Policy Framework and legislation for the Integrated Planning and Implementation Plan, and its alignment to the DDM

Meeting report

The Chairperson informed the Committee that two apologies had been received – one from Mr L Motana (MK), and the other from the Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Dr Dickson Masemola.

Ms A Kumbaca (ANC) moved for the adoption of the meeting agenda.

Ms M Aphiri (ANC) seconded the proposal.

Opening remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson said the focus of the meeting would be to hear from the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) regarding the policy framework. She said that effective service provision required collaborative efforts from key government stakeholders. She acknowledged that fragmented efforts by government departments had led to duplication, waste of resources, and inadequate service provision. She emphasised that effective service delivery begins with integrated and coordinated planning by all key stakeholders. She highlighted the introduction of the District Development Model (DDM) as a significant initiative aimed at addressing service delivery challenges within local government and municipalities.

The Chairperson expressed concern about the absence of the Ministers and the Deputy Ministers, who appeared not to be in the meeting.

Mr Phetole Rampedi, Director: Parliamentary Liaison and Cabinet Support, DPME,  explained that a letter of apology had been sent regarding Minister Maropene Ramokgopa, who had been booked off sick for the entire week, and expressed surprise that this apology had not been acknowledged during the meeting.

The Chairperson responded that she had not received the email, which was meant to be shared with her.

The Committee Secretary apologised, acknowledging that it was her oversight, confirming they had received the apology.

The Chairperson then informed the Members that Minister Ramokgopa was unwell and had been booked off for the week, indicating that she would not be part of the meeting.

Mr Lebohang Tekane, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), apologised for arriving late and said that the Deputy Minister was currently travelling to the Free State due to an emergency, having had to leave that morning. He said he had sent the apology to the Committee Secretary.

The Committee Secretary added that the apology had also been posted in the WhatsApp group, stating that the Deputy Minister was in the Free State.

Ms K Christie (DA) raised a concern about the significance of the model being evaluated, questioning whether they should proceed with the meeting in the absence of both the Minister and Deputy Minister.

The Chairperson acknowledged Ms Christie's question about whether the meeting should continue without the Minister and Deputy Minister, stating that their expectation had been for both to be present, along with the Minister and Deputy Minister of COGTA. She was uncertain about the attendance of the others.

Mr N Buthelezi (IFP) asked whether there was any precedent for such situations, suggesting that this could not be the first instance of a similar occurrence. He expressed concern about the implications of the meeting proceeding without the key Ministers, stating that he believed there ought to be a clear process for handling such situations in the future. He emphasised that the meeting's content depended significantly on the input from the Ministers. He said that, ultimately, it was at the discretion of the Chairperson and Members to decide whether to proceed, considering the potential impacts on the meeting.

The Chairperson addressed the meeting, stating they could not proceed without the Minister or Deputy Minister. However, she proposed that they could continue since the team from the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation was present, led by Dr Robert Nkuna, the Director-General. She assured the Members that their concerns would be communicated to the Ministry, emphasising that future meetings must include either the Minister or the Deputy Minister.

She said that they would proceed with the meeting for that day, allowing Dr Nkuna to make his remarks and then lead the presentation. She referred to the importance of the Portfolio Committee, highlighting its oversight role over other departments and government entities. She insisted that if one of the key Ministers was absent, at least one should be present at the meeting.

She said a letter of concern would be drafted, ensuring that the Minister and Deputy Minister received the message about the need for their attendance. If the Minister was unavailable, the Deputy Minister should attend. She concluded by requesting that they proceed with the meeting, inviting Dr Nkuna to take the floor.

Opening remarks by DPME

Dr Nkuna said he would convey the message to the relevant parties.

He then apologised on behalf of Mr Mbulelo Tshangana, DG, COGTA, who was unable to attend due to his commitment to a budget meeting with the Treasury technical committee. He explained that they had agreed that he would focus on this meeting, while Mr Tshangana would attend the other.

Dr Nkuna noted the presence of various Deputy Directors-General (DDGs) and colleagues from the Department of Cooperative Governance. He acknowledged the contributions of individuals involved in the implementation of the District Development Model (DDM). He mentioned that the upcoming presentation would be a joint effort between the two departments.

He said that while some progress had been made in implementing the DDM, significant challenges remained. One major issue identified was the poor participation from the economic cluster at both national and provincial levels, which he regarded as a serious concern. He recognised that many of these departments were small and based in Pretoria, limiting their ability to cover all 52 areas consistently. To address this, they had recently met with the economic cluster departments to discuss potential solutions, considering their size and lack of local offices.

Dr Nkuna concluded by stating that if the medium term strategic framework (MTSF) identified the economy as a priority, the economic cluster departments must be present and lead on its implementation. He then invited Ms Stefanie Chetty to begin the presentation, assuring that all attendees would collaborate in their discussions.

DPME presentation on DDM

Ms Stefanie Chetty, DDG: National Planning Coordination, DPME, outlined the focus of her presentation, which centred on an integrated approach to the policy framework for integrated planning and the incorporation of the DDM.

She outlined the main components of her presentation: the policy framework for integrated planning, a background overview, development planning frameworks, relevant legislation, the DPME’s role in supporting the DDM, and current challenges, particularly in disaster management.

She explained that the policy framework aimed to strengthen developmental outcomes and was aligned with the National Development Plan (NDP) and the Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2024-2029. The framework seeks to enhance coherence across government spheres and improve alignment between various planning systems.

Ms Chetty said the DPME oversees national and provincial planning systems, while the COGTA manages local government planning, including the DDM. The implementation plan consists of 21 outputs, indicators, and targets for which several departments, including the National Planning Commission Secretariat and National Treasury, were responsible.

One key output was the approved planning frameworks and guidelines for national, provincial, and local governments. In 2021, COGTA had developed guidelines for the DDM, and quality assurance processes were underway for 30 priority districts.

During her discussion of the legislative framework, she pointed out that regulations were published to institutionalise the DDM under the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act of 2005. She clarified that while the DDM aimed for comprehensive planning, it did not replace existing plans or strategies.

She illustrated the DDM’s implementation, noting both successes and challenges across the nine provinces. While there had been achievements, such as the submission of updated One Plans, challenges remained, including insufficient participation from national sector departments and underfunded projects. She underscored the importance of ongoing collaboration among all stakeholders to effectively address these challenges.

She also highlighted recent updates from the Northwest and Western Cape provinces, where One Plans had been submitted. Challenges identified in the Western Cape included the need for greater commitment from government departments and state-owned entities (SOEs), as well as the impact of the coalition government on planning.

As the presentation progressed, Ms Chetty emphasised the role of the DPME in supporting the institutionalisation of the DDM through planning coordination and support, ensuring alignment with national and provincial plans. She outlined the DPME’s efforts in monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with planning requirements and to improve accountability.

She continued by discussing the need to incorporate spatial development within planning systems, supported by the National Spatial Development Framework. This spatialisation was critical for enhancing planning efficiency and addressing service delivery challenges, especially in light of the lessons learned from the recent flood disasters.

In closing, she reiterated that the policy framework for integrated planning served as an enabling instrument for improved coordination and integrated planning, while emphasising the need for continued collaboration among key departments, including the DPME, COGTA, and the Department of Land Reform.

Ms Chetty expressed optimism about the DDM's potential for enhanced integrated planning and implementation, even as progress across districts varied.

[See attached for full presentation]

Discussion

Mr D Bergman (DA) also voiced his disappointment regarding the absence of Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and Directors-General at the meeting. He said the meeting had been rescheduled multiple times, emphasising the ease of attendance given the virtual format. While acknowledging that the Ministers had valid reasons for their absence, he pointed out that other ministers from the Presidency could have attended to discuss the DDM.

He highlighted the Committee's significant role in overseeing the National Development Plan (NDP) implementation, stressing the importance of attendance and engagement from all involved parties. He articulated concerns over the Committee's ability to demonstrate its importance if attendance remained low. He suggested that the question-and-answer format should be more standardised, allowing each Member a set time for questions and responses, which would facilitate more meaningful discussions.

He pointed to inconsistencies in answers provided in different committees, indicating a lack of coherence that could mislead opinions. He also mentioned the issues surrounding the DDM's pilot projects, citing a lack of attendance at public meetings due to departmental involvement. He reiterated the necessity for high-level support to ensure project success, and suggested regular joint meetings among involved ministers to foster collaboration.

He expressed a desire to learn from the pilot projects to avoid duplication, and highlighted the need for effective communication between the different levels of government. He advocated identifying successful projects across districts and adapting them as needed, rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all approach. He concluded by urging a focus on efficient resource management and streamlined projects to avoid redundancies.

Ms Christie expressed her concerns regarding the potential duplication of processes within the DDM. She questioned the necessity of the DDM, suggesting it may be an unnecessary replication of the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), which was already mandated within local government legislation. She pointed out a significant challenge indicated in the presentation, which was the lack of involvement and participation during pilot projects. She also noted that, according to the presentation, no one plan had been submitted for the City of Cape Town's metropolitan area, prompting her to investigate further.

In her inquiry, she spoke directly with the Mayor of Cape Town, who stated that the City had opted not to participate in the One Plan process, as they already had a comprehensive, integrated development plan (IDP) in place. Ms Christie stressed that this IDP, designed to foster participation and cohesion among different levels of government and SOEs, illustrated that the DDM may be viewed as a superfluous duplication of existing processes. She argued that the DDM could potentially infringe on the constitutional separation of mandates between national and local government, by requiring local government plans to receive approval from provincial and national authorities despite local governments having their own constitutional roles.

Ms Christie also raised concerns regarding the national government's substantial debt, amounting to R5.2 trillion, which she described as unsustainable and precarious. She stressed the need to eliminate wasteful and duplicate expenditure and to redirect the focus towards supporting struggling local municipalities in developing their IDPs and budgets effectively rather than introducing another layer of complexity with the DDM.

Reflecting on her experience as a former city councillor in Cape Town, she proposed that organisations like the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) should assist struggling municipalities in returning to fundamental governance practices. She asserted that many municipalities lacked the basic skills to budget appropriately, leading to the misallocation of funds toward salaries rather than essential infrastructure maintenance.

Ms Christie lamented the deteriorating state of local services, citing her observations in Makhanda (Grahamstown), where local municipalities struggled to maintain basic infrastructure due to improper budgeting.

She concluded by emphasising the need to empower local governments, maintain simplicity, and avoid unnecessary duplications in systems that could otherwise function effectively. Her ultimate aim was to enhance service delivery, particularly for disadvantaged communities in both the Eastern and Western Cape, by advocating a return to basics rather than the introduction of overly sophisticated models.

Ms Kumbanca commenced her remarks by expressing her appreciation for the report presented by the DPME. She commended the submission of the One Plans related to the provincial implementation of the DDM. She emphasised the importance of addressing the challenges outlined in the report, advocating the establishment of clear and realistic time frames to facilitate the smooth implementation of the DDM.

She also sought to understand the extent of accountability mechanisms in place for the DDM champions. She inquired about the accountability framework associated with their work, specifically regarding how it ensured effective implementation of the DDM. She concluded her comments by asking if there were any accountability tools established for the DDM to guarantee that their responsibilities were fulfilled effectively.

Ms Aphiri aligned herself with her colleagues in acknowledging and accepting the report. She proceeded to pose two questions for consideration.

Firstly, she inquired about the potential value of long-term planning for the various districts, specifically questioning how the DPME and the National Planning Commission would initiate a process to assist local governments and provinces in this regard, especially considering that they were currently in the fifth year of the NDP cycle, which aims for completion by 2030.

Her second question centred on how the guidelines of the DDM would ensure that integrated planning at the district level begins during the conceptual stage, rather than resulting in a mere amalgamation of plans that could undermine the objectives of having one district, one plan, and one budget.

Mr Buthelezi also expressed his disquiet regarding the Minister's absence, acknowledging the reasons but suggesting that the Committee should not settle for less than adequate representation. He said that the presence of over 30 diaries (presentation) contradicted the Committee's objectives, especially since the Minister's presence was essential for addressing questions directly. He highlighted the need for targeted questions at the oversight level. He cautioned against the “broken telephone syndrome” that occurred when the Committee heard from the Director-General instead of the Minister. He reiterated the importance of documenting the need for clearer representation.

Mr Buthelezi moved on to express concern about the lack of clarity regarding the outcomes of the three pilot projects. He emphasised that engaging in such initiatives should yield information about what to stop, start, and continue doing.

He conveyed his agreement with Ms Christie's observation about the overwhelming number of initiatives that seemed to exceed comprehension. He remarked that while none of the Committee Members was foolish, the complexity of some matters was concerning. He commented that South Africa was rich in policy but poor in implementation, which raised questions about success stories across the provinces. He wondered how widely these successes were shared, emphasising the importance of avoiding siloed operations.

Mr Buthelezi also raised a point about conducting capability assessments within the government, comparing it to business practices where regular evaluations of teams and boards were essential. He expressed concern about the presence of “oxygen thieves” within the framework of “cadre deployment.”

He urged that the process needed simplification, stating that the document appeared overly complicated and required a deep understanding to grasp fully. He remarked that the people who lived with these matters daily could present them better, but there needed to be a simplification process for broader understanding.

He pointed out that, while reading a conclusion in the document, it mentioned the necessity of strengthening collaboration across departments. He stressed the importance of knowing the current state of collaboration to identify gaps and their significance.

Mr Buthelezi concluded by inquiring about the possibility of submitting written questions to be answered directly by the Minister, indicating that he would seek guidance on how to proceed without detracting from the Committee's capabilities.

The Chairperson expressed gratitude for the contributions, and indicated that questions could be sent to the Committee Secretary, who would then submit them to the relevant department.

She said she had only three questions for the Department, specifically regarding the presentation on the provinces. She inquired about the challenges raised in the presentation. She asked the Department what mechanism was required to enable strategic SOEs to participate in the Township and Rural Development process, particularly concerning economic planning, to ensure that public and private investments were mutually reinforcing.

The Chairperson highlighted the challenges of SOEs not participating, along with issues related to some national government departments. She asked how the medium term development plan (MTDP) would be translated into the DDM learning process. She also posed a question on whether the current process of updating the implementation plan of the DDM would review the output indicators to include the outcome indicators of all departments.

Response

Mr Mpho Mogale, Acting DDG: Local Government Operations and Support, COGTA, addressed the concerns Mr Bergman and Mr Buthelezi raised about the lessons learned from the pilot projects. He said a study had been conducted on these pilots, and reminded the Members that the DDM was launched by President Ramaphosa in 2019, with the initial plan to conduct three pilot projects. These pilots were intended to run for a minimum of two years, after which the lessons learned would be applied to roll out the model to the remaining districts and metropolitan areas. However, a decision was made by the leadership to roll out the DDM simultaneously with the pilot projects, resulting in all districts and metropolitan areas being assigned to develop their profiles and One Plans.

He described the positive outcomes in the Waterberg district, where stakeholders had been successfully mobilised, and mentioned collaborating with a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to assist in this effort. He highlighted the effective partnerships established between the private sector and local municipalities, facilitated by the provincial government of Limpopo.

Mr Mogale said that local leadership, including traditional leaders, actively supported the DDM initiative in the OR Tambo District Municipality. He remarked on the capacity built within these hubs to support municipalities in packaging their plans coherently. He acknowledged that challenges had been identified in the presentation made by Ms Chetty, but stressed the need for all stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society, to operate cohesively.

Addressing a question from Ms Christie about the City of Cape Town, Mr Mogale confirmed that the City had officially communicated its refusal to implement the DDM. He noted similar sentiments from the provincial government of the Western Cape regarding the Integrated Development Plan. He mentioned a recent meeting where the Minister had reminded the City of Cape Town's management that while they might have a clean audit on paper, underlying issues persisted within the community. He reiterated that the IDP was a critical tool for guiding planning and budgeting, but may not address the broader integration needed in development.

Mr Mogale emphasised that the DDM aims to break down silos and facilitate a more coherent community and government operation. He acknowledged that while the IDP would continue, the DDM would enhance collaboration among stakeholders, enabling prioritisation of programmes to improve local economies.

He also addressed the timelines regarding the "Champions" appointed by the President for various district and metro spaces, mentioning that former Minister Pravin Gordhan had been assigned to the City of Ekurhuleni and had been able to make significant contributions. Preparations were underway to sharpen the machinery for these Champions to perform their duties effectively.

He elaborated on the importance of the Champions’ roles, noting that previously, there had been issues with integration due to ministerial responsibilities being compartmentalised. However, with the establishment of structures within districts and metropolitan areas, there would be consolidated reports to assess conditions in those spaces. He highlighted that the Presidency was currently involved in addressing challenges in specific areas, such as integrity.

Mr Mogale explained that the Champions would assist in reducing bureaucracy and red tape, ensuring that local challenges, particularly those linked to the Department of Health, were escalated directly to relevant ministers for quicker resolutions. He emphasised the necessity for the Champions to report quarterly to the President, with officials supporting their efforts.

Regarding the conceptualisation of the DDM, he said it did not replace any existing legislation, but aimed to enhance coherence and accountability in community operations. He stressed the need for a mindset shift among all stakeholders and the necessity for collaboration across the various spheres of government.

In conclusion, Mr Mogale affirmed that those municipalities that refused to implement the DDM would face scrutiny, especially as the Auditor-General (AG) begins to assess participation levels. He reiterated the commitment to implementing this approach across the country. He called on the Members to support efforts to encourage municipalities and address any manifestations of fragmentation in the system.

Mr Nkuna began by summarising several key issues, stating that the needs raised by the districts, although varying from one to another, often revolved around common themes such as security, local economic development, and the provision of basic services. He emphasised that while certain challenges were common, there were also issues specific to certain areas, which were documented accordingly.

Regarding the Western Cape, Mr Nkuna acknowledged that the province had started its own coordination between municipalities and the province. However, he clarified that the Western Cape could not operate independently from the national government, as there were instances when the province still required national government’s involvement. He explained that efforts were being made to support the province in the best possible way, even within the current circumstances.

He turned his attention to the Makhanda Municipality, noting that it was one of the municipalities under scrutiny due to severe service delivery issues. A plan had been presented to Cabinet the previous week on how to address these issues, and he suggested that the Director-General of Cooperative Governance could be invited to return to the Committee and provide further details.

He stressed the importance of coordination at the district level, explaining that while some departments at the national level were small and focused on the elite, the introduction of the District Development Model created 52 coordination spaces, which made it easier to coordinate and involve various departments. He mentioned that within a district, there were typically four municipalities, and the DDM also ensured that coordination occurred between the municipalities and the district itself, as well as among the municipalities.

Mr Nkuna addressed the issue of SOEs, explaining that the Department of Cooperative Governance had been instructed to avoid having people spend too much time in meetings. Instead, for each district’s plan, only the relevant SOEs should be identified and invited to participate, based on the specific needs of that area. This approach would avoid the inefficiency of having all SOEs attend multiple meetings unnecessarily. The same strategy was being applied to the economic cluster departments, ensuring that the relevant department was involved in specific projects without overburdening them with unnecessary participation in every district.

On the issue of the medium-term strategic framework versus the DDM, he clarified that all DDM-related matters must be incorporated into the MTSF implementation plan. This would ensure that no activity operated outside of the main government framework, holding the Department of Cooperative Governance accountable for implementation. He also mentioned that for every programme or project, a geo-referencing system should be in place from the outset to track progress in specific areas, such as Ulundi. This system would make it easier for the government to follow up on work being carried out.

Mr Nkuna acknowledged that a request had been made for a detailed plan outlining the timeframes for all the issues mentioned. He assured the Committee that the plan would be submitted through the Minister after engaging with the Department of Cooperative Governance, providing the Committee with a comprehensive overview of the steps moving forward.

Follow-up discussion

Ms Christie expressed her agreement with the fact that the City of Cape Town faced significant challenges, including a rapidly growing population, the need to counter apartheid spatial planning, and the urgent development of social housing in an integrated manner. She acknowledged the magnitude of these challenges, but emphasised that the City of Cape Town already had an Integrated Development Plan in place.

She said that while the District Development Model did not replace the IDP, it was undeniably duplicating it. She pointed out that this duplication was happening against the backdrop of a national government burdened by serious debt, amounting to R5.2 trillion -- 75% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Ms Christie used a personal example, explaining that when she herself was in debt, she would cut wasteful expenditure, such as selling an extra car instead of buying another.

She questioned why, with a functional system like the IDP already in place, the government was duplicating efforts. She asked how much the DDM was costing, what the cost of the pilot projects had been, and how much the future implementation of the DDM would cost, given that the country could not afford to duplicate systems.

She asked whether the DDM was worth it, and if it had proven successful, particularly in terms of private sector participation and collaboration. Referring to what she had read, she expressed doubt, saying that it seemed the DDM had not achieved the expected collaboration. She suggested it would be better to go back to basics, ensuring local municipalities fulfilled their legislated mandates without duplicating efforts.

Ms Christie argued that the DDM was outdated, being a sixth administration policy, and called for the Government of National Unity to review and update it. She urged the Committee to simplify processes, reduce costs and avoid duplication, highlighting the unsustainable borrowing of R14 billion per week by the national government to fund its budget. She warned that the country was only five years away from a fiscal cliff.

In conclusion, she reiterated her request for details on the costs of the DDM, questioned its effectiveness, and asked if it was truly worth pursuing. She also requested that future meetings be held in person, with the Ministers and Deputy Ministers from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation present, rather than online.

Mr S Gama (MK) said he believed the concept of the DDM was a fantastic idea, provided it could be effectively implemented. He said the main challenge appeared to be the lack of integration, which he felt required a unification of intentions and purposes, or an "amalgamation of spirits," as he termed it. He clarified that by "spirits," he was referring to the need for various departments -- such as Cooperative Governance, the Department of Environmental Affairs, and the Department of Rural Development, among others -- to work together cohesively.

He observed that the cohesion necessary for the DDM's success seemed to be missing, and suggested that this issue might be more political than administrative. He questioned how the Minister of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation intended to bring together these different departments, which appeared to have disparate objectives, to develop a unified, patriotic vision for South Africa’s planning and development. He emphasised that this unified approach was essential for ensuring that projects, particularly in rural areas, would have a meaningful impact on the population.

Mr Gama pointed out that effective service delivery at the district and municipal levels was crucial. He expressed concern that too much time was being spent on political disputes, rather than focusing on practical outcomes. He called for a spirit of patriotism and unity across departments, stressing that the primary goal should be to make a tangible impact on the lives of the poorest communities.

He raised specific concerns about delays caused by environmental impact assessments. He questioned how the DDM could facilitate strategic environmental assessments to speed up project approvals and move swiftly into the implementation phase. He commented that the public was not interested in the bureaucratic arguments between government departments, but rather in seeing actual service delivery.

He said people were looking to government to deliver basic public goods and services at the local level. He emphasised the importance of having ministers present at such meetings to discuss how they planned to address these issues and enforce the necessary steps. He underlined the need for a unified approach in South Africa, ensuring that stakeholder consultations and discussions took place early on so that projects could proceed without unnecessary delays.

Mr Gama warned that remaining stuck in a perpetual planning mindset was not an option, as the people of South Africa wanted to see tangible development. He concluded by affirming his belief that the DDM was a coherent plan, and that any shortcomings were not due to the model itself, but rather to a lack of cooperation and coordination among the people involved. He called for the removal of personal egos, and urged the Minister and the President to take the lead in ensuring that these issues were addressed. Without such leadership, he cautioned, there was a risk of returning to siloed approaches, which would hinder progress.

DPME's response

Dr Nkuna addressed the Committee, wrapping up a few issues. He confirmed that in metropolitan areas, the metro acted as a DDM area, meaning the eight metros were treated as districts. As a result, the problems identified at that level were considered district-level problems. He acknowledged that there could be debate over whether this was referred to as an Integrated Development Plan or a DDM, but he believed both served the same purpose. He explained that this understanding was the reason for the decision to treat each metro as a district.

He expressed agreement with Mr Gama's point, noting that the DDM provided an opportunity to create a platform to address gridlocks that occasionally arise. He shared several experiences where the DDM had helped resolve inter-sphere issues, which he described as significant and serious in the way South Africa was organised. He said that challenges related to title deeds had often been about the roles of different government spheres, and the DDM was increasingly helping to address these emerging issues.

He concluded by stating that the departments would report to their respective ministers, providing a summary of the engagement and advising on the issues raised by Members. On behalf of the two departments, Dr Nkuna expressed his gratitude for being allowed to proceed with the meeting, even in the absence of the ministers.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson expressed gratitude, and stated that there was consensus that the department must ensure accountability of DDM Champions, the COGTA, the DPME, and the National Planning Commission. She stressed the need to develop a road map to support districts with long-term planning, ensuring the enforcement of joint plans. She emphasised the importance of the work done by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), which had developed DDM-focused indicators. As a result, the department needed to include the outcome indicators of the DDM levers, drawing on the work from Stats SA.

She noted that no further questions had been raised, and Members appeared satisfied with the responses provided, so she granted the Department permission to leave the meeting. She acknowledged that the discomfort expressed by Members regarding the absence of the Minister or Deputy Minister had been noted and communicated. She also confirmed that she would write a letter to the Ministry on behalf of the Portfolio Committee.

Draft third term Committee programme

The meeting moved on to discuss and consider the draft of the third term Committee programme.

Ms Kumbanca said she was generally fine with the programme, but expressed concern about the session scheduled for Wednesday in the first week. She was worried about the issue of clashes, asking how the Committee could manage that. However, she confirmed that she was fine with the Tuesday and Friday sessions, as well as the rest of the draft programme.

The Chairperson responded, thanking Ms Kumbanca and noting her concern. She said that the Committee would look into the session scheduled for 9 October with the team, to see if an alternative date could be arranged when all Members were available. She affirmed that the team would discuss this and provide feedback, and indicated that the programme was ready for adoption for the third term.

Ms Kumbanca then moved for the adoption of the programme.

The Chairperson, observing no further hands raised, confirmed that all Members appeared comfortable with the programme. She proceeded to move on to the next item on the agenda, which was the consideration of the minutes.

Adoption of minutes

The Committee considered the minutes of its meeting held on 6 September.

Mr Bergman expressed concern over the phrasing of the 4.2 heading, saying that he found it somewhat divisive and not in line with the spirit in which the question had been raised or the answer provided. He pointed out that in section 4.2.1, there was a suggestion to avoid providing reasons for what had been perceived as distress, or a reluctance to participate in the survey. He felt that the heading was both misleading and leading, and recommended an alternative. He suggested changing the wording to acknowledge that the unique census-related challenges experienced in the Western Cape required greater scrutiny. He proposed that the statement ends with a full stop after the mention of understanding the root causes of the undercounts, with the rest of the wording deleted.

Ms Christie expressed her gratitude to the Chairperson for making corrections to the minutes. She clarified that while they could have mentioned understanding the root causes of public mistrust, this point was later addressed in 4.2.1. Ms Christie stressed that the matter had nothing to do with racial profiling. She recounted an experience from Monday, where a white Afrikaans man had attempted to defraud her, but her awareness from previous encounters had helped her avoid falling for the scam. She emphasised that the issue was not about race, but rather the increasing number of impostors in her area. Ms Christie, who was a local councillor in the southern suburbs of Cape Town, fully supported the Statistician-General's statement about the need for public advocacy to tackle the causes of mistrust. She concluded by thanking the Chairperson for removing the contentious points from the minutes.

Ms Kumbaca moved to adopt the minutes, including the proposed amendments, and Ms Aphiri seconded the motion.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson thanked the Members, confirming that the minutes had been adopted with the amendments. She concluded the meeting by thanking everyone for their participation, including the support team and the secretary.

The meeting was adjourned.