NYDA Amendment Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

Mr Emmanuel Kganakga, Director of Youth Legislation and Policy, in the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD) took the Committee through the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) Amendment Bill working document, with the proposed amendments incorporated (see document).

The questions and comments are recorded as follows:

Clause 5
Ms F Masiko (ANC) mentioned that clause 5(4) needed to capture career guidance. This could be captured in clause 5(4)(a) "provide youth advisory and information services including information on the products and services of the Agency". Career guidance was an outreach programme.

Ms Lisa Naidoo, Senior State Law Advisor, commented that adding career guidance would not be against any legal principles. It would be done in collaboration with the other departments. This was to be decided by the Committee.

Ms Sueanne Isaac, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, noted that adding career guidance into the clause was a policy issue and did not infringe on any legal matter.

The Chairperson reminded all that the Committee had decided that they wanted career guidance to be captured in the way the Principal Act captured it as in "provide career guidance services". The NYDA was saying that they struggled to obtain funds from Treasury to run the project and that it was the responsibility of the Department of Higher Education. In the Committee discussions last week, they agreed that it was important and the NYDA had been implementing this. Was there satisfaction in the manner it was captured in the working document of the Bill?

Ms Naidoo confirmed her presence in the previous meeting. She clarified what she meant about collaboration. She had worked with the Department of Higher Education in the past and understood that its career development unit worked alongside other units. She could not comment on operational matters but she could comment that DHET had a dedicated career development unit. The Bill allowed for engagement with other organs of state.

Ms M Khawula (EFF) (who spoke in isiZulu) said that the youth should not get left behind. The NYDA had already commenced with an online application process, this proved to be difficult for youth who did not have access to cell phones. How would grade 7 learners be assisted who were being turned away due to full capacity in schools? Could the NYDA respond to this? The white people were to take black children in the schools. No child should be left out in the education system due to schools which were at full capacity.

When the Chairperson called for the NYDA to respond, the NYDA asked for a translation as they did not activate the translation service on their side.

Ms Khawula asked why the NYDA did not make an effort to learn the African languages in SA.

The Chairperson asked if the NYDA was satisfied with what was captured in the Bill. The NYDA had previously asked why career development could not rather be the responsibility of the Department of Higher Education. The Committee had suggested a collaboration with the NYDA and that department assist with the funds. The Bill needed to be clear for the generations to come and for the incoming Portfolio Committee in the Seventh Parliament. This was important. Could the NYDA comment on this?

Ms Asanda Luwaca, NYDA Board Chairperson, suggested that the concerns which the Chairperson raised could be covered by clause 5(4)(d) "support youth work, education and training". She acknowledged that education was not their mandate but they relied on the work of their sister department. Their role would be to provide a supportive role to the departments they collaborated with on career guidance.

The Chairperson said this did make sense to her.

Mr Waseem Carrim, NYDA CEO, suggested that they add “in collaboration with the relevant government and social partners”. This would mean that everything they do would be in collaboration with others.

The Chairperson agreed.

Dr Bernice Hlagala, DWYPD Chief Director: Youth Development, said the proposal was that they highlight career guidance. She suggested that they highlight it as a standalone clause, or they could accommodate it under clause 5(4)(a) as a matter of emphasis.

The Chairperson suggested that the provision be re-worked so that it could be read correctly by future generations and future parliamentary committees. If parts had been omitted then this would have consequences in the future. Please could they insert the right words?

The Committee agreed.

Mr Kganakga confirmed that the team was working on changing this.

Clause 7
Mr Kganakga noted that a member of the public noted an error made about the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act. Ms Naidoo assisted in rephrasing this clause.

Clause 10 amending Section 9 of the NYDA Act
Mr Kganakga said that the Committee’s decision on executive directors remained, with the addition of the two members designated by the Minister as ex-officio members from the Department:

Section 9(1)
"The Board consists of seven members, two of whom are executive directors appointed by the President on the recommendation of the National Assembly; two members designated by the Minister as ex-officio members from the Department, without voting rights; and the Chief Executive Officer, who is an ex-officio member of the Board without voting rights;”

The Chairperson asked if section 9(1)(a) was phrased the way the Principal Act was phrased?

Mr Kganakga replied that "Parliament" was changed.

The Chairperson said it was correct to say Parliament because they also worked with the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Both Houses formed part of the panel. They could have a sub-committee which would constitute both Houses for the Board appointment process. They should leave it as Parliament.

Mr Kganakga noted that it meant this part would not change at all as the original Act stated: "Members must be appointed by the President on the recommendation of Parliament".

The Chairperson ask if the two "executive directors" were the board chairperson and deputy.

Mr Kganakga confirmed this. They had needed to re-work the whole clause because initially the Bill had removed chairperson and deputy as part of the "executive directors". It now read that the President should designate a chairperson and deputy and the non-executive nature had been discarded.

The Chairperson said it should be captured as non-executive which was the way it was originally. The separation of powers should be clear as to who was responsible for administration and who for governance. All should remain in their designated positions. Please could they work on this.

Dr Hlagala referred to section 9(1)(a) of the Principal Act. Was the Chairperson against the use of the word ‘executive directors’? The clause stipulated that the President allocated them as the chairperson and deputy.

The Chairperson replied that the last one she read was the correct one.

Dr Hlagala clarified that the original section 9(1)(a) and 9(5)(a) would not appear in the Amendment Act. The Chairperson was being advised to reconsider. With statutory appointments there was a delay if both Houses were involved. It took a lot of time. Would it be better to leave it with the National Assembly alone?

Ms Masiko agreed with the advice. She did not think that the other Chapter 9 institutions had to go through the NCOP. She was in support of the advice.

The Chairperson resolved to return to the proposed amendment of it being the responsibility of the National Assembly. There should be a change made to section 9. Did ‘Parliament’ refer to both Houses or only the National Assembly?

Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Officer: Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy, confirmed that ‘Parliament’ referred to both Houses. ‘National Assembly’ referred to the House headed by the Speaker. The NCOP was headed by the NCOP Chairperson. On the proposal that it should be done by the "National Assembly", the NYDA among many other entities was done by the National Assembly.

There could be a delay in tabling this in the NCOP. This created a cumbersome process for administration. This would be the decision of the Committee. This Bill will go to the NCOP afterwards.

The Chairperson hoped that all had clarity now.

Section 9(4)(a)
Mr Kganakga said the criteria for the appointment of Board members had to include all demographics of the country. The public comments had urged that they discuss this matter. Hence the addition of "broadly".

The Chairperson recalled that the Committee was in agreement on this. She had no issues with this. All were covered in terms of race, gender, disability, the queer community.

Ms N Sharif (DA) mentioned that "knowledge, expertise and experience" covered those who were over 18 years old. This was good as young people started activism from a young age already.

Ms Masiko agreed. She asked if "economics" and "law" were referring to a qualification or just general knowledge.

Mr Kganakga replied that the intention was to give a broad framework on what the Committee should look out for in terms of criteria. For example, the advertisement could state that they want a board member with a law degree and one with an economics degree.

Ms Khawula (in isiZulu) drew attention to "experience". This could disadvantage young people in being hired. She was concerned about young people having access to education and those who were at home and those who were deaf.

The Chairperson suggested that they add "youth activism" to be more accommodating. "Relevant qualifications" could be interpreted as those without qualifications would not be considered. There were young people who never went to university or they were university drop-outs. They should not make the NYDA a group for the elites exclusively. Again, the language needed to be clear so that future generations would understand this. There were young people who were very intelligent even though they had never been to university; they were innovative.

Dr Hlagala referred to section 9(4)(a)(ii) stating that the ‘or’ meant one could have one of the components, not all of them. On youth activism, this may be covered by "field of youth development" because an activist was involved in improving the lives of young people.

Ms Masiko was satisfied with the explanation provided by Dr Hlagala as this provided many options. "Social development" also spoke to social mobilisation of young people which included activism. She was happy with these options.

Ms Sharif was in agreement that experience in the field of youth and social development covered youth activism. Youth activism included skills development and interpersonal development. Reading this clause, it was not clear how many of each criteria the candidates should have. What if someone had five out of eight criteria, for example? What was the minimum?

The Chairperson suggested that the specifics should be listed only in the advertisement as they would have had to consider all the aspects. No one would be penalised for not having a law or economics degree, for example. The composition was important. They had to consider what skills they wanted the Board to have. This was only a guiding document to the final product. She was happy with how it was currently phrased.

Ms N Sonti (EFF) noted that she had been having network issues. She gave her input. The youth were facing high rates of unemployment, perhaps they could add that sports facilities played a big role for unemployed youth.

The Chairperson mentioned that for the moment, they would not be able to add Ms Sonti’s suggestion. This could be already covered under social development. They had to follow the law and they would have to look at the curriculum vitae (CV) of the youth candidates.

Ms Khawula (in isiZulu) agreed with Ms Sonti’s suggestion. The youth were being disadvantaged. She observed with the recent 2023 Rugby World Cup that the youth loved to watch sports but they did not know how to be involved in sports. How can the Education Department be involved in sports and health? Young people should be hired in these sectors. She heard the cry about lack of funding; they needed to discuss this with the Education Departments although these departments also lacked funding. Parliament had also been conversing with the municipalities because the youth were also negatively affected by power outages and water shortages. The Committee needed to do more checkups to find out what was going on behind closed doors.

The Chairperson said that they trusted their advertisements as they looked at many aspects. When interviews were conducted, other aspects were considered such as innovation, creativity, analysis in their assessment of a candidate. They also looked at if the candidate participated in other organisations. Should they include ‘policy analysis’ in the criteria? Candidates needed to do research and how involved they were in human relations. This all needed to be captured in the Bill.

Ms Sharif said that what the Chairperson said was accurate and made sense.

The Chairperson wondered if 'economics' and 'public management' should form part of the list since they were mainly operational. Surely there was no need for them? The youth were concerned about the ‘experience’ aspect. She was thinking aloud. Why was 'public management' there?

Ms Sharif asked if public management was a course or was it referring to having managerial skills? She thought it referred to an academic course.

The Chairperson said that they did not fit in section 9(4)(a)(ii). She asked the legal advisors to respond.

Mr Kganakga recalled Dr Hlagala noting the implication of the word ‘or’ in section 9(4)(a)(ii). This meant that the candidate did not have to have all criteria. The appointed seven Board members having all criteria as a group would assist them in fulfilling their fiduciary duties and leading youth development. They chose these skills and qualifications because this is what the youth required and requested to include. They could concede on the ‘soft skills’ as there was no need for legislation on this. The Committee would assess this through the interview process. The given list was just a broad perspective to select the right candidate. He proposed that they not omit reference to these skills, they could add the phrase ‘any other qualification, as may be determined by Parliament’ after the word ‘law’. Maybe there were other skills which could be accommodated.

Ms Karabo Mohale, NYDA Deputy Chairperson, said section 9(4)(a)(i) was already well-captured and provided for youth to participate in the NYDA. They should look into the prescriptive nature of section 9(4)(a)(ii) as to what could be considered as ‘qualification’. Having a prescriptive list may limit Parliament in candidate selection. There were youth in the arts and in sports who might feel that they have not been accommodated. They could consider what Mr Kganakga suggested about ‘any other relevant qualification’. They could also combine the commercial subjects together rather than listing them one by one, so that this would not discourage the youth. The qualification part was too prescriptive. They needed to change the wording to make it broader and not exclude.

Ms Alexandria Procter, NYDA Board member, added that they worked with a large budget. Financial experience was essential as a criteria and this could be added.

The Chairperson agreed and said that financial skills was what they looked for during the interview process.

Dr Tembe said that section 9(4)(a)(ii) presented some challenges. They had to look into inclusivity. Some youth were goal-oriented and had been successful in the academic world and others not, and there were those interested in arts, sport and the like. Looking solely at 'qualification' meant the exclusion of those not in academia. Knowledge and experience were important. An effective Board should be composed of people of different and complementary talents. It would be advantageous not to be prescriptive. He referred to differences in terminology: business management, public management, social science, social development. A Board dominated by strategic thinkers may be strengthened by an addition of a goal-oriented individual. There needed to be a balance in the recruitment to achieve the best results, not to be too drastic but to be gradual to fulfill the vision of the NYDA.

CEO Carrim said that he was in agreement with the submission put forward by Dr Tembe. He suggested the inclusion of the phrase “broad range of skills” to include many more youth candidates.

Ms Masiko agreed with Ms Mohale.

Ms Sharif said she understood the need and necessity to have some skills to sit on the Board. She could not agree with the notion of requiring the youth to have work experience as this excluded many of them from job opportunities. Young people were ready to learn and to adopt the necessary skills, and they could learn from their teammates. Young people should be given an opportunity regardless of experience.

Dr Hlagala agreed with Ms Mohale in being broad. Social development was already very broad, there was no need for mention of public management or business. They could say rather ‘social, economic and legal sciences’. The soft skills should be left for the advertisement at the discretion of the Committee, depending on the changing needs at the time, especially with technology. There was no need to specify this in the Amendment Act. The term 'policy development' took into account the entire value chain.

The Chairperson acknowledged all the inputs and requested that they rephrase section 9(4)(a)(ii). She said (in Sesotho) that they may proceed.

Section 9(4)(b)
Mr Kganakga said that they needed to review the proposed amendment on Board disqualification with legal opinion.

The Chairperson asked what would happen once a person "is declared to be of unsound mind by a court".

Mr Kganakga replied that they would refer to the Principal Act.

He read out the next proposed amendment in Section 9(4)(b)(iii) "a person who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine for a period of not less than 12 months".

Ms Kashiefa Abrahams, Committee Content Advisor, noted that in the previous meeting, the Committee requested an input from the legal advisor on Section 9(4)(b)(iii).

Ms Naidoo replied that the comment received from the public was that they should refer to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1997. Although the Act was numbered according to its year, the Department of Justice had since updated it to make it constitutionally sound with the process of Amendment Bills, this had now been updated. In the Criminal Procedure Act, there were Schedules with a different class and category of criminal offence and its seriousness. For example, Schedule 1 had serious offences such as treason and public violence. Schedule 2 had more drug-related matters. Schedules 5 and 6 had very serious offences such as pre-meditated murder. The public requested that they include Schedule 1. Being incarcerated for less than 12 months implied that the offences were not serious. If the intention was to put in a serious offence, then it should read that it would capture everything in all the Schedules. It was a laborious process and the Schedules might change. They could say, “A person who has been convicted of a serious offence, and sentenced to prison without a fine for a period of more than 12 months/24 months”. This would be up to the Committee or Department.

The Chairperson recalled a suggestion put forward about those who were convicted of sexual assault or domestic violence.

Ms Masiko asked what type of offence was it where a person spent less than 12 months imprisoned? What if someone was dismissed from work for sexual harassment, or traffic fines and the like? Looking at the Act, would they really want an individual who had committed such offences to serve on the Board? They should look at what was written in the GBVF Council Bill. The Committee regarded sexual harassment as a serious offence, even though it was not classified as such. They should frown at the sexual harassment offence.

The Chairperson said that they would not compromise on this. A Board member could not be a sexual offender as they may abuse their position in the future. This was unacceptable; they did not want such persons. They should use the same recommendations made in the Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (GBVF) Bill for this Bill.

Ms G Opperman (DA) supported the explanation given for 12 months; it was not a serious offence.

Ms Naidoo understood that the Committee did not want to exclude any offence involving imprisonment for 12 months or more. They could say, “A person who has been convicted of an offence in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1997” which would all the Schedules in an all-encompassing manner. Schedule 5 included rape or compelled rape.

The Chairperson said that they screened all applicants and some were found to have a criminal record due to political activism. The Committee excused such because it was not a serious crime. They should use Ms Naidoo’s wording. The Committee could not allow rapists to be part of the Board; this was unacceptable.

The Committee was in agreement.

Ms Sonti said that she was in agreement.

Ms Isaac asked for clarity if the Committee wanted to phrase the clause according to the Criminal Procedure Act, or did they want to broaden the existing wording? The wording of the NYDA Act included offences related to dishonesty and PFMA violations. The current wording in the Bill did not reflect what was used in the Principal Act; they risked losing certain offences.

The Chairperson replied that they needed to include consideration of the Principal Act. She recalled discussing this, they were not dismissing that. They were working on Section 9(4)(b). They had requested an elaboration about serious crimes, could they get clarity on this? No rapist should be a Board member, even by accident.

Mr Kganakga agreed and said the provisions in the Principal Act would remain; they could expand on this.

Mr Kganakga requested not to comment on Section 9(4)(c) as he believed it would fall away. Could they exclude it?

The Chairperson agreed, asking in isiZulu why a person dismissed from the Board would return after five years? They would surely bully the young women there.

Mr Kganakga continued reading from the working document. He noted that in the Principal Act, it stated that board members held office for a period of only three years. The Bill stated "Members hold office for a period of three years and may not be reappointed for more than two consecutive terms".

Section 9(7)(b)
The Committee was in agreement with what happened in a case where the chairperson and deputy chairperson were unable to fulfill their duties.

Section 9(10)
Mr Kganakga noted that they had replaced the word ‘President’ with the word ‘Minister’.

Section 9(11)
The word ‘Board’ with the word ‘Agency’: Members who are employed by an organ of state are not entitled to remuneration, or any allowance, but must be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses by the Agency.

The Chairperson recalled discussing this at a previous meeting. These members should be reimbursed for their travel expenses and any other related costs. This was standard for all departments. Sometimes the Committee members purchased gifts for the places they were visiting, especially the study tours and were reimbursed for this. Did the NYDA also purchase gifts? The Agency needed to compensate for these expenses.

Ms Masiko agreed that board members employed by an organ of state were not entitled to remuneration. She had a problem with; ‘or any allowance’. Where Board members were required to travel, this would mean that the individual would not be reimbursed. This was not fair. If a person was travelling on behalf of the NYDA, then they should receive a travel allowance.

The Chairperson was in agreement. What was the definition of ‘out-of-pocket’? Sometimes when they travelled, the countries required their credit card information. Luckily the Members refused to share such information, as they wanted to avoid conflict with Parliament. This forced Parliament to give Members contingency money for emergency situations which would cover those expenses. The NYDA would have to incur all travel costs as board members were doing work for NYDA.

Mr Kganakga suggested amending what was in the Principal Act – 99% of the Amendment Bill was what in the original legislation. They had not considered how ‘or any allowance’ would affect the members. They could remove ‘or any allowance’. It would be wise to engage with NYDA on this to assess how best to resolve this.

The Chairperson called for responses from the NYDA.

Ms Lebogang Mulaisi, NYDA Board member, replied that she had never travelled overseas for the NYDA and therefore could not engage on this. She had travelled locally and claimed her expenses back from the Agency.

CEO Carrim suggested that they remove ‘or any allowance’. Members were entitled to an allowance be it travel or cell phone allowance.

The Chairperson asked about the arrangement for electronic devices.

CEO Carrim suggested that they include a clause stating that members be equipped with the requisite tools of trade when travelling, in order to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

Ms Masiko asked if all members received these tools or only the chairperson and deputy?

CEO Carrim confirmed that they provided all members with tools of trade according to the policies of the organisation.

Mr Kganakga disagreed with the proposal of adding a clause which spoke to tools of trade. There already existed an operational mechanism which assisted with the tools of trade, and the preceding clause discussed the conditions of service for the members which included any allowance. There was no need for the addition of the clause, the preceding clause already covered this.

The Chairperson accepted this and noted that the Minister of Finance often said that there was no money. They should find a better way of capturing it.

Clause 11 Amendment of section 10 of Act 54 of 2008
Mr Kganakga said that Clause 11 was not included in the Principal Act. This was added to provide ethical assurance that all members must submit their financial disclosures.

Ms Masiko asked what happened if a person had not submitted their financial disclosure. Were they removed?

Mr Kganakga replied that a process had to be followed as this was a serious ethical offence. This clause aimed at adding to a list of reasons which could land a board member in trouble and removed from office.

Ms Masiko said that if a person did not disclose there should be consequences. In Parliament, if a member did not disclose, there was a process and if the reasons given were not good enough, they could have their salary cut (two or three days pay). Were the consequences in the clause that the person would be removed from the Board?

Mr Kganakga confirmed this. Should this amendment pass, this would result in the member being removed from the Board.

Ms Masiko felt that this was too harsh. Even Members of Parliament were not treated this harshly; they only had their salaries cut. The harshest punishment was to have a month’s salary cut. There were always dynamics in these situations. She gave the example of cases of serious internal conflict in the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) and those CGE members could easily be removed if such a clause was to be applied. She called on other Committee members to comment.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) thought the punishment of removing a Board member was too harsh. Could they rather put sanctions in place? There could have been issues for the reason for not disclosing.

Ms Masiko asked the CEO if there was a disclosure policy.

CEO Carrim confirmed the existence of such a policy. They had an annual declaration of interest where each person must disclose the additional remuneration they received outside of employment, and this was subject to internal audit and external audit.

Ms Sharif said she understood Ms Masiko’s concerns. In Parliament, if disclosures were not submitted, there would be consequences with their party caucus and the person would be publicly shamed in Parliament. The Rules stated that should this offence re-occur, the offender could be disciplined by the Ethics Committee. This was harsh but this was also necessary to protect the integrity of the NYDA. If they removed this, it would place the NYDA at risk. They could re-word it rather.

Ms Masiko agreed that the wording needed to change. The policy would mean that a member could be dismissed for not disclosing.

She filled the Chairperson in on what they were discussing as Ms Ndaba had momentarily stepped out of the meeting. She asked if she thought the punishment for non-disclosure was too harsh.

In response, the Chairperson said that they needed to read this alongside the clause which spoke to dishonesty, because it had an element of dishonesty. Perhaps they could add a penalty to this, as was the case in Parliament with Members who did not disclose. This was a misconduct. Initially she was going to agree with what was written as sometimes it was necessary to be harsh. They should add a penalty because a board member could not repeatedly non-disclose and not suffer any punishment. If Committee members said this was too harsh, could they offer an alternative? Many people had been saying that the NYDA was corrupt. The Committee needed to remove all thoughts of such allegations and restore the dignity of the NYDA.

Ms Sharif said that it was necessary to hold people accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. They needed to have a stopgap. Declaring financial disclosures was very important to protect the dignity of the NYDA.

Ms Masondo suggested that they implement a two week salary penalty rather than being removed from the Board.

The Chairperson repeated what Ms Masondo had suggested. She asked the CEO how this would work and how it would be calculated for part-time Board members? Part-time government employees lost nothing, the persons who would be penalised was the chairperson and deputy.

CEO Carrim suggested that they receive legal advice on this and find out how other entities were handling this? He agreed that there needed to be a declaration process, and if this was not done, there needed to be consequences. He was concerned about enforcing deductions from remuneration of salaries; he was not sure that this was possible. He understood that Parliament worked with a different set of rules. They may suggest a different approach such as explanation to the relevant authorities for the non-declaration. He asked the Committee for permission to flag this matter and NYDA do research so that they return with the best possible solution.

The Chairperson granted the CEO’s request and asked for it to be finalised next week.

CEO Carrim agreed to have an update ready for the Committee next week.

The Chairperson said it would also give time for the State Law Advisors and Parliamentary Legal Advisor to look over this matter. Next week they would discuss the Bill clause by clause with amendments. She requested that the Department, NYDA, State Law Advisors all handle the non-disclosure matter.

Mr Kganakga said that they had not been asked to make any further amendments to the remaining clauses in the Bill.

The Chairperson asked about the provision for when a board member resigned from office or died; the President could appoint the next person on the list of recommendations from the National Assembly.

Mr Kganakga replied that this was already stated in clause 11 amending section 10(6) which he then read out.

The Chairperson if NYDA had anything to add.

Ms Luwaca replied that there was nothing to add; they were already covered.

The Chairperson thanked all for their participation.

Ms Neliswa Nobatana, Committee Secretary, referred to the changes made in the meeting by the Committee, they could adopt the motion of desirability and public inputs.

The Chairperson said after making all the changes, the Committee was to indicate whether the Bill was desirable or not, it was suggested that they rather do this next week. She suggested that they had already made the changes, all that was left was to receive update from the NYDA, the Department and State Law Advisors next week (the entities). There was no need to wait for the next meeting. This would take time, the entities would already meet to further discuss and plan for the next action of clause by clause.

Ms Masiko said most of the amendments they made were done. She was comfortable with the amendments. She agreed with the Chairperson. It would not make a difference to wait until next week. They could adopt now.

Ms Opperman suggested waiting until next week as the final version would only be released then.

The Chairperson resolved to wait until the next meeting to adopt. She advised that the legal teams make the necessary changes and discuss penalties for non-disclosure. They should circulate the proposed amendments to the Committee so they would be ready for the next meeting.

Mr Kganakga said they would meet that afternoon and provide a refined version by the next day.

The Committee agreed to meet on 10 November to assess if the Bill was desirable or not.

Mr Kganakga said they would ensure that the document was sent to them by 9 November.

The Chairperson said the work that the Committee did was important and necessary. It was all for a good cause and to ensure that oversight was done thoroughly.

The minutes of 20 and 24 October 2023 were considered and adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.