Postponed: DWYPD Q2, 3 & 4 2022/23 Performance (incl Audit Risk Committee input); with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Ms Sisisi Tolashe, Deputy Minister of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD), Committee Members and officials of the Department to the meeting.

She expressed concern that the Committee had not received some of the quarterly reports that the Committee was supposed to have received. They had received only the second quarter report, but not the reports for the third and fourth quarters. She asked for the letter containing the briefing note issued to the Department earlier, to be read aloud to the Committee, and this was done.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked for comment from the Department as to why the missing reports were not sent to the Committee.

Ms Val Mathobela, Chief Director: Strategic Management, DWYPD, confirmed they were required to submit the reports for the second, third and fourth quarters, and she had asked within the Director-General's (DG's) office as to which reports were still outstanding. They had done their best to submit the reports received from management, but some were not submitted as they were still in the draft stages. She committed that when the Department processed the annual performance information, all reports would be available and submitted to the Committee.

The Chairperson was not satisfied with the Chief Director’s response. She asked when the whole process had started. What was their oversight based on? Why were the reports not ready at the end of each quarter? Have they been doing this since 2019?

Ms Mathobela clarified that annual targets and quarterly targets were not the same -- the latter was a build-up to the former.

The Chairperson rejected this response, and said that the Department was expected to report to the Committee every quarter on their performance so that they could be assessed and analysed for any issues which may arise. This was not new information at all. Why had she submitted a report on Saturday? Why was she giving false information?

Ms Mathobela insisted that a report had been given to the Committee. She then asked the Director General of the Department to please ‘protect her from the Chairperson’ and to please excuse her from the meeting.

Her request made several Committee Members very angry, and there were times when they all spoke at once, voicing their anger.

The Chairperson said she would not do what pleased the Chief Director -- she would do what was expected of her as a Member of Parliament, which was to follow the rules and procedures of Parliament. How dare the Chief Director ask for protection from her? She was doing her job; she was not being petty or unreasonable. She could not ask the Director General to speak on her behalf, not when she was the one tasked to chair the meeting. She was insulted by this.

Ms N Sharif (DA) stated that their job as the Committee was to oversee and ensure accountability from the Department, which could not be done without the relevant information. Every quarter, the Department was expected to provide a report on its performance. This was the second or third time that Ms Mathobela had assumed a defensive position because she felt she was being attacked. Nevertheless, all had the choice to do their jobs. Should the job not be done, the Department must be held accountable. If she was not able to do this, she would need to revise her decision to take on the job. All were being held accountable. She was feeling frustrated.

The Chairperson asked for verification of when the last report had been received.

Ms M Khawula (EFF) spoke isiZulu.

(PMG's translation may not be entirely accurate, since she used a very formal register of isiZulu.)

Ms Khawula asked the Department not to beat about the bush. They had to remember that they were appointed officials. No Committee Member hated them -- they were only doing their jobs to ensure operations were running smoothly. Ms Mathobela had a tendency to undermine the Chairperson, to whom she needed to show respect. She was wrong to ask for protection from the Director General. The Committee had asked the questions that needed to be asked. The Committee was there for the residents of the country. Why had Ms Mathobela embarked on becoming an official? Where were the outstanding reports? They had been requesting them since the previous week of the meeting. Should Ms Mathobela want to say that the Chairperson verbally abused her, she should include the entire Committee too. She should probably seek employment elsewhere. They needed to have the report urgently, and would not waste anyone’s time. Time was of the essence.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) commented that they had been on this journey for four years, and there were times when questions would sit well with the Department, and other times when questions would not sit well with them. The Committee needed to ask the tough questions and probe further on matters of concern. At such meetings, emotions should be set aside. It was wrong for Ms Mathobela to request protection from the Chairperson. The Director-General needed to account for this behaviour. The Committee had the right to ask questions and issue reprimands for outstanding reports and late submissions. They had been very patient with the Department and owed the Committee an apology for their actions and words.

The Chairperson noted that one of the reports they were supposed to receive was the erratum regarding the annual performance plan (APP), which should be tabled to the Speaker. A deadline was given for said report, which was still not met.

Deputy Minister Tolashe apologised profusely to the Committee on behalf of the Department for their behaviour. It was not their intention to insult the Chairperson or the Committee. She acknowledged the feelings which had been expressed in the meeting. She had also taken offence at Ms Mathobela, as an official, seeking protection from the Chairperson. They would table this matter and resolve to submit a full report. She agreed that the Committee was doing their job, and they were indeed disrespected by the statement made earlier.

The Chairperson accepted the apology, and apologised for placing the Deputy Minister in a difficult position.

She reiterated the responsibilities of the Committee Members. She wanted the submission of documents to be on record. The second and third quarterly reports were supposed to be submitted by the time of the meeting, and it should not have been difficult to compile and submit them. She asked the Deputy Minister to attempt to read the submitted report and try to make sense of it. There was no room for leniency -- tasks needed to be done efficiently. The Committee was not there to fight with the Department.

She confirmed that the Executive had approved the report on the Thursday preceding the Committee meeting, and additional documents were submitted on the following day, Friday, 26 May. What had been submitted was incomplete, hence the late submission of additional documents. In future, should challenges arise, they should rather speak with the Chairperson so a decision may be made to grant an extension or postpone the meeting. It was better to submit a complete report at a later date. The Committee was at a loss as to what to do.

Adv Mikateko Maluleke, Director-General, DWYPD, summoned Ms Mathobela to apologise to the Committee for her behaviour, and this was done.

Ms Mathobela apologised, and said that she had misunderstood, as she thought the Chairperson was referring to the ‘core business targets’ of the report.

All the Members started speaking at once.

Deputy Minister Tolashe apologised, saying it was wrong for the Director-General to summon someone to speak at the Chairperson’s meeting. The DG needed to take full responsibility and deal with the conflict in private. She was wrong to do this. Further, Ms Mathobela should be quiet and not provide any more excuses.

Adv Maluleke said that she had been going to apologise, but first wanted Ms Mathobela to acknowledge her wrongdoing. She was not abdicating her duties -- she took full responsibility for the behaviour. She apologised profusely for what had happened. She realised that certain quarterly reports were missing, and it was Ms Mathobela’s job to ensure they were there. The ‘key achievements’ had all been placed in one document.

She requested that the Department return to give a full report on the quarterly performance on another date. She agreed that their reports needed to be completed and submitted at their respective deadlines. She confirmed that they did have all the reports, and were working on meeting all the deadlines. She hoped that the Chairperson would remember her good track record.

Ms Sharif asked the Director-General how she could sign off on half-done reports. She had not heard her take responsibility for this. There was a level of professionalism which needed to be maintained at all times. Late submissions were unacceptable. She agreed with the Deputy Minister that discipline should be in place so that all were accountable for their actions. Was the Deputy Minister aware of these issues which had arisen? If not, would she now take a firm hand with the Department? She suggested that they allow the Department to leave and return soon with a completed report on their performance, but she did not want this to be a recurring pattern in the future. Precious time was being disrespected and wasted.

Ms Khawula (in a general translation) accepted the Deputy Minister’s apology. What was causing the Department not to perform appropriately? When the Committee corrected them, why did they take it personally and say they were being attacked? No one hated the Department, but respect needed to be shown to the Committee too. It was right that Ms Mathobela had apologised, but she did not need to give excuses. One needed to apologise without giving excuses and without undermining the Committee or the laws of the country. The Department needed to leave and return soon with a full report for the Committee and with urgency, because presently, the women in South Africa were suffering and being killed, the youth were starving, and people needed to be accountable for their actions. These issues need to be taken seriously.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee meeting needed to be postponed. The Department would be given five days to amend the report thoroughly in preparation for presenting it to the Committee in the following week. If this was not done, there would surely be consequences. Was this agreed by everyone?

All were in agreement with this plan. The Director-General undertook to have the full report ready for the Committee meeting in the following week.

Committee minutes

The Chairperson released the Department so that the Committee could focus on the last item on the agenda. Thereafter, the minutes of the following Committee meetings were considered and adopted respectively:

29 November 2022; 21 and 28 February 2023; and 2, 3, 5, 9 and 16 May 2023.

The Chairperson hoped that the Department would make good on its promise, otherwise it would be difficult to do their jobs as the Committee. She anticipated that they would meet again in the following week. They needed to ask the Department to table the outstanding ‘erratum’ in their APP.

The meeting was adjourned.