Department of Social Development 2017/18 Annual Report, with AGSA input & MEC present

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the briefing with AGSA was a closed session and PMG could only come in afterwards- for the engagement with the Department on its Annual Report.

Department of Social Development 2017/18 Annual Report

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister and his delegation from the Department of Social Development. He invited questions from Members following the AGSA briefing on the Department’s annual report.

Mr S Tyatyam (ANC) asked if the Minister was happy with the Department’s service delivery. He commented on the youth development program run by the Department. He asked about its effectiveness given that crime and violence involving young people was out of hand. He made reference to the Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP), which sought to channel 310 women currently within 16 funded shelters for abused women, to provide them with skills, training and economic opportunities. He asked about its current status.  

Adv Albert Fritz, Provincial Minister of Social Development, said the Department had a very broad mandate and extensive statutory framework. Its primary role was compliance to statutory responsibilities. He deplored the fact the hard work of personnel within the Department went unnoticed. Further, the media never documents or captures incidents whereby social workers are assaulted in communities. Societal challenges were complex and there was need for community involvement in instilling progressivity and positivity to give youngsters an alternative to gangster-ism. Communities as a whole should take full responsibility and the point of generalising about communities was incorrect.

Ms C Beerwinkel (ANC) asked if the Minister would admit that the problems within communities owed to Social Services’ failure to reach where there was pressing need. If the Department was run correctly and provided with the requisite resources; many challenges would be addressed. The Department’s audit report did not speak highly about how funds were being handled by the Department.

Minister Fritz said the Department must continue to get the basics right. He pointed out that bureaucracy and red tape in government was equally hindering progress. Also, communities must take responsibility in creating a strong social fabric. Churches and mosques should be fundamental in dealing with social ills such as dysfunctional families. There should be no finger-pointing without addressing the real issues.

Ms L Botha (DA) asked if the Minister was happy with the progress recorded by the Department vis-à-vis the budget spent as highlighted in his foreword on the annual report. 

Ms Beerwinkel asked if there were people doing business with government that the Department did not know about. Were there any employees with conflicts of interests? If so, what was being done to minimise this?

Dr Robert Macdonald, Accounting Officer: Social Development, said there were employees involved in various business activities and programs. These activities varied from supervising final year students, health and soccer coaching, as well as playing music. However, none of them were doing business with the State. Employees involved in other roles which could be perceived to be in conflict with their departmental duties followed due process and were given go-aheads.

Ms M Maseko (DA) asked if the audit committee, as an integral part of the Department, had flagged the risks outlined in the annual report. Was any form of remedial action suggested?

Mr Tyatyam asked why consequence management was not included in internal controls to ensure good governance.

Dr Macdonald said the Department was aware of the risks. Implementation of corrective measures was underway and being monitored by the internal audit committee. The foremost objective was to improve service delivery. Action had been taken to address irregular expenditure such that internal mechanisms have been spruced up as recommended by the audit process to ensure compliance.

Mr Tyatyam asked what the Department was doing about non-compliant early development centres (ECDs). He referred to page 156 of the annual report and asked about the nature of the material misstatements. In addition, the budget allocation for crime prevention, a critical programme, was rather low. Much of the Department’s funds were going towards employee remuneration.

Ms Maseko referred to page 173 and said the Department’s mandate was largely reactive. She asked how budget allocations were being done to make sure the needs of people within communities are prioritised.

Ms Beerwinkel referred to the Department’s unfilled posts. She asked why it was impossible to find suitable candidates as per the explanations for material variances from Amounts Voted (after virement). This very same explanation was given in five different programmes.

Dr Macdonald said the misstatements were as a result of administrative as well as human errors. There was always a high margin of error as the information was compiled manually. Some files sitting with NGOs working with the Department could not be located as they were apparently destroyed by a social worker. He reassured the Committee that certain arrangements had been made to ensure such incidents do not happen in future. The Department was struggling to fill some vacant posts especially in the supply chain management because the private sector pays more such that the Department was being outcompeted. Some non-essential posts had been frozen and would only be filled when finances are available. The Department has been working hard to align its targets to ensure pressure points are well-funded and areas where the needs are greatest for the Department’s services are fully capacitated.

Ms Beerwinkel asked what the general reasons for irregular expenditure were. How was it that there was still recurrence of cases whereby local content was not being applied? Why at this stage were there problems with the application of local procurement policy? Was personnel within these spaces not being continually trained? On details of irregular expenditure on page 204, what corrective measures had been put in place?

Ms Botha asked if there were any disciplinary steps taken against incidents of irregular expenditure. She wanted to know about the sanctions imposed and whether the matters had been conclude.

Dr Macdonald said most of the incidents of irregular expenditure involved third parties who had claims against the Department. The State Attorney deals with these cases. On accruals and irregular expenditures, R1.2 million was carried over from the previous year whilst the other 37 cases related to issues picked up by the Auditor-General in the 2015/16 financial year. There was only one case identified over the period under review. 30 out of 40 cases had been dealt with and the disciplinary processes would soon come into effect. Centralisation does carry its own risks such as slowing down processes and therefore resulting in non-compliance. Each individual case has own merits.

Mr Tyatyam asked for the names and positions of employees who had received bonuses. There was no law prohibiting the sharing of this information with the Committee.

Mr D Mitchell (DA) fundamentally disagreed with the request to divulge the names of employees as suggested. This could cause unnecessary commotion especially when names are linked with salaries. The point was there were other parliamentary mechanisms that could be followed if Members felt strongly about it.

Mr Macdonald said Mr Mitchell was correct to point out that divulging names could cause unnecessary tensions and conflicts within the Department. Members should explore whether providing the names of employees would enhance service delivery.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee has never requested employees’ names and details previously. He would seek legal advice if Members were insistent on this because of its sensitivity. Members would send additional questions electronically and the Department would be expected to respond in writing.

The meeting was adjourned.