Appropriation Bill: public hearings

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed all attendants to the meeting. The meeting was a continuation of the process of approving the 2023 Appropriations Bill. He said that the Constitution enjoined Parliament to consult with the public. Therefore, the meeting took the form of a public hearing. This was an effort to hear and understand the views of South Africans in the law-making process.

The Chairperson thanked the organisations for attending and always sharing their opinions and suggestions. He welcomed Youth Capital (YC), Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Equal Education (EE) and Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM). These organisations would be providing input during the meeting. The Committee did receive other inputs from the public in written form.

The Chairperson explained that the organisations would be allocated 20 minutes each to share their inputs. Thereafter, Members would be allowed to comment or ask any questions. He requested that Members clearly state which organisation the question was intended for. The presenters would get an opportunity to respond to any questions.

The Chairperson said the Committee would consider what was presented during the meeting. He reminded the organisations of the contestation of budgets and that many needs had to be addressed by a limited budget. It was possible that not all suggestions could be adopted and implemented.

Presentation by Youth Capital (YC)
Ms Kristal Duncan-Williams, Project Lead, presented Youth Capital’s (YC) submission on the 2023 Appropriation Bill.

Ms Duncan-Williams provided an introduction to the matters that would be addressed in the presentation. She provided a number of statistics regarding youth unemployment, and alluded to the impact this social issue had on the economy.

She highlighted the youth employment vision of the State of the Nation Address (SONA). She acknowledged that the President had announced several initiatives to address youth unemployment since becoming President. She outlined some initiatives, particularly the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention launched in 2020. The initiative had been abandoned, but some priority actions had been implemented.

The Presidential Employment Stimulus (PES) had been highlighted as a public employment programme initiated by government. It was said that these initiatives and projects did little to address the youth unemployment crisis.

Ms Duncan-Williams provided details needed to understand youth unemployment more effectively. She indicated that it was not an issue that could be solved through vague commitments of job creation. She highlighted the role of employment in the economy. There had to be industrial policies to increase employment.

Ms Duncan-Williams shared YC’s response to the 2023 Budget. She reviewed the allocations for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, the Presidential Employment Initiative (PEI), the Community Works Programme (CWP) and the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). She highlighted the impact of these programmes in terms of youth employment and skills development.

Ms Duncan-Williams outlined YC’s recommendations. These recommendations were a mobilising vision and plan for the economy; the continuation of large-scale public employment programmes with a long-term view to provide a job guarantee; industrial policies and infrastructure investment.

See attached for full submission

COSATU Presentation
Mr Matthew Parks, COSATU’s Parliamentary Coordinator, presented COSATU’s submission on the Appropriation Bill, to the Committee.

The presentation outlined several concerns and challenges the country was faced with. This included recovery from the recession and pandemic, a high unemployment rate, a loss of wages, struggling State-Owned Entities (SOEs) and corruption.

Regarding the fiscal framework, Mr Parks emphasised that a multi-pronged approach was necessary. Reducing the debt alone would not address the fundamental issues being experienced. He provided an outline of the fiscal framework, and suggested areas in which it could be improved to make a significant impact.

Mr Parks highlighted the Public Service Wage Bill. He said that government had to fix its relationship with public servants, as it is important to have motivated public servants. He indicated that public servants were facing significant financial issues. He suggested a single wage regime for national, provincial and SOEs. He acknowledged that there were ways to save money in the public sector.

Mr Parks was impressed with the additional support allocated to the South African Revenue Service (SARS). This additional support in recent years resulted in positive outcomes and increased revenue. He said that these efforts should be expanded and extended.

Mr Parks welcomed the extension of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) Grant. He noted that the amount had not been adjusted for inflation since it had been instituted, adversely impacting recipients. COSATU was alarmed by the budget cut of the Presidential Employment Stimulus and recommended that it be increased and expanded.

In terms of SOEs, COSATU was largely receptive to the allocations. The Union made several recommendations. Regarding ESKOM, it said there should be no fire sale of assets. In terms of Transnet and PRASA, he said urgent interventions were necessary to save the railway network. COSATU rejected the 4 000 job cuts and 40% salary cuts.

The presentation made commentary on several areas and provided recommendations. Mr Parks emphasised that budget cuts crippled the ability to deliver quality public services. He said that elections were around the corner and that these matters needed to be urgently addressed.

See attached for full submission

Presentation by Equal Education (EE)
Ms Elizabeth Biney, Head of Research, shared Equal Education’s submission on the Appropriation Bill.

Ms Biney said EE was primarily concerned with the schooling sector and basic education. The presentation intended to highlight the implications of the budget allocations on learners.

She provided a detailed context of the Basic Education system. EE referred to the issues and challenges faced by the schooling system as #EducationBlackout. The basic education system was described to be in a continuous crisis. There were issues with infrastructure, poor quality education, overcrowded classrooms, etc. The #EducationBlackout campaign sought to raise awareness and advocacy for the education crisis.

Regarding the budget, Ms Biney emphasised the importance of adequate funding for the education sector. She felt that the 2023/24 budget allocation did not meet the criteria of addressing inflation, increasing enrolment, and addressing systemic inequalities within the system. She acknowledged that the budget allocation had been increased but stated that the increased interest rates meant less funding was available.

Ms Biney focused particularly on the issue of infrastructure. She said that the allocation for infrastructure had increased but this increase was not visible when considering inflation. EE was pleased that infrastructure problems were receiving attention but said there was a significant backlog in this area and a need for constant maintenance. She was concerned that the 2023/24 budget allocation would not allow this to happen.

Ms Biney said that underspending, irregular spending and wasteful expenditure were a big problem in the education sector. When departments failed to spend the budget, the money was lost and did not roll over. This matter needed to be addressed urgently.

Ms Biney said that the Committee was mandated to monitor department expenditure. There was concern that Committees were falling short in key duties.

EE made several recommendations, including a budget that was in line with inflation, learner enrolment and the prioritisation of socio-economic rights. In terms of the role of the Committee, EE suggested that committees take their oversight responsibilities seriously.

See attached for full submission

Presentation by the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM)
Ms Lisa Higginson, Budget & Advocacy Coordinator, presented PSAM’s submission on the Appropriation Bill. The presentation emphasised the issue of corruption. Fighting corruption and enhancing governance and accountability were highlighted as central to realising sustainable and inclusive development and building a capable state.

The presentation highlighted several challenges within the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD) which had an oversight role on corruption fighting entities. PSAM recommended that the Committee further interrogate this issue to determine what measures were in place.

PSAM noted that increased allocations to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) enabled the institution to fill vacancies and build capacity, but performance did not improve. Performance targets seem to have been reduced, which was concerning. PSAM recommended that the Committee review past performance and get an explanation from NPA to understand the reduction and what measures were in place.

Ms Higginson indicated that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) funding model and growing debt threatened the SIU's stability, which had been performing well. PSAM recommended that the Committee look at the progress of the SIUs funding model review and compel Treasury to ensure that the SIU was fully funded and able to deliver its mandate.

PSAM recommended that the various entities and stakeholders involved in the anti-corruption efforts collaborate to better use resources and achieve better outcomes.

See attached for full submission

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the presenters for their presentations, and invited Committee Members to engage with the presentations. He indicated the order in which Members could speak.

Ms T Tobias (ANC) said she had not heard all the presentations due to network issues. She indicated her response was geared towards the PSAM presentation. It was important to discuss the role of the Standing Committee on Appropriations. She asked if Ms Higginson agreed that the Committee was not policy-formulating. Presenters during public hearings tended to think the Committee had a role in policy formulation. The Committee’s role was to look at fiscal impact and pass bills. There was a policy space, ordinarily performed by Cabinet Ministers who decided on the strategic outlook and the direction to be taken. The Committee would consider the impact of funds on the policy. The Committee would monitor whether the policy implementation was within the fiscal framework that had been established. The Committee would monitor if the money had been used for its intended purpose. The Committee would investigate if the budget was reasonable for what the policy intended to achieve. She referred to the presentation where Ms Higginson had said that the Committee should monitor and scrutinise – did Ms Higginson think this was the mandate of the Committee? What could the Committee do beyond passing the Bill and listening to public opinions on whether the funds allocated were reasonable and sufficient to make an impact? She reiterated that the Committee was not involved in the formulation of policy. She said that anyone of the presenters could respond to the question. How should the Committee deal with policy imperatives, going forward?

Mr H Mmemezi (ANC) directed his first question to YC. The YC analysis dealt with an issue that concerned all South Africans, particularly politicians. The issue of unemployment was a big issue to all South Africans. He asked what YC found to be the problem in terms of unemployment. He said that the government had done everything possible to ensure a conducive environment for investors and the private sector, to invest and create more jobs. The YC presentation did not clarify the cause of the issue. Government had changed laws to ensure that it would be easy for the private sector to work within the South African context. Despite this, unemployment has skyrocketed. Government was not close to meeting the unemployment goals and targets it had set out. It has done its part, but he felt that the private sector was not playing its part. He asked for further details on the reasons for unemployment and not meeting the target. He asked if his position of the private sector not doing enough was correct. He said that the country had been failed by the private sector and captains of industry who did not assist with the problem. He felt that government had made a sufficient contribution to the issue of unemployment.

Mr Mmemezi responded to COSATUs presentation. He commended COSATU for the amount of research and work done. He highlighted the issue of the public sector ‘crying on wages’. He asked about COSATUs views on the lack of commitment by the public sector. He said that he had significant experience with the public sector. There had been a focus on the issue of increased wages but not enough focus on commitment to work. He said that, when going to where people were meant to be working, it was likely that they were not doing what they were meant to do. Not everyone was guilty of this, but it was a big issue. The public sector tended to be too relaxed. The public sector could not be compared to the private sector. He said this had to be discussed because this was a failure for the country.

Mr Mmemezi highlighted the issue of underspending the budget. The people employed in the public sector should be responsible for spending the budget. The budget was not being spent, but where it was being spent, it was being spent on the wrong things. He asked about COSATU’s view on the issue of the lack of commitment by the public sector. He said that patriotism was not what had been seen during Apartheid in terms of how committed they were. People in the public sector not doing the work required of them was a big issue. What was the reason for underspending the budget? He acknowledged that he was being very critical of the public sector. While there were hard workers, there were not many of them.

Mr Mmemezi responded to the EE presentation. He shared the concerns of EE, particularly regarding the unspent budget. He viewed this as a crime. He said Departments were given big budgets they had requested, but then did not spend what they were allocated. He reiterated that this was a crime. He was especially concerned with underspending in the education sector. This compromised the poor and rural areas. In urban areas, the situation was better because parents were more active, in terms of school governing bodies (SGBs). In rural areas, the SGBs danced to the tune of the principals and teachers. This was not the case in all schools, but it was a common occurrence. He said he had experience with rural and urban areas and felt comfortable speaking on this issue because he was aware of it.

Mr Mmemezi indicated that he had no comments on the PSAM presentation.

Mr Mmemezi said that the presentations had all been helpful. The presentations provided a learning opportunity for Members. Presentations also allowed Members to be aware of the concerns of the public.

Mr X Qayiso (ANC) indicated that he had attended two meetings simultaneously and might not be able to fully comment on all areas raised in the presentations. He reiterated Mr Mmemezi’s concerns regarding underspending. The presentations raised the issue of budget cuts and insufficient budgets. He was unclear on how critical presenters were on the issue of underspending. Underspending undermined service delivery. Was it deliberate not to talk about underspending? Underspending meant that service delivery was weakened, which resulted in many problems. He was unclear about the reasons why stakeholders were not raising the issue of underspending.

Mr Qayiso welcomed COSATU’s presentation and recommendations. The matter of 5 000 police trainees versus the 10 000 that the President had previously indicated was concerning. He was unclear on how 5 000 came about. He said that Treasury should provide clarity on the issue, because it could not be correct. The President said that 10 000 police trainees would be trained but only 5 000 trainees had been budgeted for. This contradicted the highest office. He suggested the Committee needed to investigate how the 5 000 came about.

Mr Qayiso said that, globally, interest rates and global financial market crises had a serious impact on the economy, to the extent that food prices and other costs had increased significantly. He referred to the issue of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) Grant. He agreed with COSATU that, given the financial situation, it should be considered that the grant be continued beyond the 2024 financial year. Options were being explored to consider how sustainable and how to reach a Basic Income Grant in the future. He said that the budget only had to be put in place for presidential stimulus packages. Over 500 000 employment opportunities were gained through this, but when the project became limited in terms of budget, it was a serious problem because of the high unemployment rate. Undermining the presidential employment stimulus packages impacted and undermined the project itself. This should not be undermined through budget cuts. How can the SRD be broadened? When considering the presidential stimulus package and SRD, a future integration might be helpful so that people receive an acceptable amount that is aligned with daily expenditure.

Mr O Mathafa (ANC) agreed largely with what had been presented. Specifically, he shared his agreement with the discouragement of corruption and maladministration. He agreed with Equal Education’s concerns regarding poor infrastructure implementation in the education sector. If EE followed the work of the Committee, they would see that when various Ministries were called to account in terms of expenditure, matters of underspending and lack of implementation of programmes, especially relating to infrastructure, were raised often.

Mr Mathafa agreed with Youth Capital that youth employment had to be prioritised. He requested that YC consider other areas of skills development. The work of YC could assist the Committee in understanding the pattern of whether the skills development programmes initiated by government were bearing fruit. A lack of skills among the youth was an issue that was continuously brought up. He suggested that YC and other related entities look into whether the skills capacity found amongst the youth was sufficient for government or the private sector to create job opportunities for the particular youth cohort. Linking this to the skills development programmes was a way to further capacitate the youth.

Mr Mathafa agreed with the need to focus on Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs). He believed that the SRD grant was a good intervention but not something the youth should depend on. The youth should be encouraged and assisted with entering into entrepreneurship. Some of the youth had talent and ideas and a programme should be generated where the youth can be assisted to develop their ideas.

Mr Mathafa addressed the matter of whistle-blowers. It is important that whistle-blowers receive protection. Individuals who identified corruption within their ranks should be able to speak about it. He said there had been talk about the protection of whistle-blowers and that he was interested to hear COSATU’s view on the issue. What more could be done by stakeholders to ensure that the legislative framework for the protection of whistle-blowers was strengthened? In most cases, whistle-blowers feared for their lives and were hesitant to bring forward information that could assist with prosecution or addressing issues of maladministration and corruption.

Mr Mathafa asked if the public participation system currently in place was enough. Were there any improvements that legislators could bring on board to enhance and improve the reach and impact of public participation? This could result in enhanced submissions that reflected the realities of South Africa and the country’s demographics. He invited any of the presenters to respond to this question.

The Chairperson thanked Committee Members for engaging with the presentations. He commended the presenters for the presentations and the matters addressed and brought up. It was significant that most presenters were young people. This showed that young people were taking their futures into their own hands. The budget was an important instrument in the hands of the South African people. It was important that young people participate in these processes and provide input into how the issues South Africans, especially the youth, could be addressed. He noted that Mr Parks had previously been the youngest presenter but that this had now changed.

The Chairperson expressed his agreement with Youth Capital. He suggested that YC review the Committee’s reports and debates. It was clear that there was a huge disjuncture between what was said about the role of SMMEs in terms of economic growth and creating employment, and the budget allocation.

The Chairperson addressed COSATU. The repo rate had been increased by 50 basis points to 8.5%, by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). This is the highest level since the global economic crisis. What is COSATU’s opinion on this matter? How did this affect South Africa’s goal of growing the economy and creating jobs?

The Chairperson referred to the welcomed big spending on infrastructure. Why was no Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment opportunities being seen? He asked COSATU and Youth Capital to respond.

The Chairperson addressed PSAM. He indicated his worries were concerning illicit financial flows, base erosion and profit shifting. Was an impact being made on this? Studies revealed that substantial amounts of money were lost through this financial engineering and that the country lost a lot of money to destinations outside South Africa. What is the problem? Is enough being done on this matter? What could be done to try and make an impact on this matter?

The Chairperson indicated that the presenters could respond in the order they had presented.

Responses

Youth Capital Response
Ms Duncan-Williams responded to Mr Mmemezi regarding the reasons for the high youth unemployment. There were no silver bullets for the youth employment crisis. YC developed a 10-point action plan. On YC’s website, Members could fully review the 10 points and the sub-points. Youth employment was a monumental task. The YC team was relatively small and could not focus on all 10 points. For this reason, YC encouraged partnerships between organisations and government. Initiatives such as the Presidential Employment Stimulus, particularly the Basic Education Employment Initiative, showed that government could come to the party. Concerning this initiative, people worked over Christmas to ensure the first phase happened. While there were some challenges, the programme was well received. Government was open to criticism and used any criticisms or suggestions to improve the project. YC advocated for continued funding and potentially increased funding for the Presidential Employment Stimulus because it was evidence of the potential of government.

Ms Duncan-Williams responded to Mr Mathafa's questions regarding stimulating entrepreneurship amongst the youth. Public Employment Programmes provide an important step and pathway, with the right support and partners with the DG Murray Trust. She noted that YC and its partners were considering how to stimulate entrepreneurship. She said that there were between six and nine months in a school; how would the selection of that pool of young people occur to acknowledge the individuals who had the ‘it factor’ to be an entrepreneur and equip them with the skills. Programmes should provide young entrepreneurs with skills, a starter pack and support system, so that, when they exit the short-term public employment program, they would be able to set up their businesses successfully. She reiterated that this was a programme that YC was actively thinking about. The entrepreneurial pathway should not be diminished for the young people who want to take that route.

Ms Duncan-Williams responded to the concern that the private sector was not engaging with the conducive environment created by government to increase employment. Infrastructure challenges are a major problem. For example, a small business owner running a laundry service faces significant issues in many parts of the country in that they may not have water, electricity or both. How could a business flourish under these circumstances? Businesses are facing interest rate hikes, which impact loans and make it difficult for businesses to commit to taking on staff and paying additional salaries when the bottom line is being threatened. The infrastructure challenges are vast, including poor roads for individuals relying on a transport system or issues with the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) if goods needed to be transported across the country via railway. These infrastructural issues get in the way of the private sector growth in a way that could increase the country’s economic growth. It was important to consider these matters when looking at the overall budget and how it was being spent. How can government intentionally spend in areas where a big return on the investment is likely?

Ms Duncan-Williams responded to Mr Mathafa’s questions regarding skills development. VC was in communication with the DG Murray Trust on this matter. It was important to consider what skills the economy needed. Why were so many people coming out of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions and not getting jobs? These individuals often feel that they have wasted time studying and were unable to get work. There were various reasons for this, including the issue of individual’s studying things that are saturated in the market and are not needed. Sometimes there was an issue of young people only getting theoretical experience and not practical experience because they struggled to find places to do work-based place learning. VC was currently engaging with TVET students about their experiences and the challenges they faced. She said it was important to be proactive rather than reactive. Planning ahead and attempting to mitigate issues before they arose was important. When considering the just transition, what skills would the green economy need at all levels? She noted that not all young people would be engineers, coders or other high-skilled jobs, these jobs should be encouraged and supported, but it was important to consider low- and semi-skilled work in these sectors. Work should be done to forecast the skills requirements for the next five to ten years that could quickly, easily, at a low cost and at scale be provided to young people. This would ensure that young people today are equipped with the skills required in the future.

Ms Duncan-Williams responded to the concerns shared by the Chairperson regarding a lack of GDP growth. She indicated that infrastructure was a big issue in why GDP growth was not where it could be. She said that young people were not considered a dividend and were a missed opportunity. The reason the private sector was not employing young people had been highlighted by what EE had said, that the education system was not preparing young people who come out of school, with or without matric. Employees felt that young people did not have the soft skills required by the world of work. There were various reasons for this, but it was important to consider how young people could be equipped to step into the world of work more fluidly. Many youth employment programmes were attempting to fill the gap. There are many such programmes and their quality varies. It was important to consider how to create a more cohesive agenda for such programmes to get young people into the economy. A lack of young people in the economy was a wasted potential that could assist in achieving the GDP growth needed. People needed money in order to spend money, and the majority of people in this country were struggling and would continue to struggle after the interest hike. People did not have disposable incomes and were not spending, and manufacturers were therefore not producing because there was no clientele to sell to. This was a vicious cycle. She said it was imperative to get money into people’s pockets so that it could be worked back into the economy and the return on investment could grow exponentially.

Ms Duncan-Williams indicated that Members were welcome to contact her and ask any additional questions.

COSATU Response
Mr Parks thanked the Members for their questions. He said the significance is that Members and stakeholders were mostly in agreement irrespective of political differences. He agreed with the Chairperson regarding the involvement of young stakeholders and presenters.

Mr Parks agreed with Ms Tobias regarding the budget. During the space between now and the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS), the voice of Parliament should be amplified. He noted that negotiations did not occur overnight. Engagements were useful because it enabled Treasury to hear the views of Members of Parliament and civil society. By the time of the Medium-Term Budget hearings in October, the different depart should be held accountable for their various commitments. By October, it was often that many departments were only at 30-40% of expenditure despite half of the year has passed. In February, there tended to be large amounts of rollovers and monies being returned to Treasury or fiscal dumping. He said there was space for Members to specifically intervene around the Presidential Employment Stimulus. He said it would be political madness not to extend it next year. The programme should be increased, not closed. The SRD grant should be raised to the food poverty line. How could the Presidential Employment Stimulus help fill the gaps in the public sector? Support for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) should be prioritised. Supporting SARS meant more money for the fiscus, more money into public services, and more money to invest in the economy.

Mr Parks thanked Mr Mmemezi for the support and expressed agreement that there was a problem with Batho Pele in the public service. Management should play its role. If someone did not do the job required of them, there were workplace contracts and grievance procedures. Governance and management must manage – this is why they were hired. He noted that there was a crisis in terms of public service morale. Most public servants were very demoralised; most of them were in debt and struggled to survive until month end or the next payday. Many public servants were filling vacancies – for example, nurses in hospitals covering two empty vacancies. The teacher-learner ratio was rising in schools, especially in township schools. Public servants struggled to not get inflation-linked increases to keep to where they had been in 2020. At Home Affairs offices, where there were between five and ten workstations, only two staff members were on duty. This was not because other staff were not going to work but because of a freeze on vacancies. Home Affairs constantly complained about the poor quality of internet support from the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). Police stations, for example, in Limpopo, had police officers working in a wendy house. These were real and serious issues.

Mr Parks said there needed to be an investment in the public service to produce quality outcomes. He referred to COSATUs example of SARS, where there had been an investment in additional staff in the Information Technology (IT) capacity and paying decent wages. As a result, there was an increase in productivity. He noted that doctors, nurses, police and municipal workers had been praised during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet a wage freeze had been imposed upon them immediately after the pandemic. There needed to be a better way of managing issues and dealing with issues or challenges in a considerate way. He said that the failure to expand management was right. In most instances, this had been a management failure.

Mr Parks responded to Mr Qayiso and said that the police recruitment issue had been highlighted because COSATU shared the frustration of Mr Qayiso. For both the 2022 and 2023 State of the Nation Addresses (SONAs), the President had indicated that 10 000 police officers would be hired. However, when the budget was presented a few weeks later, the number of police officers decreased to 5 000. In terms of implementation, the police delayed and dragged their feet. This, juxtaposed against the headcount of the brain drain from police services, which averaged to approximately 12 000 per year, meant that the police would continue shrinking.

Mr Parks expressed that COSATU wanted to see the Presidential Employment Stimulus expanded across government departments. The initiative has had a positive impact on schools. By expanding it elsewhere, government would be assisted in providing people with experience and skills and getting into the labour market. Similarly, the SRD grant recipients should be linked to skills training programmes and employment placement programmes and investigate how the SRD grant could be used as a foundation for the BIG and help the recipients find work. These were significant items but did not cost much for the fiscus but would have a massive impact on society.

Mr Parks responded to Mr Mathafa’s concerns regarding skills employment programmes. There were several programs, including the Presidential Employment Stimulus, the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), the Community Works Programme (CWP) and SITA training programmes. There needed to be a discussion on this matter because the impact was not always what was estimated or intended in terms of skills and the creation of long-term jobs. How could resources be pooled together? How could the deployment of people be overhauled and ensure that the skills gaps identified by the private sector were filled. Support needed to be given to new emerging economic sectors such as recycling, and environmental agriculture. He noted that the Presidential Employment Stimulus was doing good work and supporting emerging farmers. He suggested investigating how these programmes could be used to fill gaps in the public service to support SMMEs and link up or revive a successful artisanship programme in the private sector.

Mr Parks responded to the questions regarding public participation. He said that many people participated in the fiscal framework hearings, but participation seemed to decrease when it came to the Division of Revenue Bill and Appropriation Bill. He indicated that COSATU had seen a positive impact from its engagement in Parliament, where the impact of raising and discussing issues could be seen over time. This process benefitted members and organisations. He suggested that there may be a need for better utilisation of the parliamentary democracy offices. He said that a benefit of COVID-19 has been the utilisation of virtual platforms which made it easy for people in all areas to participate in Parliament. This mechanism should be expanded because it was a way to make Parliament more accessible to everyone.

Mr Parks suggested that there should be better communication with the public regarding the changes Parliament had been able to make through public engagement and how government was held accountable. Some committees sometimes did not take public participation seriously and rushed through the process. Other committees took the process seriously and made significant efforts to engage the public. Committees sometimes rushed their bills; this was sometimes accounted for by departments that took too long to tailor them at Parliament. He said that there was room for improvement from all stakeholders.

Mr Parks responded to concerns regarding the repo rate. He noted the difficult situation the Reserve Bank was in, and that inflation could not get out of control because it would destroy salaries and significantly impact the lives of workers. He said that the cause of inflation currently was the war in Ukraine, not because of South African economic issues. There was not much to be done about the war in Ukraine and it seemed the wrong tool was being used to manage it. He suggested considering giving relief to the factors causing inflation such as the fuel price. Could the 28% tax on the fuel price be reduced? This would provide immediate relief to everyone. Could there be engagement with Eskom to move away from the high tariff rate increases, which was a big cause for inflation. He was hopeful that Eskom debt relief would allow some space for Eskom to move away from double-digit tariff hikes. Government should be considering what could be done to support the poor. Could the SRD grant be increased to protect it from inflation? Was there a way to ensure that poor households received free electricity? Could employment programmes be expanded? The obstacles preventing the economy from growing had to be addressed. This included electricity issues, transit and Metrorail, local government issues and stimulating the economy.

Mr Parks said that the country would always be exposed to the chaos taking place in the world. The way to insulate and protect South Africans and the economy as much as possible in a globalised economy was to prioritise the support of local manufacturing industries. Was it possible to move away from being dependent on oil and move toward electric vehicles? Could more clothes be manufactured locally? He advocated for the support of local agriculture. He said these were matters government could control that would benefit workers and the economy. It would assist South Africa from being dependent on imports.

Equal Education
Ms Biney responded to the concerns about underspending. Based on the work done by EE with the national and provincial departments, underspending had been one of the biggest concerns. It had especially been a concern in the context of the sheer magnitude of the historical critical infrastructure backlogs and the deteriorating outcomes of the sector. There was a real paradox in that on one hand, the sector did not have enough resources to provide quality education services to learners and school communities, particularly in rural areas or densely populated urbane peripheries. And on the other hand, there was very poor financial management and planning. This meant that, even with the limited resources, education departments were either unable to spend the budget or were misdirecting it. Both scenarios needed to be solved simultaneously. It should not be assumed that they did not require the resources because the Department was underspending. She said that the biggest loser in this scenario were the learners, primarily poor, black learners. This perpetuated the inequality that could be seen in the sector and in wider society. This challenge needed to be addressed through a two-prong approach. She highlighted the role of oversight and consequence management to ensure that the allocated resources were going towards quality service delivery. Where there was a need for further resources, it was being received.

Ms Biney responded to the concerns about public participation and trying to improve engagement. She said there was room for improvement. Even in the current meeting, she said there was a class dimension to the matter. Not everyone could participate in the meetings, but it was important to create avenues where there could be a diversity of opinions. This type of sitting or interaction tended to be limited to the affluent and middle class, and had a particular, albeit changing, gender dynamic, and an age element. Historically, the space had been intimidating, and young people may have felt unequipped to participate and had become apathetic about participation. She said there was a lack of empowerment and capacity within society to engage with the technicalities or content being dealt with. There was a need for empowerment, knowledge and capacity building, and to raise people’s confidence to be able to share their opinions on this platform. While technology did make the interaction easier, there was a huge digital divide within South African society. Many people were unable to virtually attend or participate in meetings or public participation programmes for a variety of reasons. She recommended that the Committee consider ways to mobilise the education platforms and empowerment tools available to increase the number and diversity of people participating in the public participation process, especially when dealing with these critical matters. The decisions and matters being discussed in meetings directly impacted the livelihood and future prospects of South Africans, and it was important to hear from the horse’s mouth rather than a representative. In her case, the learners themselves would likely be in a better position to articulate and share the challenges they faced and what they needed in order to succeed or address the challenges.

Public Service Accountability Monitor Response
Ms Higginson responded to Ms Tobias’ questions on the role of the Committee. She understood Ms Tobias’ frustration and apologised if there had been elements of the presentation and recommendations that went beyond the scope of the Committee. She said that there were complexities in navigating the public participation process. PSAM had turned its attention to monitoring the monitors to better understand what the budget looked like and how it was being used by the enforcement agencies and others tasked with implementing anti-corruption strategies and systems. She noted that there had been budget increases to some entities but said that, without a clear understanding of the needs of these entities and what the funds would be used for, it was difficult to understand if the increase was enough, or where the gaps were. She indicated that PSAM would look into where they could address concerns regarding policy and implementation.

Ms Higginson responded to concerns regarding public participation. She agreed with Ms Biney, that the space and process could be seen as intimidating. It would be good for the public to see that the inputs were important and were appreciated, and that it was a space for discussion and debate. PSAM encourage the pre-budget consultations that were piloted in 2022. This was a positive step and resulted in several submissions. She said that there was often an impression that people liked to have their voices heard before the budget was announced. She had the perception that once the budget was announced, the decision had been made and the outcomes could no longer be influenced.

Ms Higginson said that PSAM had recently visited a parliamentary constituency office, but its doors had now been closed. The receptionist had not returned to work to re-open and the fieldworker was conducting research in the field. These officers played an important role in spreading awareness of the budget and assisting with capacity building. There was a sense that the public participation space was a place for experts and economists; this needed to be addressed to ensure that people understood it was a place for discussion.

Ms Higginson responded to the concerns regarding illicit financial flows. PSAM had not done extensive research on this issue. The brief assessment was done on the basis of the Financial Action Task Force Findings of the links between corruption and illicit financial flows. She said there was no real deterrent, and these issues seemed to be no consequences. Until it was clear that individuals or companies who did not follow the rules and engaged in corrupt behaviour would face serious consequences, these types of issues would continue to be prevalent. She could not provide input on the gaps and strengths of the frameworks but said that implementation and enforcement was an area that required attention. The resourcing of entities highlighted in the presentation would have an impact. She hoped that the additional allocations and attention brought to the issue through the greylisting would assist in developing a better understanding of the issues, and provoke positive results.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters for their engagement and responses. He expressed appreciation for the work of the organisations and for their engagement with the Committee. He reiterated that young people were at the forefront of this issue and the future looked hopeful. He emphasised the importance of Parliament – that it was an institution for everyone and should not scare people from engaging on issues. The public should be able to engage Parliament and raise the issues they were concerned about.

The Chairperson highlighted the Committee’s terms of reference, i.e., what belonged to the Committee or other arms of Government. There was sometimes a thin line regarding the responsibilities of various entities. He pointed out that some matters were unclear. The public should err on the side of raising issues rather than remaining quiet.

The Chairperson said that the Committee dealt with complicated economics and substantial amounts, but the platform should not be seen as esoteric. Parliament was about and for all South Africans. He reiterated that the public should participate and be heard by the Committee. He recalled that, during the first year, the Committee received a letter from someone who had raised several issues. The Committee had looked into the issues and raised the issues in Parliament. He addressed the public and emphasised that it was the public’s Parliament and, through raising issues, the public enabled Members to understand and address these issues. Public members should not be discouraged from participating and should rest assured that the issues they raised would be considered.

The Chairperson excused the presenters and thanked them for their participation.

Consideration and Adoption of Minutes
The minutes for the meeting dated 17 May 2023 were considered.

The minutes were adopted without amendments.

Closing Remarks
The Chairperson enquired about the next Committee meeting, from the secretariat.

The secretariat indicated that the next meeting would take place on Tuesday, 30 May. The Committee would be hosting Treasury and would be briefed on the preliminary spending outcomes for the fourth quarter of the previous financial year. The Committee would receive recommendations from invited stakeholders regarding the Appropriation Bill.

The Chairperson thanked Members for attending and participating in the meeting.

Ms Tobias highlighted the connectivity issues that occurred during the meeting, and said there was a problem where Members were not seamlessly let into the meeting room. She pointed out that it was often not acknowledged or read when typing in the chat. This may create the perception that Members were absent when in fact, there was a technical problem.

The Chairperson acknowledged these issues and asked the Committee Secretary to give his number to all Members so they could communicate with the Secretary if there were issues. He apologised for not looking at the chat throughout the meeting but said that this was because Members normally concentrated on the presentations.

The Chairperson shared congratulations on the previous day’s debate.

The meeting was adjourned.