Key concerns raised by the committee researcher, who gave a pre-briefing analysis, included: What had been produced as outputs and progress on key targets; what was the outcome of attending meetings and developing reports; were the outstanding audit findings resolved by year-end; how many were still outstanding; how many consultants were still in the Department and what were they doing; what was being done to capacitate existing staff; when would the Women’s Financial Inclusion Framework be concluded; what was the difference between this and the young women’s empowerment report; had National Treasury allocated money for the Sanitary Dignitary Framework, how much and to whom; how many girls had received sanitary products and how sustainable was this; what was the difference between the framework and the inclusion of auditing; what was the impact of dialogues; how could there be a programme of action when nothing was reported?
The Department of Women gave an overview of the progress made for Quarters 3 and 4 of 2018/19 and Quarter 1 of 2019/20 reporting on the progress in meeting targets per programme as well as human resource management; financial management; and reports from the two new programmes it had acquired in the reconfiguration of government at the start of 2019/20: Youth and Persons With Disabilities.
The ensuing discussion by the Committee included: dismal performance of the Department due to unmet targets; discrepancies between Department and Treasury reports on underspending; what happens to the unachieved targets; dialogue outcomes; Sanitary Dignity Framework (SDF) budgets and rollout; consequence management and accountability; reporting to the Executive Authority for sign-off before submission to Parliament; teamwork and staff willingness to work; use of consultants and skills transfer; oversight of work in other departments on empowerment of women, youth and persons with disabilities; high number of unemployed youth graduates; National Youth Development Agency; staff disciplinary hearings and suspension; audit findings and irregular expenditure; transition period for new administration; filling of vacancies; Women’s Financial Inclusion Framework; provision of rape kits; Presidential Review Committee; gender-responsive budgeting and auditing; action plan for BRRR recommendations; coherence and cohesion in the Department.
The Department was instructed to provide written responses to questions by 20 September.
The Chairperson stated that Parliament had lost Comrade Ms Bavelile Hlongwa, Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources, a young woman from KwaZulu-Natal. When the ANC Women’s League was drafting the list of names of women for the Sixth Parliament, she was amongst the young women on the list and she was on the list of names for Cabinet appointment, and she was appointed as a Deputy Minister. Her life was cut short by her tragic death. Parliament was still expecting more from her because Ms Hlongwa was a young aspirational woman who had a vision on how to change the lives of people for the better. She would approach the Chairperson when things were not okay and say, “I know you, you are not the person to keep quiet if things go wrong. You confront things, you are a fighter and cannot be changed by other people. If something is not right, it is not right. Please deal with this thing”. Ms Hlongwa wanted the Chairperson to fight for people, thus, she would address the issue even if she did not want to fight because Ms Hlongwa looked at her as a role model. She was a leader who was fearless, confronted things, was committed, dedicated and passionate about her work. Ms Hlongwa had seen an accident on her way back to Pretoria and asked her body guards to stop so that she could help, and she got hit by a truck in the process.This was typical of Ms Hlongwa who, if she wanted something, wanted it now. Ms Hlongwa died at a young age and was dedicated to her work – as a leader, woman and public representative. Ms Hlongwa was one comrade who was not concerned with herself and shared everything. If it is your time and your destiny is meant to end, this will be done as one cannot predict their lives or destiny – God is the creator. No one knows when their last day is, only God. Everyone has a purpose to serve in this world, it is up to you to determine whether you have served your purpose. As Members serving the people, the Chairperson appreciated them every day and could not do anything without her Committee. One should appreciate life and thank God for every moment. Life was short and needed to be respected.
The Committee took a moment of silence to observe Ms Hlongwa’s death and hoped her soul rest in peace.
Ms N Sharif (DA), on behalf of the DA, sent the ANC condolences for the loss of Ms Hlongwa. Ms Hlongwa spoke at the State of the Nation debate. She watched Ms Hlongwa in awe as it was a young woman making an impact. This was a proud moment regardless of the political party one came from or where one came from in life. The individual always needed to be respected, as well as the person in the positions, to use the positions and platforms to push a certain narrative. Ms Hlongwa was also very involved in the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), so it was a loss not only for the ANC but the entire country.
The Chairperson mentioned that the Whip, Ms Masiko, would not be present as she had been delegated to help Ms Hlongwa’s family with the funeral arrangements in KwaZulu-Natal. As there would be a debate on Gender-Based Violence (GBV) the following day, the Committee meeting next day would be postponed.
Research Analysis: Department of Women quarterly performance: Q3 & 4 2018/19; Q1 2019/20
Ms Crystal Levendale, Committee Researcher, presented on programme performance and financials, followed by Ms Kashifa Abrahams, Committee Content Advisor, who looked at follow up and analysis.
Quarter 3 of 2018/19
For 2018/19, the Department had received a budgetary allocation of R230.2 million. This included the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) transfer payment of R80.7 million, leaving the Department with an operating budget of R149.5 million. Looking at the Quarter 3 overview, the Department has spent 68.3% rather than 75% of its budget (R157.2 million instead of the projected expenditure of R165.6 million and includes the CGE’s transfer payment.
For Programme 2, the Department’s reasons for underspending include: vacant posts; delayed implementation of the Sanitary Dignity Framework (SDF) due to poor response from the market for request for quotations; contract workers for SDF appointed in replacement of consultants; and outstanding invoices for travel and subsistence. These same reasons were given for Quarter 2, indicating that across two quarters targets have not been met as money had not been spent.
For Programme 3, the Department’s reasons for underspending include: vacant posts; performance rewards for 2017/18 significantly less; foreign travel budget expenditure realised in Programme 1 and 2; outstanding invoices; delayed implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation Framework due to poor responses from the market; and recruitment of a service provider was delayed due to a change in the model for the 25-year research review.
Overall the Department had met 20 out of 28 (71.4%) of its targets for the quarter. The majority of targets unachieved were in Programme 1. The Quarter 3 unmet targets per programme, some of which have already been carried over from Quarter 2, were:
Programme 1 Administration –
• Quarterly report on Gender communications and information made available on DWYPD media platforms (unmet in Q2 as well due to vacancy);
• 100% of valid invoices paid within 30 days (99% paid in Q2);
• Maintain less than 2% underspending against quarterly revised projections (underspent in Q2 as well);
• 40% external audit recommendations implemented (unmet in Q2 as well;
• 100% disciplinary cases resolved internally within 90 days (unmet in Q2 due to non-availability of parties).
Programme 3 Policy, Stakeholder, Coordination and Knowledge Management –
• Implementation plan for the Young Women’s socio-economic empowerment framework developed (not achieved in Q2 for same reasons);
• 2nd draft of Monitoring and Evaluation Framework developed (not achieved in Q2 due to lack of response by prospective service providers); and
• Terms of Reference and evaluation plan developed toward data collection for evaluation report (not achieved in Q2 due to lack of evaluation capacity in the Department).
Quarter 4 of 2018/19
The Department spent 94.5% (R141.4m out of R149.5m) of its overall budget. There was overspending in Programme 1 and underspending in Programme 2 and 3, indicating a transfer of expenditure from Programme 2 and 3 to Programme 1. The Department did not spend 100% of its budget.
For Programme 1, the Department said that it had underspent however, the National Treasury fourth quarter expenditure report indicated that the Department had overspent. However, the Department overspent due to: higher than projected cost of renewing software and licences; travel and subsistence for GBV dialogues; and payment for leave gratuities to employees who resigned during 2018/19. It used funds from Programme 2 and 3 goods and services budget to offset expenditure in Programme 1.
For Programme 2, the Department said that it underspent by R126 000 but National Treasury indicated under-expenditure in excess of R5 million. The Department said that the underspending was due to insourcing of implementation of SDF whilst the National Treasury Expenditure report indicates that it was due to outstanding invoices for travel and subsistence for the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).
For Programme 3, the Department said underspending was due to: vacant posts not being filled; appointment of contract workers as the Department could not secure external service providers for the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; and fund reprioritised for the procurement of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) network server, but the appointment could not be made due to challenges with the contract.
The Department met 21 out of 29 targets (72.4%) for the quarter. The Quarter 4 unmet targets were:
Programme 1 Administration –
• 3rd quarter performance review report submitted;
• 100% payment of all valid invoices paid within 30 days (reasons cited are concerning);
• Maintain less than 2% underspending against quarterly revised projection (overspent on Programme 1 but underspent in all quarters); and
• 75% external audit recommendations implemented (unmet target in Q2 and 3 as well).
Programme 2 Social, Political and Economic Participation and Empowerment –
• Dignity and Revised Draft Framework for Sanitary Implementation plan for piloting SDF to indigent girls and women produced;
• Framework on Women’s financial inclusion developed (target has been in progress since 2016/17); and
• Revised inter-ministerial committee.
Programme 3 Policy, Stakeholder, Coordination and Knowledge Management –
• National dialogue held.
Looking at the programmes, Programme 1 managed to achieve an average of 70.5% of its targets across the quarters, 52.3% for Programme 2 and 65.1% for Programme 3. Nearly 100% of budget has been spent, yet not all targets have been met. There appears to be discrepancies between the information in Department presentation and National Treasury reports which need to be explained.
The Department implemented a virement of R737 000 and R4.7 million from Programme 3 to Programme 1 and 2 to reallocate funds incorrectly allocated to the programme at the beginning of the year. Why was this incorrectly allocated and then only corrected in Quarter 3? The Department moved R1.8 million from Programme 2 to Programme 3 due to the transfer of a function. National Treasury 3rd Quarter expenditure report highlights this: The Department received additional funding of R18.3 million in 2018/19 for the capacitation of its core programmes. The Department reported, at the end of the third quarter, 16 funded vacancies across all its programmes. The National Treasury is concerned about the pace with which the Department seems to be filling vacant positions in its core programmes, and the impact that the non-filling of these vacancies may have on the Department’s overall performance in 2018/19.
Quarter 1 of 2019/20 Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD)
The Department received an overall allocation of R244.4 million, of which R85.2 million goes to the CGE. Thus, the operating budget is R159.2 million for the financial year.
At the end of Quarter 1, the DWYPD had spent 24.7% thus meeting the 25% expenditure target per quarter. Out of 31 targets planned for the quarter, only 18 had been met – the majority of which was in the administration programme, not in the core delivery programmes:
• For Programme 1, 13 of the 15 targets were met. There was overspending by 2.9%.
• For Programme 2, 6 of the 7 targets were not met. This is concerning, given that the programme also performed poorly in 2018/19. The 31.2% of the programme budget had been spent.
• For Programme 3, only 4 of the 9 targets had been met. The programme spent 16.8% of the available budget. Lower expenditure is mainly due to delays in filling of vacant posts.
Outstanding Matters and Analysis
• The 2018 Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) was presented looking at the Committee’s recommendations and Department’s implementation. DWYPD said it had developed an Audit Action Plan circulated to managers, thereafter monitored on a monthly basis. But what have been the outcomes? 68.42% of audit findings were resolved in Q4 2018/19 and in Q1 64.9% of audit findings were resolved. The challenges lie with what is contained within the report.
• On human resources, the Department noted that 5 officials were charged and 3 managers suspended. It is unclear how these link and clarity is needed. The Committee recommended that there be consequence management as targets were not being met. What has this consequence management been for non-performance?
• On financial performance, the Committee recommends that DWYPD should provide a comprehensive report on the investigations into irregular expenditure for 2016/17 and 2017/18. Where is the comprehensive report? In terms of internal control and risk management, DWYPD said that the report is developed and submitted. If targets were not met, then risks were not attended to. What is contained within the report? The Committee recommended that DWYPD provide the Committee with a detailed outline of the measures in place to strengthen internal control and risk management. What had been reported at the end of October and the end of June was a cut and paste of what was meant to have been done in terms of internal control.
• DWYPD was to implement Strategic Monitor units to monitor the unachieved targets. What was the structure doing if targets were still not being met even though monthly reports were being produced?
• DWYPD provided information on vacancies within DWYPD. The Director-General vacancy was in abeyance, as well as Director: Supply Chain Management. This should be prioritised. The skills audit was finalised in 2018/19. What is the current status as DWYPD continues to draw on consultants to achieve targets?
• Moderations for the 2018/19 performance assessments are still to be undertaken. DWYPD stated that performance rewards for 2017/18 were significantly less than the 1.5% budgeted – this is unclear given the Committee’s recommendation.
• For the 25-year review, 2 researchers needed to be contracted to assist with the development of a comprehensive report. The deadline for the Presidential Review On Women’s Empowerment And Gender Equity was March 2020. How was DWYPD working with the Presidential Review Committee?
• For the 5 officials charged for the year under review, recommendations were made on Supply Chain Management. The Committee had uncovered transactions that did not meet Supply Chain Management requirements and DWYPD was currently taking remedial action against employees. Does this refer to the 5 officials who were charged?
• On collaboration with CGE, DWYPD stipulated where the CGE worked with DWYPD. However, in the CGE reports for Q3, 4 and 1, this collaboration did not come through. It is unclear how DWYPD was working with the CGE – particularly on dialogues.
• The gender focal points stay the same since October 2018. There was work being done but the matter had come up since 2017/18. It is unclear what the outcomes of the meetings with the ministers were and whether the target was ever concluded.
• On monitoring and evaluation, the Committee was yet to see the framework presented.
• DWYPD listed several reports that it had developed. What were the outcomes of the reports and when would it be submitted to the Committee for consideration?
• On the dialogues, in November/December 2018 there were 8 dialogues on which R4.2m was spent. In February/March 2019 there was a further 2 dialogues on which R174 537.50 was spent. This was a total of 10 dialogues on which just under R4.5 million was spent. What was the impact of these dialogues?
• DWYPD said that there would be training of women in cooperatives, departments had already been identified and funding was to be received. Where is the link to SDF and where was the NYDA?
• The Committee was yet to be briefed on the gender-responsive budget. This framework was not new and had already been cited at end October 2018, it was just never concluded. Auditing was now also a part of the framework. What was the difference between evaluation and auditing?
• DWYPD said where engagement had taken place: various stakeholder’s consultations, meetings and dialogues were held. What were the outcomes of these engagements?
• There was a request that National Treasury implement a budget for the SDF programme. Had a specific amount been indicated, for which provinces, where the money went to and who was overseeing the money?
• At the end of Q1 there were 13 unmet targets. What would the implication for Q2 be, as a result of the additional load? The targets not achieved were important service delivery areas. DWYPD has indicated what its strategic priorities are, as well as the intention to eradicate inequalities and past injustices. One needed to see evidence of this within quarterly reports. Programme 4 concerned national youth development. Technically, targets had been achieved. However, what were the outcomes of the implementation report and the mid-term evaluation review? What is the quality assurance in terms of the reports where the NYDA Board approved it prior to submission? What does the assessment report entail? Programme 5 concerned the rights of persons with disabilities, it was difficult to assess what had been achieved. DWYPD indicated what its delays were in not implementing framework. What had the programme done over the past 6 months? What was its impact for Q2?
Overview of Key Concerns
• Targets: The key theme was that DWYPD reported what had been produced in outputs but the Committee was more concerned with the outcome of the meetings attended and reports developed.
• Audit: There were still outstanding audit recommendations by the end of the financial year. Why was everything not resolved? How many were still outstanding?
• Consultants: DWYPD was moving towards using contractors. How many consultants were still in DWYPD and what were they doing? Money was still being spent on dialogues and can be seen in the allocated budget. There was a challenge in research, monitoring and evaluation. What is done to capacitate existing staff?
• Women's Financial Inclusion Framework (WFIF): This was not something new as it was developed in 2016/17. The framework was still not concluded. When would it be concluded? When talking to a young women’s empowerment report, what was the difference between the two?
• SDF: There were money issues. If National Treasury allocated money, how much had been allocated and to whom? How many girls received sanitary products? How sustainable was this? Who was going to manage it for the rest of the year?
• Gender-responsive budgeting: The difference between the framework and the inclusion of auditing needed to be understood.
• Dialogues: At times there was an attendance of 5000 people. How was DWYPD engaging with 5000 people? What was the impact?
• 365 day programme of action: There was non-activity in some areas. How could there be a programme of action when nothing was reported in Q4?
• International participation: A lot of money had been spent on attending CSW. What was the outcome of attending these meetings? How did attendance at Ramsar Convention on Wetlands fit in; was this a part of the core mandate?
The Chairperson was confused about underspending in Programme 3 due to ICT targets that fell under Programme 1, when National Treasury said that there was overspending due to ICT targets.
Ms Levendale explained that the information on finances would be sent on a quarterly basis to Treasury. The concerns which needed to be clarified was the discrepancies in numbers between DWYPD and Treasury i.e. where DWYPD says they are underspending and Treasury says more (or less) had been spent.
The Chairperson asked where ICT fell in which programme.
Ms Levendale replied that it fell under Programme 1 as an internal administration function. Why was it being recorded under Programme 3 when it should be recorded under Programme 1? This was not reflected in the financials, only in terms of the targets.
The Chairperson referred to the Social, Political and Economic Participation and Empowerment target being 4. However, DWYPD only achieved 1 despite having many dialogues. Does SDF fall under Programme 4 on youth empowerment?
Ms Levendale replied that many frameworks and guidelines fell under Programme 2, which were the targets not being met. R28.9 million was budgeted for Programme 2 yet DWYPD only spent R21.6 million by the end of March. This programme had the largest under-expenditure.
Ms Khawula (EFF) spoke in isiZulu. [36:25 – 36:37]
The Chairperson asked what was meant by Programme 1.
Ms Levendale mentioned that this was not reflected in the financials. In terms of performance, DWYPD had met targets for Programme 1 Administration, but its service delivery was in Programme 2 or 3 and they were not meeting targets.
Ms Abrahams asked if there were challenges in implementing the APP. Who was responsible for not implementing these actions in the programmes? Was there consequence management? If not, why not? The Committee was clear in its BRRR that consequence management needed to take place.
The Chairperson said Ms Abrahams was right. For the Committee to make the Department do their work, officials had to be held to account. If officials are not held accountable, regardless of what the Minister says, it will not take place. Members should write down all of the programmes where DWYPD has not performed, so the officials can be held to account. Every official has a responsibility. It would also make the Minister’s life easier if it is known where the damage is and who is doing what. If a programme is not performing consistently, it means something must be done and the official must state what the problem is.
Response by Minister
Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Minister in the Presidency for Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, gave her condolences to the family of Ms Hlongwa and hoped her soul may rest in peace. She acknowledged that the Committee wanted to help DWYPD function. The Minister and Deputy Minister were not to be exonerated but, instead, officials had to be managed. Officials must report to the Director-General and political heads as there are responsibilities given to them to lead DWYPD and they must learn to account to the political leadership inside DWYPD.
After three months of being in DWYPD, she was beginning to see people wanting to pick on Committee Members and that if they just "account", then they do not have to do their work. In DWYPD there was a culture of going to communities alone when doing service delivery in Programme 2 and 3. Upon asking the Acting Director-General what is going on, the Acting DG would reply that it is political work which DWYPD is not supposed to get involved in because individual MPs were being chosen to represent. Even with the Quarter 1 report some funny answers were given and there was an attempt to bring the report to the Committee without it going through the political head. Officials could not be shielded, but the Committee was appointed to manage how DWYPD should run and to let it account. The idea of “them” versus “us” would not get anywhere. It is known that there is a political responsibility, but the Committee and Department had a bigger responsibility together. People were dying and women were being abducted.
The Committee and Department needed to positively contribute to stop the carnage that had not previously been present in South Africa since freedom had been achieved. The President had to recall some delegates from New York, of which the Committee was the biggest delegation. She was not surprised by the figures that did not tally because, even after the recall, things did not go the way it should have. The culture of reporting also had to be accounted for – as information was received, who reported to which principal and what was the principal’s response? If wrongdoing is noticed but nothing is done about it, it is as if there is no principal. In the current reports, it was thus as if there were no principals but just officials. Where did this culture from? This was the first department where it was the Committee versus individual employees. Officials need to account and give reasons for why they had defied the Director-General so that there can be consequence management. Consequence management needed to have been stated from the beginning; not only once the Committee had said so. Where there are holes, the holes cannot exonerate how DWYPD is managed.
The Chairperson repeated that what the Minister was saying was that DWYPD could not present to the Committee without the Minister and Deputy Minister having seen it first – thus, there was a gap. When reports were presented, the Committee took it that the Minister and Deputy Minister had already seen it and that the Minister and Deputy Minister sat together with senior officials and looked at everything as a team, just as the Committee worked as a team. The Committee did not want to deal with individual officials as the Minister, Deputy Minister and all the officials were considered to be one team that consulted its principals. It was a privilege for them to be present when the Committee did its analysis of the Department reports so that the Minister could pick up on the discrepancies and the analysis. The Committee was doing its job thoroughly with the assistance of the researchers.
Ms Sharif felt the Minister’s frustration and could see that there was a disconnect happening between the Department and the Minister’s office. If the Minister had not seen the reports, she proposed that they first go to the Minister’s office because when the reports came to the Committee, the Department was not being judged by itself – the Minister was being judged and held accountable. Where targets are not being met, this was a direct reflection on the Minister as the principal in charge. It was thus shocking that the Minister had not had the opportunity to go through the information and correct it where necessary. She did not feel comfortable going through a report which had not gone to the Minister’s office to be signed off. If the Committee allowed DWYPD to present in this way, it would be setting a precedent that it is okay to bypass the Minister and go straight to the Committee. This should not be allowed as the Minister’s office had to look through the report first so the Committee could hold the Minister to account.
The Chairperson had read the report, had seen a lot of red and wanted to understand why there was so much red. The reasons given were not good enough. She was tempted to ask DWYPD but waited until the presentation could be made. To answer Ms Sharif, parliament had a programme and there was no way that the Committee could turn DWYPD away. The deadlines of parliament needed to be met. In terms of the politics of DWYPD, this was the responsibility of the Minister and officials. The Committee would not get into this space. If reports were not signed off, the Minister herself had to explain why she had not signed them off. The Minister or Deputy could not be exempt – they had to account. The Committee wanted reports on what DWYPD had done. Service delivery and spending was the oversight responsibility of the Committee; the Committee could not do anything about the politics within DWYPD. When reports are received it is taken that the Minister and Deputy Minister know about it and that it has been signed. If DWYPD was not in order, they had to sort this out internally. What the Committee meant by account, was that DWYPD as a whole would be held to account without the exception of anyone. DWYPD was implementing policy and public administration was clear about the separation of powers. The Minister and Deputy Minister were thus included with DWYPD. It was suggested that the Committee give their own analysis to the Minister so that the Minister could compare what she had against what the Committee was saying. Sabotage was something that the Minister and Deputy Minister needed to deal with – the Committee would not engage on this. Good luck was extended to the Minister as the political head.
The Minister was acutely aware that of the four quarters that DWYPD had to account to the Committee for, three had happened in the previous administration. Only one had occurred in the Sixth Administration. The unachieved targets in red were known about. What the Committee was complaining about and the consistency of wrongdoing over the previous quarters dizzied her. As a Department they had not made themselves proud and she wanted the Department to open their eyes to this continuity of nothingness. She wanted the Department to fix things with the Committee and to hide absolutely nothing. Her eyebrows were raised where there were explanations about things coming to the Committee without senior officials having seen it. This was where dualism was found. There was no willingness to perform, resulting in DWYPD wanting to bypass the Minister and Deputy Minister. History was history and now DWYPD needed to move on. However, DWYPD could not move on by covering things up. That which had not gone right still had to go through the parliamentary process to say that DWYPD had been called to account for specific quarters. As the Committee and Department sat, they sat on a burning platform as they were accounting for what had not happened.
Ms Khawula spoke in isiZulu. [1:09:27 – 1:15:30]
The Chairperson said that Committee Members had serious concerns. Fortunately, the Committee interacted with other Portfolio Committees. It was time that the Committee calls the departments in to account on their programmes for youth, disabled people and women. The researchers would look at the departments' programmes. They would ask the parliamentary researchers of other portfolios for information so they could do analysis. This Committee cut across all departments. This was the Committee’s responsibility. Was the Committee ready to put in the extra work? It came with commitment. In this Committee all Members were willing. Every quarter the Committee would need to schedule which departments will be called that quarter, so that all Departments are reached and what they are doing is known. This would be the first time the Committee calls all departments to account on matters of gender mainstreaming, youth and people with disabilities. It is not easy to do oversight on all departments at the same time. However, the Committee needs to initiate action – if not, justice would not have been done. She would not comfortable not knowing exactly what all departments were doing. Holding departments accountable might be draining and strenuous as there might not be time to check up. However, this was why there was a high number of unemployed youth graduates. Addressing this, one might end up not being liked but fortunately she did not care about being liked – as long as it benefitted the people of South Africa.
The Minister asked if it could also be explained when DWYPD took over the monitoring and evaluation of the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). This was because new Committee Members might be confused as to when accounting for the NYDA needed to take place.
The Chairperson said that Members knew that the NYDA was not the Minister’s responsibility as she had only had one quarter with the agency. However, this would help the Committee when the NYDA came as the Committee would know what to ask them.
Ms Abrahams mentioned that the key issue for Department officials was collaboration and partnership with NYDA to assist young women. NYDA had the capacity to focus on training and give money to establish projects. If the DWYPD was identifying young women for projects, it should concern itself not with monitoring the NYDA’s money but how its officials were collaborating with the NYDA to assist young women.
Ms T Mgweba (ANC) took over as Acting Chairperson as the Chairperson had to leave.
Ms M Hlengwa (IFP) thanked the researchers for opening the Committee’s eyes with the fruitful presentation.
Ms T Masondo (ANC) asked if the three managers suspended and awaiting disciplinary hearings were the same managers in the Outstanding Matters document on page 7 where five managers are referred to?
Ms Abrahams replied that it was unclear. The researchers could not discern whether it was the same people and that this is why clarity is needed. Five were charged and three managers were dealt with – how did this link to disciplinary matters?
The Acting Chairperson thought that Ms Masondo should ask DWYPD that question.
Ms Khawula spoke in isiZulu. [1:54:40 – 1:56:00]
Ms B Maluleke (ANC) agreed with Ms Khawula that it was the Committee, not the researchers, who had to draw up their own plan of oversight so that the Committee can grasp what is happening on the ground. The researchers could only help the Committee identify those places and assist in drawing up the action plan.
The Acting Chairperson thought that the researchers should also give the Committee recommendations for DWYPD. The researchers researched areas of weaknesses, challenges and strength. It was part of the responsibility of oversight to draft a programme of action for oversight, to address areas of weaknesses as identified by the researchers. DWYPD has to monitor and evaluate all of the other departments, as its responsibility is to monitor and evaluate the public departments across the country and private sector. As the oversight committee, it had an oversight programme. The Committee would want to see if DWYPD had really done as they had said and visited those places to evaluate this. The Committee should have its own programme.
Ms Khawula spoke in isiZulu.[1:58:55 –2:01:20]
The Chairperson returned and said that the Department could be called in.
The Acting Chairperson informed the Chairperson that Ms Khawula had proposed that the Committee have a plan of action for oversight as sitting in meetings would be of no help.
The Minister mentioned to the Department that she had had the opportunity to spend a moment with the Committee before the meeting started and would thus hand over to the Director-General to start the presentation. The comments she had made on the previous reports stood and she had also spoken to the Director-General about it.
Ms Welhemina Tshabalala, Acting Director General: DWYPD, presented a summary of the DWYPD and programme structure; summary of the quarterly performance for 2018/19; targets and progress status. Ms Val Mathobela, Chief Director: Office of the DG, Ms Nontsikelelo Manzini-Matebula, Acting DDG: Social Empowerment, and Ms Ntsiki Sisulu-Singapi, Acting DDG: Policy Stakeholder Coordination, Knowledge Management provided detail on Quarter 1 for 2019/20. Mr Mbhazima Shiviti, Chief Director: Corporate Management, presented on human resource management. Ms Desree Legwale, CFO, presented on financial management.
Department for Women: Quarter 2, 3, 4 Performance for 2018/19
In Quarter 2, 20 out of 29 targets were achieved. In Quarter 3, 20 out of 28 targets were achieved. In Quarter 4, 21 out of 29 targets were achieved.
DWYPD went through the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and target performance status:
• For number of quarterly reports on gender communications and information made available on DWYPD media platforms, 2 instead of 4 reports were produced due to the posts of Director: Communications and Communications Officers being filled on 1 December 2018 and 1 February 2019 respectively.
• For the percentage of invoices paid within 30 days, 98.7% were paid within 30 days due to DWYPD experiencing system challenges from Q3 as result of a server that crashed – outstanding payments have since been made.
• For expenditure, 96.5% of the total budget allocation was spent – underspending was mainly on compensation of employees due to unfilled vacancies, the filling of which was now being prioritised
• For percentage of external audit recommendations implemented, only 68.4% had been achieved in clearing the audit findings – capacity challenges in Finance is a major contributing factor and outstanding findings were being followed up in 2019/20.
• For revised draft SDF, by Quarter 4 the Revised Draft Framework for Sanitary Dignity implementation plan for piloting SDF to indigent girls/women was produced; however Treasury advised it should not do national rollout and pilot as planned so plan had to be revised which would be resubmitted for Minister’s approval.
• For the women’s financial inclusion framework, the framework was developed and referred for further consultation internally and was currently being consulted.
• For number of programmes in the 365 Days programme of action, DWYPD conducted dialogues and the 16 Days campaign for No Violence Against Women and Children, however reports were not signed off by responsible officials and it was submitted to the Minister for signoff only in Quarter 2 2019/20.
• For the revised Inter-Ministerial Committee Istanbul Programme of Action (IMC-IPOA) for addressing Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC), this was developed but not approved by officials as required and was in the process of obtaining approval.
• For the number of community mobilisation initiatives conducted on socio-economic issues affecting women, 3 community mobilisations initiatives were held with approved reports except one. For the number of reports in fulfilment of international treaty obligations on women, one report was produced on DWYPD engagement in multilateral forum. The report on 62nd session of CSW was not approved and would be sought in Q2.
The strategic priorities of 2018/19 were: Strengthened good governance to ensure DWYPD delivers on its mandate; Improved strategic financial management system; and Effective and appropriate Human and ICT and Physical Resource Management, enabling delivery on its mandate.
In 2019/20 DWYPD added two new programmes: Programme 4 – National Youth Development Programme and Programme 5 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Quarter 1 Performance for 2019/20
DWYPD achieved 18 out of 31. In Programme 1 there was 15 targets out of which 13 were achieved.
• The first target unachieved was the production of a Strategic Plan and zero draft of Annual Performance Plan due to the DWYPD reconfiguration after the National Elections. Strategic Planning Sessions will take place in July 2019.
• The second target unachieved was 100% invoices paid within 30 days as late payment was due to human resource capacity challenges and change of banking details of one service provider.
In Programme 2, there was 7 targets out of which 1 was achieved. The unmet targets include:
• number of progress reports on national rollout of the Revised SDF in quintiles 1-3 schools due to the progress report having been signed off by the Deputy Director-General and not the Executive Authority;
• number of reports on the implementation of Women’s Financial Inclusion Framework (WFIF) due to it needing further consultation within DWYPD various units as per Accounting Officer’s recommendations;
• number of reports on interventions and economic opportunities for women due to the report on facilitation of interventions and economic opportunities remaining a draft and not approved by the Acting Director-General – more efforts were put in the finalisation of the WFIF;
• coordination of number of programmes in 365 Days plan of action due to the report not being sent for approval due to transition to 6th administration;
• National Gender Machinery (NGM) framework approval due to Draft NGM Framework not being released for public comment and the submission of the final NGM diagnostic review reports being signed by the Acting Minister and submitted to Cabinet but not tabled at the last Cabinet as a result of competing priorities;
• revised IMC-Integrated Programme of Action (IPOA) for the establishment of National Council on GBV due workshop reports not sent for submission to Executive Authority as a result of transition to 6th administration.
In Programme 3, 4 of the 9 targets were achieved. The unmet targets include:
• number of public participation initiatives on women’s empowerment as the submission with report was delayed and it was sent for approval at the beginning of Q2 due to the time consumed in other work;
• number of community mobilisation initiatives on issues affecting women as the submission with report was delayed and sent in the beginning of Q2 for approval due to the period of transition to 6th administration – difficult for documents to receive attention from Ministry;
• number of reports on Young Women’s Empowerment priorities were not developed as the submission with report delayed and sent in the beginning of Q2 for approval due to the time consumed in other work;
• number of reports on DWYPD International Relations Strategy on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment as the paper delayed and sent for approval due to the time consumed in sourcing, gathering and compiling information – also due to delay in receiving inputs from internal stakeholders;
• number of reports on DWYPD participation in international multilateral forums not produced as the officials who were delegated to attend and participate having not yet submitted the reports for approval.
The vacancy rate for 2018/19 was 9.3% in Q2, 9.9% in Q3, 7.2% in Q4 and 8% in Q1 2019/20. For service terminations, 7 occurred in Q2, 1 in Q3, 1 in Q4 for 2018/19, 1 in Q1 for 2019/20. With regard to disciplinary matters: no employees were on special leave; one employee was on precautionary suspension, found guilty and given a sanction of final written warning; one disciplinary case was finalised in Q4 of 2018/19 and the employee was found not guilty and acquitted; and one disciplinary case was finalised in Q1 of 2019/20 and the employee was found not guilty and acquitted.
Quarter 1 Financial Report
The 2019/20 appropriation is R244.4 million and Q1 expenditure was R59.5 million (24.3%). For Programme 1, overspending of R2.3 million against the projected expenditure of R21.2 million for the quarter under review is mainly on goods and services due to an advance paid in March. For Programme 2, overspending of R270 000 is mainly on goods and services. For Programme 3, underspending of R1.3 million is mainly on compensation of employees as a result of vacant posts.
Compensation of employees: Total appropriation is R91.4 million with actual expenditure of R20.3 million (22.2%). Underspending of R2.6 million against projected expenditure of R22.9 million is due to vacant posts not filled and costs of living adjustments for senior management staff not yet implemented.
Goods and services: Total appropriation is R64.6 million with actual expenditure of R18.8 million (29.2%). Overspending of R4.5 million against projected expenditure of R14.3 million is due to the clearing of an advance, postponement of the launch of public hearings for GBV, payment for travel and subsistence, and payment of outstanding invoices relating to the previous year.
Transfers and subsidies: Total appropriation is R85.2 million with actual expenditure of R21.6 million (25.4%). Overspending of R306 000 against projected expenditure of R21.3 million is due to leave gratuity payments and payments for forfeited annual leave days.
Capital expenditure: Total appropriation is R3.2 million with actual expenditure of R100 000 (3.1%). Underspending of R100 000 was due to a delay in procurement of office furniture and equipment due to the reconfiguration of the department.
Programme 4 Youth Development
Mr Emmanuel Kganakga, Director: Youth Legislation and Policy, presented the quarterly reports on youth development. The purpose of the branch is to develop national youth policies and legislation; monitor and evaluate implementation of the National Youth Policy (NYP); support national and international stakeholders; and provide technical support to the Executive Authority in overseeing the NYDA. All targets for Quarters 3 and 4 of 2018/19 were achieved, which included having the NYP implemented, monitored and reviewed – implementation report produced, midterm evaluation review submitted, NYDA reports quality assured and assessment report produced, and draft youth mainstreaming guidelines for youth responsive budgeting, planning, monitoring and evaluation produced; and oversight of the NYDA had been conducted. The means of verification for Quarter 1 of 2019/20 was gathered, but not submitted due to transfer of the Youth Development function to DWYPD.
Programme 5: Welfare Services Policy Development and Implementation
Mr Benny Palime, Director: Rights of Persons with Disabilities, presented the quarterly reports on persons with disabilities. The strategic objectives for welfare services policy development and implementation for persons with disabilities are to promote, protect and empower persons with disabilities through the development and implementation of legislation, policies and programmes. The annual target was to develop frameworks on disability rights awareness campaigns, as well as self-representation by persons with disabilities. The delay in obtaining Cabinet approval delayed the finalisation of subsequent draft frameworks which will not be submitted for validation. On embedding disability inclusion in government-wide institutional arrangements, the finalisation of the draft framework was delayed due to the national macro-organisation of government process. On the development of an annual progress report on implementation of the white paper on the rights of persons with disabilities, there are delays due to alignment with other departments’ reports systems but it is sustainable in the long term. Mr Palime also spoke about submitting a draft policy on services to persons with disabilities and their families for public comment; and developing a community based disability inclusive development programme.
Ms Tshabalala, Acting Director General: DWYPD, mentioned that the unachieved targets marked in red were mostly in Programme 2 and 3. On slide 38 on Summary of Performance, where it refers to it being difficult for the documents to receive attention from the Ministry, she was of the view that she took responsibility for everything by law. Whilst the Sixth Administration had its own challenges, the correct thing to state was that the Ministry came on board in June and that during that period DWYPD also had to manage the process of facilitating the exit of previous staff and bringing in new staff. The new Ministry was fully appointed by 1 July 2019. Whilst it did have its own transitional challenges, at that point in time one should have taken serious cognisance to ensure that despite the challenges matters were being addressed. DWYPD would be revisiting its own governance and processes systems because it did not mean that work was not being done. DWYPD had produced documents and done consultations, but it was those governance processes that needed to be developed so that there is adherence to them, and documents are properly signed off. Work had been done and this could be demonstrated to show that DWYPD had delivered in certain areas. Processes were advanced internally within DWYPD.
Ms Hlengwa said so many of the officials were in an acting position and she asked when they would become permanent.
The Chairperson responded in isiXhosa. [1:04:48 – 3:05:10] How would the Committee deal with the Youth and People with Disabilities Reports that previously reported to Social Development, or was this just information sharing? If it was just information sharing, then it would not be necessary.
Ms Abrahams noted that in terms of Q3 and 4 it was information sharing, whilst Q1 was an update on the progress made for people with disabilities and youth.
The Chairperson referred to the naming of Programme 5 – Welfare Services Policy Development and Implementation – which dealt with persons with disabilities gaining access to Social Development services. Why was it divided like this? There could not be a separation of issues relating to persons with disabilities as DWYPD now had to deal with all such matters.
Mr Palime agreed with the Chairperson. He thought that his colleagues may be able to explain, after which he would be able to assist.
The Chairperson redirected her question to the Minister and the Director-General.
Ms Tshabalala replied that the issue concerned core functions, which related more to grants and programmatic interventions. DWYPD was not an implementing department.
The Chairperson remarked that when the President announced that the Department of Women would include Youth Development and People with Disabilities, all of these would be advocated for by DWYPD. It could not deal with persons with disabilities but have a function of theirs done by another department. Thus, the name of the Programme needed to be corrected as this was the accounting department. When the Committee did oversight, the Committee was expecting DWYPD to give account for everything. It was as if DWYPD was running away from being a service delivery department when there was no way to divorce DWYPD from it.
The Chairperson said the Head of Human Resources had to explain why there were so many unfilled vacancies as his answers were not satisfactory. The vacancies were unfilled for a long time and it is unclear if the disciplinary cases were ever concluded, or which cases are being referred to. Things were carried over from the previous administration into this administration.
The Chairperson spoke about people being too comfortable and there was no will to do things. This was worrying or was this some form of sabotage? Why would someone be in a post when, at the end of the day, things were not happening? This was what was happening in terms of the area of persons with disabilities. When Members are comfortable and a new responsibility is added to one’s position, they do not want the responsibility, but they must take it on. The President had announced that this department was the DWYPD, which meant that DWYPD needed to work. A smooth transition was needed so that when DWYPD started, they would start on a clean slate and would not be affected by what had been done in the previous administrations. This was why Committee Members were available wherever DWYPD needed assistance, as they would avail themselves for a meeting even when a meeting was not scheduled. DWYPD should use the opportunity as there were committed MPs who were willing to be present for the people of South Africa. If DWYPD needed something to pass through Parliament for adoption, the Committee would be present and do so. However, DWYPD needed to do their part.
Ms Hlengwa spoke in another language. [3:32:36 – 3:33:00]
Ms Khawula spoke in isiZulu. [3:34:10 – 3:34:40]
The Chairperson spoke in another language. [3:34:46 – 3:35:06]
Ms Hlengwa raised her disappointment in DWYPD as it was a very big and important department located in the Presidency. The first disappointment was the non-compliance in the filling of vacant posts while officials were still in acting positions. In addition, the many performance areas not achieved was also disappointing.
Ms Masondo said that her main concern was the targets not being met. The Committee needed the reasons behind this failure. There was also the vacant posts and disciplinary hearings which took too long to be concluded. It seemed as though DWYPD was not working in synergy and that there silence on how DWYPD worked. How did DWYPD work? Did DWYPD work together with CGE?
Mr S Ngcobo (DA) agreed about the non-performance and targets not being met. In Quarter 1, only one of seven targets was met in Programme 2. This was seriously concerning seeing that DWYPD performed poorly in 2018/19. Programme 2 was one of two programmes where its core mandate lay. It was really concerning that targets were not being met. If DWYPD sets targets for itself, then the targets are meant to be SMART and achievable. It was thus not acceptable for DWYPD to say they had set targets but were unable to meet them for various reasons. The failure thereof should have been seen before making the target. The targets must be clear and achievable.
Mr Ngcobo referred to the audit recommendations which were only 68.42% achieved by the end of 2018/19. However, in Q1 DWYPD does not reference the audit recommendations that were not achieved in the previous year? The second question related to consultants. DWYPD had cited reasons for the use of consultants in certain instances and reverting to using contractors. What measures were invested to ensure skills transfer in DWYPD, so that consultants were not always used? What is the status of the WFIF? What is the link between WFIF, and the work done in the Young Women’s Empowerment report?
Ms B Maluleke (ANC) echoed the concern about the unmet targets. This was not acceptable and going forward the Committee could not keep asking why DWYPD had not achieved targets. What happened to those targets which had not been met in the previous quarter? Are they carried over? The report did not even show whether the targets are carried over to the next quarter. Were those targets achieved or not? What happened to those unmet targets? Are they thrown out because they are not met? What about the budget for those targets? Secondly, DWYPD referred to consultants and contractors. The stated objective of DWYPD was to ensure that capacity is met in DWYPD. If there is no capacity in DWYPD, when was the Committee going to see DWYPD having capacity so planned targets are achieved? On the irregular expenditure, could DWYPD furnish the Committee with a comprehensive report as requested by the Fifth Parliament? The Fifth Parliament had requested the report ,but the Sixth Parliament did not have it. When looking at SDF, DWYPD said that they were rolling out the project. Who was administering the project within provinces? Which department procures the sanitary products? At what cost per province? How are the sanitary products distributed? How many girls actually received sanitary towels per province per quarter? On international participation, DWYPD always had a budget for travelling costs. What did DWYPD get from the conferences they were attending? What was the outcome of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW63)? What was the size of the delegation? How long did the delegation stay for? Why was the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands identified as an event to attend? Was the event part of DWYPD’s mandate? What did the event have to do with women?
Ms Sharif gave a disclaimer, saying that Members did not want to come to Committee meetings to fight with DWYPD. However, when the Committee sees the Q1 dismal performance, it made it very difficult for the Committee not to fight with it. When looking at the core programmes, targets were continually not being met – including the two service delivery two programmes where DWYPD had to go out onto the ground, use their budget and assist women in real life. This was the difference between life and death. When going through the core functions in Programme 2, only one out of seven targets had been met and Programme 3 only four out of nine targets had been met. What was interesting was that the public and women of South Africa would be told not to worry, it is understood that they feared for their life, but nothing was actually being done. The Special Advisor had attended the Committee meeting the previous week and had said that there was no budget allocated for the National Council on GBV and femicide. What did this translate to on the ground? What did this tell a woman living in an urban or rural area? It said that government did not care as DWYPD was overspending on Programme 1 Administration.
Ms Sharif said the reasons provided by DWYPD was that it was due to the reconfiguration of the department. DWYPD had so many employees and a bloated workforce, thus it cannot be understood why the work was not being done. If the reason was because of the transition and people being busy with other things, what other things were they busy with? What was more important than service delivery and providing services to people on the ground? Money was spent on salaries and not on service delivery. It was frustrating to look at the performance of DWYPD. When the country was in a massive depression the previous week, people were calling for the disbandment of Department of Women as it was not doing anything and it should turn into a women’s desk. On doing oversight in Gauteng the previous day, there were no rape kits in the Soweto constituency. Diepkloof police station had 10 rape kits left, and this was to service the Nthabiseng Care Centre and Baragwanath Hospital. This hospital had 1106 adult rape victims and 480 child rape victims but had no rape kits. How was DWYPD working in collaboration with other departments to ensure that service delivery was done? DWYPD could not focus only on paying salaries every month, when women were dying and being raped every 18 seconds. This meant that a woman was being raped now. If DWYPD was unable to show their work and just provided lip-service, then she was obliged to agree that DWYPD was unsure of its priorities. It was frustrating and confusing, as a young woman, to look at targets not being reached but budget was being spent. Hopefully DWYPD did better in Q2.
Ms Khawula spoke in isiZulu. [3:52:40 –4:05:50]
Ms T Mgweba (ANC) welcomed the presentation. The core functions of DWYPD were consistently not performed well. DWYPD progress on vacancies, where targets were unachieved, meant that there was something wrong. On the Audit Action Plan (AAP) on slide 46 DWYPD stated that three cases were resolved and referred to five officials and three managers. What is the AAP and consequence management plan? If there were cases this was to be presented to the Committee so that it can understand. It was unclear if slide 43 spoke to slide 45/46 on disciplinary matters.
On the skills audit, there was a slide which spoke to continuing to draw on consultants in order to achieve targets. What was DWYPD doing to capacitate staff so that they can be used instead of contractors? DWYPD had said that there was a lack of external capacity in terms of service providers and a lack of research units. What was the responsibility of the Presidential Review Committee to DWYPD to deal with research? Did DWYPD engage with the Ministry of Public Service and Administration on gender focal points or strategies for gender mainstreaming? What was the status thereof? Was there any engagement between DWYPD and DPSA? Programme 3 presented the gender-responsive budgeting framework previously. It was now referred to as gender-responsive planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, and auditing. What was the difference? In which provinces would SDF occur? What was the budget? How was SDF being rolled out? Monitoring and evaluation was important so that targets could be met. The Committee could agree that systems needed to be developed for the programme on persons with disabilities. A portion of the responsibilities could not be given to another department – this was to be resolved and presented in the next Committee meeting as a matter of urgency.
The Chairperson referred to the Director-General’s report and the Committee's BRRR recommendations that had been made on the Department Annual Report 2017/18 on 14 November 2017 and the status as at 31 October 2018 and as at 30 June 2019. What DWYPD said that they were going to do in terms of the recommendations, this was cut and paste, and it was uncertain why. DWYPD should be telling the Committee what they had done six months down the line. However, it seemed as though the same thing was being said – even in terms of the targets.
On Programme 2, DWYPD said R126 000 underspending but National Treasury said R5 million underspending. ICT might have been misplaced in the financials so the Department should check that so it reflected correctly. DWYPD needed to look at the report analysis raised by the Committee. The targets not being met was unacceptable. Whether there was coherence and cohesion in DWYPD would not to be discussed; DWYPD needed to correct this. Any document brought to the Committee needed to be seen by the principals, such as the Minister and Deputy Minister. If the Minister had not seen the report, the Committee could not allow DWYPD to present it. Thus, DWYPD needed to correct the report.
The Committee needed to be left to do political work as Members of Parliament and DWYPD needed to correct themselves so that when presentations of reports were done, everyone knew about it. When DWYPD said that they had achieved all of their targets on youth, what did this mean in detail when there was a high rate of unemployment especially graduates? It had to make sense. What was achievement? Was this the targets in black and white or did this translate to service delivery? Even if DWYPD is not a service delivery department, it should be known which projects all departments had. When monitoring and doing advocacy, what was being done? Members report that when going to the people on the ground, people are saying that they were graduates but they were not being hired. Companies are saying that South Africa does not have engineers and engineers are hired from outside the country, when in reality South Africa does have graduate engineers. Some skills have been classified as scarce yet graduates do have these skills. It was DWYPD’s responsibility to tell the Committee how many South African graduates with scare skills there were so departments that hired people from Egypt could not claim that South Africans did not have these skills. One way or the other, justice was not being done to the people of South Africa. It was this that made DWYPD and the Committee reflect badly in the eyes of the public when both had the duty to look after the public interest.
There were lucrative projects in other departments empowering the youth and it was not certain if there were results or not. Some graduates had done their Masters or Doctorate and were still unemployed, so were now taking drugs in frustration. South Africans needed to stick together and officials needed to take pride in serving their country. South Africans were not to be taken for granted.
South Africans would contact the Chairperson and the Members for answers. A better way needed to be found how to service the people of South Africa. The Committee would go and do oversight. The Committee would write to all departments requesting they inform the Committee what they are doing for women, youth and persons with disabilities because departments did have budgets and programmes. The Committee would draft a programme each quarter and do oversight over certain departments. This timetable would be provided to DWYPD. Perhaps it was better not to provide this timetable and take departments by surprise. The Committee would produce a report. When doing dialogues, departments needed to indicate whether it was value for money or just a talk show. In a democratic state, people needed to participate in policy making as it was also their responsibility. People had to check what was happening within departments, as they knew their interests best and should come up with their own Bills. Sometimes politicians thought they knew what people wanted when in fact they did not – their needs and interests were different.
The Chairperson disagreed on the point of classification as there was no way that she would be classified as a womxn in South Africa – she wanted to be called a woman. Any other classification for another group or community should be written on their own. Nobody could take away her right to be called a woman. This was something that was just being said in passing. Everybody needed to be classified; if people wanted to be classified as a boy or girl or woman or so on, they should be classified as such. Everyone should be satisfied because everyone had the right to be called what one wanted. She was worried about how DWYPD was going to respond, how this was going to be dealt with. Perhaps DWYPD should give its response in writing as the National Assembly plenary session was starting. The debate on womxn as a classification was not one for the present day – it was something that the DDG had sent to the Committee. The Chairperson had made her comments and had been challenged by many South Africans on this.
It would be best for DWYPD to respond in writing to all of the questions raised by Members. DWYPD would have understood that the Committee was not satisfied with the performance in Q3 and 4, and with other issues raised by Members. The Committee was not fighting with DWYPD and hoped that they took this in good spirit. The Committee wanted what was best for the people of South Africa. Did Members agree that the answers would be submitted in writing?
Members agreed to receiving answers in writing as long as the answers were forwarded to them.
The Chairperson stated that the answers were to be submitted by Friday 20 September and that there would be no extension as the answers were supposed to have been given orally in the meeting. Some matters needed to be worked on within DWYPD and that was not something that needed to be answered. However, there were other things that needed to be responded to.
The meeting was adjourned.
- Research Unit: Quarter 3 & 4 of 2018/19 Department of Women Performance
- Research Unit: Outstanding Matters & Analysis in Department of Women
- Research Unit: Quarter 1 of 2019/20 Department of Women Performance
- Department of Social Development - Draft Quarter 1 performance 2019/20
- Department of Social Development - Quarter 3 performance 2018/19
- Department of Social Development - Quarter 4 performance 2018/9
- Quarter 3 & 4 of 2018/19 & Quarter 1 of 2019/20 report
- DoW - Quarter 3 Performance
- Department of Social Development: Welfare Services - People with Disabilities
- BRRR Action Plan
- Department of Women - Quarter 4 performance 2018/19
- Department of Women - Summary of Quarter 3 & 4 2018/19 & Quarter 1 performance 2019/20
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.