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

Meeting report

At the start of the meeting, several Members made the Chairperson aware that they had to depart early from the meeting due to other commitments, and the Chairperson called out the names of those Members who would need to get their passports updated for their upcoming study trip to Germany.
She commented that the chairperson of the audit and risk committee (ARC) had failed to answer some questions at a previous meeting, and hoped they would answer them in this meeting.  

Mr Vusumuzi Shongwe, Director: Internal Audit, DWYPD, said the report he had promised was included in the information processed the previous week.

The Chairperson said that he should present the report, and he prepared to do this despite experiencing technical issues at the start.

Report on facts: Determination on the appointments of 10 officials during COVID-19 period
The Committee was then taken through the presentation.

Discussion

Throughout the reading of the presentation of the report, Members had questions and comments.

The Chairperson interjected to ask that Mr Shongwe be specific about the positions of the officials and indicate whether there was a guideline in the recruitment policy/process. She also interjected to ask for clarity on certain sections of the report. What qualifications were relevant for the disability branch? There was a long dispute about documents sent to various officials, and thereafter the presentation continued.

Mr Shongwe asked for permission to skip certain sections of the report.

The Chairperson stopped the reading at page 15, and requested the Department to rather move on to the annual performance plan and the quarterly report(s). She proposed this because the report was about 76 pages long, and the Committee was pressed for time.

The Committee supported her proposal.

Revised Annual Performance Plan and 2nd 3rd and 4th Quarterly reports for 2022/2023

The Committee was then taken through the APP and the quarterly reports for quarters 2, 3 and 4, during which Members had questions and comments.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked if the Department had a Labour Relations Officer, to which the Department responded positively.

The Chairperson mentioned that an organisation had called her complaining about a Chief Director: Governance and Compliance, who the Department had appointed through incorrect processes. This person had been appointed in May 2020, and had further appointed more staff members and also engaged in nepotism by appointing his own daughter as his personal aid.

How did the Department deal with reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities? Some disabled people preferred working with people they live with, as they understand their needs better -- was there a policy that dealt with this?

The Department had been informed of the Director appointed in the Ministry's office, but after the reshuffle, this Director was placed in the Department and had not shown up for work at all. How was this issue being resolved? It was not right that someone should be employed and getting paid a full salary, but not doing the work they were supposed to.

In the outstanding case of the Deputy Director-General (DDG), who was not properly allocated a responsibility, could the Department comment on this? A situation of being litigated needed to be avoided. Was there a recruitment policy in the Department? If yes, why were posts not being filled? The Department could not employ a contract worker beyond a certain period, as they would raise their hopes unfairly. How were contract workers appointed? Was there a policy in this regard? When appointing these workers, were there minutes taken? Were the positions advertised at all? And which languages were they being advertised in? Human resources (HR) in the Department was worse than in any other division. Many organisations have written to express their concerns. It was very important to conduct matters according to the approved policy.

ARC's responses

An official of the Department responded on the matter of the Chief Director, and said that the post had been advertised once, and then again. Panel members had conducted short-listing, who had eventually recommended Dr Praveena Sukhraj-Ely, from the Department of Justice, for appointment. Normal processes had taken place.

In the case of the official who had appointed his daughter as his aide, this had been a matter of preference. Especially with blind persons, they had to rely on someone they trusted and would prefer to work with. This was a trust issue. There was a draft policy on reasonable accommodation, and they were happy to share this with the Committee.

The Chairperson interjected to say this draft policy must be completed and adopted to avoid future issues.

Continuing with the response, he said the Department had done quite a lot concerning the DDG position. All human resources (HR) processes were followed for this position.

Regarding the Director who never showed up for work, there was a leave policy where employees had to report to their supervisors and take leave. The supervisors were responsible for checking up on the employees and ensuring that they were doing their jobs.

A recruitment policy definitely existed, and a standard operating procedure had been adopted. There was an HR committee which advised on the appointment of contracts. There was no need to do a job evaluation, as the Department was not creating new positions -- they were appointed in addition to an existing establishment, and they were using the framework of the 2016 regulations.

The Chairperson frustratingly interjected to ask if these positions were being advertised, and the response was negative. As per the regulations, Positions were not advertised because they were not appointed on a fixed-term contract of more than 12 months. For example, if one were to appoint a labour relations officer, one would approach the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) for advice and then approach the relevant Department, and through the referrals, the Department would be guided. The Chairperson interjected to suggest this applied to the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA).

The official said that they could consider this in the future.

Ms Shoki Tshabalala, DDG: Social Transformation and Economic Empowerment, DWYPD, responded that the Director’s absence had been noted in March, and a follow-up was conducted. It was found that he was ill, and had left a sick note for the Department, but was still doing work. Thereafter he returned to the office to work.

Ms Tshabalala then asked for a letter to be flighted and read out from a DDG who had refused the post of ‘persons with disabilities.’ Handicapped people had a right to appoint whoever they trusted to work with them. A certain DDG was creating chaos in the Department and making it ungovernable.

With the R10 million saved by the Department, they would use that money for the appointment for additional posts.

The Chairperson requested that in the next meeting, the Committee be given a clear decision taken with the Executive with regard to the DDG who was creating chaos.

This request was met with a positive response.

Thereafter the reading of the presentation continued, focusing on the financial management report for the three quarters.

Further discussion

The Chairperson opened the floor for questions and comments from the Members.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) commented that it was unfortunate that government did not fulfil their commitments to the vulnerable groups by providing work opportunities for persons with disabilities. Some policies implemented affirmative action, ensuring that all groups were represented. Departments needed to be monitored to ensure they prioritised women and persons with disabilities.

Ms M Hlengwa (IFP) appreciated the input provided by the Chairperson on the presentation. She echoed the comments of Ms Masiko. The issue of not appointing in the proper manner has been raised several times. The HR committee should have five members and not four to avoid deadlocks. She found the post to be ‘annoying’. The NYDA seemed to avoid the youth and persons with disabilities, and the latter was a very important division. She wanted clarity on the phrase ‘all targets were met’ -- what did 100% mean? She found the 100% to be worrisome because the people out there were suffering because of hunger, economic strife and unemployment, yet the report said ‘all targets were met.’

Ms T Masondo (ANC) asked what the recommendations had reflected about the assessment done for the year 2022/23. How and where had the ARC tracked recommendations made for 2021/22? How did this reconcile with what had been reported at the end of the fourth quarter of 2021/22? The Department had reported several deviations, but had given an assurance that none of the deviations would result in irregular expenditure. She asked why there were so many deviations.

The Chairperson again interjected to say that in 2021/22, the Department had a total of 20 deviations. What did this mean? Did it mean there was poor planning, placing supply chain and procurement at risk of irregularities? She understood why there were so many deviations -- they emanated from posts which were advertised without funding. She was worried that the ARC was not aware of this.
Ms Masondo continued, asking why certain employees had no job descriptions. Why was the performance agreement not signed? What did the non-compliance entail? Who were the long-standing debtors, and what were the costs incurred? What did ‘non-performance of the external assessment on internal audit functions’ mean, and what were the implications? What progress has been made in the current year regarding women, youth and persons with disabilities? How many of the reports done in 2022/23 had been done by consultants, and at what cost?

The Chairperson asked why the ARC had not discussed deviations at all. Were they not worried?

Mr Llewellyn Louw, Director: Financial Management, DWYPD, responded that they were indeed very worried. A few of these deviations were due to the relocation of the Department and research. There were times when they could not find adequate service providers, forcing them to seek assistance from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), which the research unit would then handle. The ARC was taking note of this to minimise deviations in the future.

The Chairperson said she worried they were not following the proper procedures. Were they getting value for money from the research conducted? How did this research impact the work done within the Department? Sourcing outside work should still produce the desired results.

Ms Tshabalala responded that monitoring and evaluation were two different entities. The challenge for the Department was that a person would be assigned a task, and administration would be included. In the Department they could not segregate work because they were already severely under-resourced and understaffed.

The Chairperson interjected, saying while she shared their sentiments of being under-staffed, what was difficult in providing motivation for job evaluation and improving the staff establishment? They could present their case to National Treasury. There had been a case in the past where it was not the fault of National Treasury, but the fault of the division at the time. What had they done to obtain extra personnel to conduct their work?

DDG Tshabalala responded that the problem was that anything to do with women was devalued in South Africa. National Treasury would say they would not provide funds without an endorsement from the DPSA, and the DPSA would not provide an endorsement without the presence of funds. This was a ‘chicken and egg’ scenario. She suggested that the Committee should call both the DPSA and the National Treasury.

The Chairperson replied that she would consider doing this for future meetings. It was not right that the Department was overlooked.

Ms Tshabalala asked to be given about two days to report on the good work they were doing in terms of mainstreaming, advocacy and monitoring and evaluation.

The Chairperson replied that she would apply for a day, rather than two days, during the recess period.

Further discussion

A Member of the Committee said that the issues of gender and persons with disabilities continued to affect society. Regarding fruitless and wasteful expenditure, concerns had been raised in the previous financial year about the recovery of funds -- what was the status of this case? She commended the Department for not having incurred fruitless or wasteful expenditure in the previous financial year. What mitigating plans were in place to ensure payments were made within 30 days? She asked the Department to outline five key objectives for the internal audit. Of the 37 planned engagements which were not implemented, what did this amount to in numerical value, and what did it entail? Why were they not implemented? Regarding the internal audit which was not completed and approved by the ARC, what did this imply for the Department?

Ms N Sonti (EFF) commented regarding persons with disabilities, saying she was very concerned about the vacancies in this regard. The Department did not recognise their abilities. She was happy with the presentation.

Ms Masiko stressed the importance of achieving targets. The outcomes need to be constantly measured and monitored -- have the programmes reached their targets? Would young people be able to access the reports? The workshops on the webinars which the Committee was hosting were very important -- it should not be a matter of just ‘ticking a box.’ One should assess the impact of the webinars. The target for programme two was not achieved -- the Department should look into this.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to receive the performance report for the previous financial year. There was no way that government should pay someone for not doing their job, so could the Department please include this in their report? A timeframe should be given to HR for all the frameworks to be completed and submitted to the Committee by the first week of September. She said she wanted to hear the Minister’s comments on the HR issues that had been raised.

Department's response

DDG Tshabalala responded regarding the ARC's representation, and said the advertisement and composition of the ARC were advertised in the newspapers for vacancies. She was, at times, reluctant to be involved in such matters for fear of public scrutiny. Vacancies were definitely advertised and sometimes people did not respond to those advertisements.

Regarding the 100% comment raised earlier, this referred to what was planned to be achieved. The Department’s mandate was socioeconomic transformation through mainstreaming. Should the Department succeed in its mandate, then all government departments would respond proactively to women’s issues and the issues of persons with disabilities. Of this, she was sure.

There was one Director in information technology (IT) and two technicians at level 7, so the Department was severely understaffed. However, with the savings they had achieved, they had managed to secure a deputy director for IT, but the Department was not in a position to employ many more people. The DPSA had agreed to an adjustment in the cost of living allowance, which amounted to R8 million for the Department. National Treasury had stated upfront that they would not provide any funds in this regard, and that all departments should source their own funding. The Department would therefore source money from their own savings. It would prioritise a labour relations officer, IT and disability personnel.

They had appointed a service provider to assess the internal audit, and this report would be shared at the next Committee meeting.

The Department was not able to facilitate equal pay for equal worth of work, and the private sector would not be able to achieve this, nor the universities. The Department had partnered with the University of Pretoria to conduct research on equality in payment between public services. Research was critical for the Department, so they required a larger research unit.

The Chairperson interjected to say that this was not their concern, but rather whether the Department had got value for money.

The DDG responded that they had.

In the events which the DWYPD hosted, they were changing the way they operated at the national level. They had facilitated a trade fair for women, and all the women who arrived with products had reported that they had sold all of them. On 16 June, there would be an exhibition where young people would receive information on applying for National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) support. They had hosted webinars on farming for women, which hundreds of people had attended. They had changed the way they hosted events. The uploaded audio files could be found on their website.

She then read out from the slides the Department’s priorities for the current financial year, and the Chairperson asked for clarity on certain of the priorities.

Ms Masiko referred to removing the sanitary dignity programme (SDP) from the APP. She asked if the Department would just leave matters as they were while there was disarray in the provinces. How would they ensure uniformity among the provinces? What needed to be done to bring this programme to a central point? Who needed to be called to the platform to ask about a uniform implementation and approach?

The Chairperson commented that with the way matters were, beneficiaries were not receiving what they were entitled to. This was a ‘baby project’ meant to benefit the provinces. Removing it from the APP would imply failure, and keeping it in the APP would be a better solution. How would they enforce uniformity among provincial governments? The programme would soon fail, and young girls would bear the brunt of this failure.

DDG Tshabalala clarified that they had not discarded this programme. Last year, they met with the Minister of Finance to discuss the SDP for the first three quarters. They lacked budget and were struggling with distribution for the SDP. The Minister had suggested that the programme should rather be transferred to the Department of Social Development (DSD), and be treated as a transversal project. The Minister had said he would call a meeting with the Department. The programme had not been discarded, but rather they were working under the control of the National Treasury.

Monitoring and evaluation were their responsibility. They revised the disability awareness campaigns. Some units were understaffed, so it was being amended.

The reading of the slides continued.

Minister of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, echoed what the DDG had said regarding discarding the programme. She said that government should treat unemployment as a crisis, and gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) as a pandemic. It was not fair that men in the country had access to free condoms everywhere for sex, which was a choice, and women did not have access to sanitary items for menstruation, which was not a choice for them. The Committee and Department needed to start a campaign on this matter.

The Chairperson agreed with the Minister, and suggested that perhaps the Committee should be responsible for doing this.

Further discussion

A Member of the Committee stressed the importance of starting a campaign to give women access to for sanitary items. She was concerned about the sanitary items which were packaged by the companies with which they were all familiar, only to find that the actual items were of poor quality—the quality of the items needed to be checked.

The Chairperson echoed the concern about the illegal sale of products not approved by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). The Department of Basic Education raised this matter after receiving calls about young girls getting infections due to poor quality sanitary products. This matter needed to be addressed.

She then reminded Mr Shongwe to respond to some questions, before she could allow the Minister to ask her question.

Mr Shongwe responded that the purpose of the internal audit was to assess the controls and governance process within the Department. Where deviations were identified, internal audit should recommend improvements and follow up on the improvements. Through doing this, the governance process was enhanced.

Regarding not performing the project as planned, and the reasons for this, he said that in the current financial year, 19 internal audit projects were planned and approved by the audit committee. Three internal audit projects were still in progress and two internal projects were not performed. For the first project, the Department had relocated and this had affected the performance of the project. For the second project, which was a follow-up on the audit findings, they had conducted an enquiry into why this was not resolved and thereafter reported to management and the audit committee. An internal audit was to be performed in the fourth quarter, but this could not be done at the time. The delays resulted from the relocation to a new building where about a month was lost. The Department used to be responsible for a lot of irregular expenditure. One of the ways to curb this irregular expenditure was to say any procurement above R500 000 should go through internal audit.

He then asked to move on and finish off the presentation, and this was permitted.

The Chairperson said she was still unclear about many sections of the presentation. She asked how the Department had been able to finalise their reports when they had been missing information on several aspects. She asked for a clear plan on what exactly was supposed to be done and audited by the ARC. There needed to be a clear division of tasks between the Department and the Committee.

Were the right officials being appointed within the Department? It seemed that operations were being run haphazardly. What were the implications of the DDG and Minister not signing off on certain appointments? The Department should have proper policies in place to avoid issues.

She felt that some of the answers were very unclear, especially on the issue of contract workers. The Department must set a good example. She mentioned an elderly man who retired from the Department, but had been called back to work despite being 65 years old -- and had been given a 12-month contract. She felt that the Committee was being deceived.

She handed over to the Minister to give concluding comments.

Minister's closing comments

Dr Dlamini-Zuma suggested that they expedite the recruitment of the HR director so that they could strengthen the unit before they recruited other officials. There should be a limit to the number of contract workers renewed every month. She was awaiting a response from the Department as to whose contract should be continued, and why. Regarding informal traders selling poor quality sanitary items, the people who should be held responsible should be those who sell faulty products. These people should be reported to those who could actually do something to address the issue.

The Chairperson thanked all the Members for their participation, and the Department for their presentations.

The meeting was adjourned.