific, it was broad whereas the cancelled targets were specific, and the existing explanation was generic.

The Acting Chairperson wanted to know, since there was a challenge of the budget, if the Department had any plans to reduce administration costs. She said that given what was already developed by the government, why had it taken close to five years for economic freedom to take place? Lastly, on the status of gender mainstreaming strategy, why did the current APP not reflect any specific target in this regard?

Minister Shabangu responded, with regards to the latter question from the Acting Chairperson, that gender mainstreaming could not be set as a target because it was a revolving programme. For example, in the previous department the Minister was in, the mining sector targeted 10% of ownership to go to women. Therefore, the question that had to be asked was: was gender mainstreaming happening? The Department was asked about the question of gender mainstreaming, it was not about putting women in a little corner and splitting them all over, there was no framework for gender, and rather it was about letting women have the same opportunities as men. She explained that it had to be ensured that women were part of any opportunity. She said that this was like the R10 million that was allocated for women, but this was R10 million of what? This amount limited women. Did this mean that women had to be in catering only? The aim of the Department was to help society and women of South Africa to move away from that. She believed that any opportunity that prevailed, women had to be included. She said that the Department recently met with the Department of Basic Education, with the aim of normalising subjects such Life Orientation and Biology in schools. Issues of women had to be articulated and interpreted within programmes, not outside of programmes.

The Minister highlighted that with regards to the impact assessment, she urged the Committee to give the Department some time to come back with a solution; there was a solution but it was just a matter of monitoring it. There was an issue of skills as well which was worth mentioning because the gender issue was still in a developing arena, therefore there was a challenge of not having gender studies graduates or gender related qualifications; these students usually had attendance certificates for a five-day gender workshop attended. She said that progress done might be presented in the next quarter and give the first flesh of the work done within the right context. Furthermore, South Africa signed a lot of international agreements, and there were international obligations which were not decided upon by the Department. The ones directed to women were assigned to the Department by the government. Protocols and information, which the Department was responsible for, would be given, and the Department was committed to sending these to the Committee.

Ms Jenny Schreiner, Director General, Department of Women, replied that, how the Department chose outreach programmes, depended on what the programme was. For example, for the 16 Days of Activism Against Women and Children initiative, it used the process of statistical information by Stats SA. The Department started by developing a social profile before going to a place in order to use the information gathered to address challenges faced by that area.

Ms Schreiner said that with regards to audit fees, the Department was working on cutting these fees down; however, this was not dependent on the size of a department. Moreover, this enabled the Department to work efficiently. She noted that this gave the Department the ability to provide information as this was a weakness for the Department before. With regards to programme 1, the Department was constantly concerned about and aware of this programme, and this was discussed in the budget committee. The personnel and structures were inherited from previous departments. She explained that ways to merge posts when there were posts available was looked at as well as part of the solution. Going to the question asked by the Acting Chairperson on why it took so long to address the issue of economic emancipation, this was because there was limited capacity; the whole year could be taken to carry out a task that could be done in a few months.

Ms Mmabatho Ramagoshi, Deputy Director-General: Policy Stakeholder and Knowledge Management, Department of Women,  replied that the MME was not going to focus on the APP. The Department was busy being assisted to develop the MME system. With the issue of impact assessment for 2017/18, it was not available, There needed to be a baseline, and once the system was finalised it would assist in closing the gaps. In response to the question about the difference between the last two targets in programme 3, the first one took place once, and the second one was continuous, as it took place in every province.

Mr Booi replied that with regards to the Nine Point Plan it could be said that the plan sets out nine interventions. The Committee was right in saying this year’s Nine Point Plan was broad, because the 2016/17 one was quite clear. Introspection was done, and the objective was that the Department wanted everyone to be aligned to the Nine Point Plan, with understanding of the plan and the work around the plan. He said that to integrate alignment, the Department worked with various stakeholders to facilitate workshops. The Department was at a point where it prepared to go to a retreat process, and this would enable it to map out what it needed to focus on in the current financial year, and only then the Committee would be informed of the focus areas, because the plans would not all be met. The Nine Point Plan really needed to be unpacked and that process was started.

Minister Shabangu replied that with regards to the Nine Point Plan, it would be looked at and improved, and this would be sent after 14 days of retreat to the Committee.

Mr Shiviti elaborated that of the R15 million rent paid, R11 million was for rent, and R3 million was for municipal services, and then the Department further owed the Department of Public Works R7 million from last year. Furthermore, in terms of the audit services, the Department had to do re-audits but a committee was formed to monitor this as a solution.

Ms Majeke said that in terms of programme 2, sanitary dignity, the Department developed a policy framework, but why was it that a policy was developed around this issue? Furthermore, what criteria were used to determine the indigent girls and women?

Ms Stander said that if the Department was not responsible for gender mainstreaming and did not believe it had targets to set, how it then reviewed its progress and other departments’ achievements. It was mentioned that the Department was new, yet if it was new, the start process would include looking at various departments’ annual reports and the gender split in every department and entity, and that should take a week at most. She said that other departments should be asked what percentage of their budgets were spent on gender mainstreaming, and this was not policing them but getting information, and these departments’ targets should be asked for as well for the financial year.

Ms Stander said that the approach that was used by the Department was not easily understandable. It stated there was no capacity and no funds, and there was only 20 employees doing the core business of the Department. She highlighted that the APP stated there would be not much research done on the ground as the Department would stick to desktop research, but without research on the ground the Department would not be able to provide the support and analysis to enable the quality of gender equity in the country. What measure was being taken to say the Department was here and this was where it would be by when? She noted that the Department used Stats SA with the information they had and the DPSA, but was the Department using the existing information that might still be relevant today to move forward? In terms of national dialogues, how many was the Department conducting? Where was this taking place and where was the outcome? How much did it cost? Did the Department have progress to share with the Committee as to how many people were involved in these dialogues and where this reached?

Ms Stander said that capacity and budget were the reason for the Department not being able to do everything. She said that there was an inherited organism, but it had to be changed as part of the restructuring, so what was specifically done by HR? How would the Department up skill those people that needed it? Has the Department looked at the Labour Relations Act? If not, why not?

She wanted to know where the prioritisation of the Nine Point Plan was as there had to be the most important issues that were chosen over others. Was the sanitary towel target important more than gender violence? These were some of the questions that needed to be asked this weekend when prioritising. She wanted the Department to focus on the most critical issues that affected women. She felt that targets were not smart, and often times not measurable. Responsibility was mainly assigned to the Director General. Therefore, how would individuals be held accountable for each programme? Was each individual being held accountable individually? 

Ms Tseke said that with regards to gender mainstreaming, it was not listed as a target whereas the other departments did not understand the issue, was there a framework for gender mainstreaming?

Minister Shabangu replied that there was a government framework on gender mainstreaming in place, it was enacted in the year 2000.

Ms Khawula (EFF) raised a number of issues. Firstly, the issues of these international churches that harassed women, what was the house saying about these churches that came as wolves in sheeps’ clothing? They were here to make money. She said that people who were not from SA, it was not that they were not needed in the country, but they abused women too as they were making women eat snakes, grass, fuel, etc.  The issues discussed in Parliament did not reach them. Some foreigners also sent young females to foreign countries only to make them sex slaves. She emphasized that the sector needed to look for solutions. For example, there were taverns that had notices that children under the age of 18 should not enter, and yet they let them enter anyway. This had to be investigated, and also how these owners received licenses to sell alcohol and drugs, while they stabbed and raped one another too. Looking at the 2017/18 plan, it needed to also look at how these owners obtained trading licenses. She felt that these were most prevalent to black people. Lastly, in the issue of xenophobia, there was no such thing as xenophobia, it started when outsiders come to SA. The food and beverages they sold were not original. Who would get sick? Who had to grieve? Who would have to go to the hospital? It was women. She proposed other departments had to be invited to discuss these issues.

The Acting Chairperson added onto what the Ms Khawula said about drugs, that there was a drug called “Bluetooth” in Johannesburg, where people used injections to transfer blood to one another in order to get high. This was a concern because there were many diseases that could be transmitted through this method.

Minister Shabangu replied that women carried the burden and the responsibility did not lie with the Department. Another department had to be invited to inquire about the registration of churches and the registration of these churches with SARS. Tavern liquor licenses were issues by the Department of Trade and Industry and a meeting with this department was needed too. Coming to the issue of accountability, the whole value chain of the structure included a Director whichdhad a programme that states who had to perform what. It was not the Department, it was how the structure of government was, and there was no Director General that floated. Deputy Director Generals were accountable to the Director General, and if they failed, the Director General failed as well. On the issue of mainstreaming, there were laws in this country. Did this mean the Department must create laws over and over again?

Ms Tseke replied that it must be reviewed because it was an old law. The year 2000 was a while back.

Minister Shabangu defended her point and felt that the framework was still relevant, and that was what the Department was being criticised for. She said that that was the problem South African was facing, it wrote and wrote but it did not implement. To review the framework, it had to get to a point where it was not working anymore as it was the government that was failing to implement. On the issue of prevention, the two should not be mistaken as they were both important. Was there a woman who woke up and decided that she wanted to menstruate? No! These were necessary tools to protect women from contracting diseases too like condoms. In terms of the Nine Point Plan, the Department knew what it wanted to achieve ans the retreat was for thinking things over and coming up with solutions. In terms of research, the Department had no capacity to conduct research; therefore research was commissioned to other institutions. This was what the government did because there was no capacity to conduct research.

The Minister highlighted that with regards to the issue of restructuring versus the budget, National Treasury was now looking at giving the Department funds and the Department would become better. In terms of statistics, the Department uses Stats SA. With regards to the issue of rape, elderly people were raped and murdered and girls were raped too in taverns. The Police Coast Guard and the police were working with the Department, and some of the perpetrators were arrested. Houses were fixed, like broken windows and doors, for safety. Even with limited funds the Department would try to fulfil its projects and partner with willing organisations. Again, after the retreat, the Department would come back and give the Committee the prioritisation and how they would be achieved. She admitted that the targets in the Nine Point Plan would not all be achieved because they were huge.

Ms Majeke wanted to know if the Department encouraged youth to start their own businesses, and what was it doing to ensure that ideas that the youth come up with were not stolen by funding agencies.

Minister Shabangu commented that the Committee made the Department come to a realization. The President asked what this Department was doing a while ago and this meant going back to the 2011 SONA. With regards to the sanitary dignity issue, it was a dire need. Tertiary students were making noise about this already but the Fees Must Feel protests happened and overshadowed this one. This needed to be dealt with now, otherwise someday the Department might be faced with the issue of protests and demands. In terms of criteria for indigent women, the programme would target quintile 1 and 2, the poorest of the poor. National Treasury supported this and it wanted to know the projected amount. The policy would be implemented by the Departments of Basic Education, Health and to some extent, Social Development.

The Acting Chairperson added that the Committee asked the Treasury to remove VAT for sanitary pads which “pink tax”.

Minister Shabangu said that the Department was trying by all means to table a proposal for the sanitary dignity target by the end of June, and conduct a public hearing because there could not be a policy without public opinion, therefore, this might be enacted next year. She felt that every department should set targets. For example, in the mining sector women were now included, the number even went beyond 10%. That was what the Department wanted, for women to be included and make this a norm. If departments said they were looking at 30%, they were asked how? This Department looked at the targeted percentages, and the tools that would sustain this.

Ms Khawula said there was a suggestion that in order to avoid the long queues at hospitals, ARVs be distributed to Shoprite and Clicks, and the idea seemed good at the time but there were still queues at these stores. Another was the conflicting and restricting laws that disabled bureaucrats to perform their jobs, and then they were criticised for their performance.

Minister Shabangu said that with regards to the HIV and AIDS programme, if the Committee had an interest, it could invite the Minister of Health to answer why they still made use of Checkers and Clicks for ARVs. It had to be kept in mind that these were chosen as an option; maybe collecting treatment from Shoprite was convenient and avoided the stigma. The Minister of Health might also be able to answer about other issues; one of them could be the issue of what their department was doing about the implanon that was forcefully removed from females by drug addicts in order to smoke it. Another concerning issue was that statutes were contradictory, for instance it was considered statutory rape at 15, whereas at 14 a girl child could get married with the consent of her parents.

The Minister said that on the issue of protecting intellectual property, this was a very serious issue. She said that “for instance this morning I came across an article in the newspaper that says there was a young boy who gave his music to Casper Nyovest to listen to it, and he heard his lyrics in one of Casper’s songs, his lyrics were stolen”. The Department of Trade and Industry was responsible for this issue. She said that there was no solution for this as of yet, but perhaps there could be a mentoring system in place for such. She added that the other issue was that graduates felt entitled as they did not want to start at the bottom and learn, they wanted to earn R30 000 per month at entry level. When the Department of Trade and Industry was invited over, nice presentation and talks had to be overlooked, they must be asked real critical questions. They might tell the Committee that they budgeted for R10 million and that was not the wanted amount as it needed to “give out the whole cake”. This was limiting women and their thinking.

Ms Schreiner said that in terms of the gender split issue, the monitoring of how well the Department was doing was the function of Department of Public Service Administration.

The Acting Chairperson concluded by saying that everything was covered. The Department of Trade and Industry was invited last year and other departments, there was a programme to follow up. Furthermore, the Health and Trade and Industry ministries would be invited. The Department of Small Business Development would be asked about economic development of women. The Commission for the Rights of Cultural Religious and Linguistic Communities would have to answer about the issue of pastors and churches. The liquor licenses issue would also be dealt with. The budget vote would take place on the 24th of May 2017. The Committee and this Department had to work towards working well, because the failure of the Department was the failure of the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.