NYDA Vacancies: Advert Approval & programme

Meeting report

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson explained the purpose of the meeting, particularly for those Members who had not attended the previous Portfolio Committee meeting held at a hotel. She outlined the brief they had received from the Office of the Speaker, noting that the Act had not yet been gazetted, which had prevented the Committee from proceeding earlier.

She reminded the Members, especially first-term Members, about the legislative process and how it involved both Houses of Parliament, although the issue in question now fell under the domain of the National Assembly. She emphasised the importance of protecting the integrity of both the Committee and Parliament, noting that the Committee had previously decided to proceed cautiously to avoid litigation.

She said she had been mandated to communicate with relevant authorities regarding the proclamation and was pleased to announce that the Act has now been signed. The content adviser would now take the Committee through the process, and Members had been sent the relevant documents.

She apologised for the meeting being held during the constituency period, but explained that national interest and urgency allowed for such meetings. She acknowledged the challenges of virtual meetings, such as network problems, and expressed her preference for a face-to-face setting to ensure everyone was clear on the process.

She acknowledged that returning Members were familiar with the challenges from the previous term concerning the filling of vacancies at the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). She expressed a desire to avoid repeating those issues. While unforeseen challenges might arise, the Committee should strive to avoid situations within their control. She also cautioned Members about speaking to the media individually, reminding them that decisions taken by the Committee were collective, even if Members had differing political views.

She reiterated the importance of the meeting, emphasising that it was about the young people of South Africa, not individual or party interests. Despite some tension in the room, she encouraged Members to proceed with a shared understanding.

The Chairperson explained that the briefing they were about to receive was an administrative process, not requiring a quorum. She clarified that quorums were necessary for adopting reports or voting, and urged Members to prioritise attending such meetings.

After welcoming everyone, she noted the presence of delegates from the Office of the Speaker.

Ms G Mchunu (MK) introduced herself.

Mr Jabulani Majozi, Media Officer, Parliamentary Communication Services, also introduced himself.

The Chairperson introduced Ms Kashiefa Abrahams, the Committee’s Content Advisor, explaining that her role was to deeply understand the issues the Department was dealing with and provide guidance to the Committee. She had the responsibility to advise them. The Chairperson stressed that when challenges arose, the Committee could not claim they were not advised, as Ms Abrahams would remind them that she had indeed offered guidance. However, she pointed out that the final decision remained with the Members. She then handed over to Ms Abrahams to begin her presentation.

NYDA board appointment process

Ms Kashiefa Abrahams, Content Advisor, Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and People with Disabilities, added to the Chairperson’s remarks, explaining that the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) had been reporting to this Committee for the past eight years, especially regarding the appointment of board members, which always attracted significant attention. She mentioned that Ms S Khawula (EFF) had participated in two previous appointment processes, and Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) had been involved around 12 years ago. Given the importance of the process, the last round had seen over 1 000 applications from across the country, sparking both media interest and inquiries from constituencies.

Ms Abrahams noted that some Members had received both electronic and hard copies of the NYDA Amendment Act, which would help them understand the board’s role and expectations. She then outlined the next steps, beginning with Committee Secretary's presentation of three key tasks. These included taking Members through the programme, which was expected to continue until early January 2024 due to the requirements for advertising, public participation, and interviews.

She reiterated the Chairperson's point about the importance of quorum and Member participation. Once the Committee agreed and adopted the programme, the advert, and the online application, the Committee would essentially become a panel. Members present for the shortlist process would be part of the interview panel, and they would later decide who to recommend based on the applicants' curricula vitae (CVs) and interviews. She emphasised the need for a core group of consistent Members, as it would be difficult for those who missed key parts of the process to contribute effectively.

Ms Abrahams reminded Members that they could ask questions at any time. She introduced the legal adviser, Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Officer: Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy, and Ms Tasneem Matthews, Researcher: Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and People with Disabilities, who had worked with the NYDA in Parliament for 13 years. Together, they formed a team supporting the Committee.

They would walk Members through the draft programme and draft advert. The advert’s publication would involve supply chain management, meaning they could not choose specific newspapers, and she would explain that process. Ms Abrahams herself would then explain the online application form, highlighting that Parliament had gone paperless to ensure submissions were time-stamped, stored securely, and tamper-proof, making the process more efficient.

Draft programme for the filling of NYDA vacancies

Ms Neliswa Nobatana, the Committee Secretary, said the programme had been emailed and was also visible on the screen. She explained that the programme combined the process for filling vacancies with the regular Committee meetings.

Starting with the first meeting held on 10 September 2024, she noted that the Committee had received a briefing from the legal adviser about the process. The second meeting was taking place today, during which they would consider and adopt the programme, and draft the advertisement and online application. From 26 September until 10 October, a two-week period would be set aside for the administration of the process, which involved preparing the advert and its translations.

Ms Nobatana pointed out that in previous vacancy-filling processes, the Committee had agreed to have adverts translated into all South African languages. The supply chain management (SCM) team would handle placing the adverts in newspapers, ensuring they appeared in all the languages agreed upon. The advert would run for 30 days in print media, after which the SCM process would ensure it was published in the appropriate newspapers, with one national paper being in English and the others in regional and local languages. The parliamentary communications officer would also ensure the advert was placed on the parliamentary website to provide broad access.

After the closing date for public applications on 12 November, the Committee would conduct the shortlisting a week later. From 20 November to 3 December, the parliamentary Human Resources would screen the shortlisted candidates' CVs. The candidates would also be listed on the parliamentary website for public comment. The administrative staff would coordinate with Parliament's Protection Services to verify candidates' information through the State Security Agency (SSA), while parliamentary Human Resources would assist with qualification verification. Personal details would be kept private in compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).

Ms Nobatana said that interviews would occur on 21 January 2025, after the Committee received all the necessary information, including public comments and screening results. Following the interviews, the Committee would deliberate on the candidates on the following Tuesday, and aimed to adopt the report by 4 February 2025.

Discussion

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) voiced concern over the timeline, noting that the board's term was set to end in November. Given the projected timeframes, she pointed out that the report would reach the National Assembly only in February 2025, and considering the time the President had taken to appoint the board in the past, a new board might not be in place until April. This would leave the NYDA without a board for about six months, which was worrying, especially in light of the stability issues at the agency and the youth unemployment crisis.

Ms Van der Merwe suggested tightening the timeframes. She proposed shortening the advertising period slightly, allowing the team to finalise CVs by 15 November, and to conduct shortlisting on that Friday. This would provide a two-week window for public comments and civil society feedback. She further recommended reconvening on 29 November for the interviews, allowing the Committee to deliberate on 3 December and possibly pass the report before Parliament entered the constituency period on 13 December. She acknowledged that this plan might be tight, but urged the Committee to consider the urgency of the situation.

Ms M Rweqana (MK) asked for clarification regarding the shortlisting process, specifically enquiring about the criteria considered when evaluating candidates. She also wanted to know who would be on the panel responsible for this task.

Ms E Spies (DA) aligned herself with the sentiments Ms Van der Merwe raised, and chose not to repeat them. Instead, she sought clarity about the period from 20 November to 3 December, which involved pre-employment screening and civil society comments on the shortlisted candidates. She asked when the Committee would have the opportunity to review and provide input on these public comments, ensuring they were considered in the overall process.

Ms S Khawula (EFF) agreed with Ms Van der Merwe, pointing out the urgency of the situation. Given that the board would cease to function in November, she emphasised that the National Youth Development Agency could not afford to operate for months without a board, and the vacancies needed to be filled as soon as possible.

Ms N Gasa (MK) sought clarification regarding the advertisement process. She noted that the advert would be placed in print media and wanted to confirm if this was correct, as well as why print media was the only medium selected.

Ms A Khanyile (DA) expressed her respect for all official languages in South Africa, but questioned the necessity of translating the advert into all these languages. She raised a concern about accessibility for individuals with visual impairments, and asked whether provisions had been made to ensure they could access the information. She offered to assist in disseminating the advert through her respective portfolios if necessary.

Ms Khanyile also referred to a document that had been circulated, which outlined the criteria mentioned by a Member. She inquired whether this information would be made available on the website. Returning to her initial question about translation, she pointed out that the translation process would take about two weeks, which had been highlighted by Ms Van der Merwe and Ms Spies as contributing to delays in finalising the process. She asked whether it would be possible to proceed with the advert in English only to shorten the timeline, especially considering the time required for the supply chain management (SCM) process.

Ms T Chauke-Adonis (ANC) agreed with Ms Khanyile’s points about ensuring the advert and information dissemination strategy would make the details accessible to all young people across South Africa. She asked if sign language and Braille printing had been considered in addition to the translation into various South African languages, especially since the advert would be printed.

She also asked about plans for collaborating with organisations to help spread the information, and whether organisations would be allowed to make submissions for their preferred candidates to be shortlisted. Further, she referred to a point previously raised by Ms Spies, seeking clarity on the composition of the panel responsible for the interview process. She reminded the Chairperson that there had been a promise to address how the panel would be constituted.

Ms Chauke-Adonis requested guidance on how the information would be communicated beyond print media. She asked for a briefing to ensure that Members had a consistent and appropriate response when engaging with communities, especially during the constituency period. She emphasised the need for clear communication to prevent Members from inadvertently committing the Portfolio Committee to something not yet agreed upon. She asked for alignment with the Committee’s direction and instructions from the Chairperson on how to respond to inquiries from community members or media outlets.

The Chairperson began by addressing the latter issue, reminding the Members that they were currently in the constituency period, and as such, the focus was on an administrative process. She explained that when Members were approached by constituents and asked about the meeting, they should respond that the Committee had been briefed on an administrative process regarding timeframes and other procedural matters. She used herself as an example, noting how she would answer similar questions from her constituency.

She went on to clarify that there were nine official languages, with sign language now making it 10. Referring to a previous Committee discussion, she stressed that they should avoid any actions that could open them up to litigation by using only one official language. She acknowledged that the Committee Secretary had mentioned the procurement processes Parliament follows, but reiterated that they could not proceed using only one official language.

She also explained the difference between the current process and a bill. If they were dealing with a bill, public comments would be requested, and adverts would be placed to invite public input. In contrast, this process involved the formation of a board, and it was the Committee's responsibility to constitute the board based on established procedures. Civil society could comment on shortlisted candidates during the designated period, but they would not be involved in appointing or suggesting specific individuals.

The Chairperson emphasised that the Committee Members were responsible for conducting the interviews and shortlisting candidates. She pointed out the importance of commitment, warning that pulling out midway through the process would create obstacles for the rest of the Committee. She proposed reworking the timeframes, adding that it was crucial for Members serving on other Committees to inform the secretariat about their availability. This way, she could address the scheduling with the Office of the Chair of Chairs.

She urged Members to communicate with their respective party leaders about potential schedule conflicts, as she would do the same with her own. She assured the Members that she had noted their concerns and would take them into consideration when reporting back.

On the issue of Braille and other formats for the visually impaired, she promised to investigate whether such documents were available in Parliament. If there were delays in producing Braille materials, she would look into alternatives to assist visually impaired individuals without causing delays in the process. She handed over to Ms Abrahams for more administrative responses, particularly on the procedural and logistical matters raised.

Ms Abrahams began by providing details on the shortlisting process. She mentioned that around 15 November, they would be able to indicate if they could bring the shortlisting process closer. She explained that Members would not receive physical CVs but rather application forms, similar to those used in government, which capture all the essential information. This data would then be converted by the information communications technology (ICT) team into an Excel spreadsheet, allowing for efficient tracking of submissions. She noted that if an applicant submitted multiple applications, they would take the latest one. After the ICT team closed submissions at midnight, it would take about three days to review the spreadsheet, during which duplicate applications would be identified.

Ms Abrahams explained that the final Excel spreadsheet would include all the necessary information for Members to review. She also highlighted the importance of public commentary, noting that the public had complained about insufficient time to comment on shortlisted candidates in previous rounds. As part of the online application process, applicants were required to submit a shortened CV, which would be published on Parliament’s website for civil society to comment on. After a 14-day period, the comments would be compiled into a spreadsheet for the Committee.

She stressed that the criteria for applicants, such as being between the ages of 18 and 35, would be clearly stated in the advert and the application form. If an applicant exceeded the age limit, they would be automatically disqualified. The importance of adhering to the National Youth Development Agency Act in this process was also stressed, as it governed the eligibility of candidates. Once the Committee adopted the advert, it would be published in newspapers, and Ms Abrahams offered to share it via email or WhatsApp to facilitate communication.

Ms Abrahams concluded by asking if it would be possible to shorten the process to 15 November.

The Chairperson responded by suggesting that matters related to scheduling should be referred to the Office of the Chair of Chairs to avoid creating unnecessary complications. She reiterated the need to consider the comments made and to review the schedules of Members who serve on multiple Committees, as juggling those responsibilities would be crucial moving forward.

Dr Tembe reminded the Committee that public participation was constitutionally enshrined under Section 59, which mandates that the public must be given the opportunity to participate in legislative and other parliamentary processes. He explained that public input often pertained to the suitability of candidates, with both individual and institutional submissions contributing to the scrutiny of candidates. This public commentary provides the Committee with additional information that could guide inquiries during interviews.

He also highlighted that some public comments were received before the interviews. If concerns were raised about a specific candidate, the Committee could choose to address those issues during the interview process. He stressed the importance of allowing sufficient time for public participation to avoid legal challenges, noting that in a previous instance, a process was contested because the period for public participation was deemed too short. He recommended that the Committee ensure adequate time to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Ms Van der Merwe sought clarification on two points. Firstly, she asked whether the proposed two-week period for public comments was legally sufficient, expressing concern over past instances where Parliament was criticised for not allowing enough time for public input. She wanted assurance that this would not be an issue again.

Secondly, she supported the idea of reviewing the programme to see if the timeframes could be shortened. She referred to a Member’s earlier suggestion, and questioned whether the two weeks allocated for preparing and placing an advert could be reduced. She proposed that Parliament could expedite the process by reducing the time for translation from 14 days to 10 days, given that Parliament already had in-house translators. She argued that once the advert was approved in English, translations could begin immediately, thereby saving time and pushing the programme forward.

The Chairperson asked Dr Tembe to address the scenario in which someone turns 35 during the selection process, seeking clarification on how that situation would be handled.

Dr Tembe responded that this matter was actually covered in the amended legislation. He referred to an amendment in Section 9(4), which stipulates that if a person turns 35 while serving in office, they would be allowed to complete their term. However, if a person applies for the position at 35 or turns 36 during the selection process, they would not be eligible to apply or be appointed. He stressed that once someone had been appointed and turned 35 in office, they could continue to serve, but those who reached the age of 36 at the time of appointment would not be allowed to proceed.

He then moved on to the issue of public participation, citing the Constitution, which states that the National Assembly had the authority to manage its own procedures, including determining the timeline for public involvement. He emphasised that while the Committee was entrusted with setting a reasonable timeframe, it could not be prescribed to them. The Committee had the discretion to decide whether two or three weeks was necessary for public participation, but it must ensure that the duration was reasonable.

The Chairperson reiterated the importance of public participation, and clarified that public comment would occur only after the shortlisting process, with names being tabled and circulated to the public for input. She stressed that shortlisting was done by the Committee, and after valid concerns had been addressed, the Committee would move forward with the advert process.

In response to Ms Van der Merwe’s earlier question about shortening the advert timeframe to ten days, the Chairperson acknowledged the proposal and said the matter had been noted. She assured the Committee that there would be ongoing communication regarding any necessary adjustments to the timeframe. Members might be called to special meetings if clarification is needed. She added that the Office of the Chair of Chairs would not leave decisions that could impact the Committee’s work solely to the Committee section staff, as she would intervene when necessary.

Draft advertisement

Ms Nobatana presented the draft advert, stating that it outlined an invitation for nominations and applications for individuals to serve on the National Youth Development Agency board. The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities was inviting the public to apply, and for organisations to nominate suitable candidates for appointment to the board, as mandated by the National Youth Development Agency Amendment Act.

Ms Nobatana explained that all applicants and nominees would be required to complete an online application form, which would be made available on the parliamentary website. After the Committee adopts the application, it would be sent to the contact advisor, who would create the online application platform. The link to the form would also be shared via WhatsApp for convenience.

She said that all applicants and nominees must upload certified copies of their identity documents and academic qualifications, not older than six months. The advert was open to individuals wishing to apply or organisations seeking to nominate candidates, with the stipulation that nominated candidates must fill in the online application form.

Ms Nobatana said that a list of shortlisted candidates and their resumes would be published on the parliamentary website to allow public comments regarding the candidates' suitability. She highlighted that the disclosure of personal information would be subject to lawful processing and secure storage. All shortlisted candidates would undergo pre-employment screening by the State Security Agency and verification of qualifications by parliamentary Human Resources. She affirmed that the application process would comply with the Protection of Personal Information Act, Act 4 of 2013, and the Employment Equity Act, Act 55 of 1998.

She said the President, on the recommendation of Parliament, would appoint a member to the NYDA board for a term not exceeding three years. Members may be appointed either full-time or part-time, and individuals whose terms have expired may be reappointed for one additional term, with a maximum of two terms overall.

She further detailed the qualifications for candidates, stating they must be South African citizens aged between 18 and 35, and must possess relevant knowledge, expertise, or qualifications in fields such as youth development, social development, finance or law, which were necessary for the advancement of the Agency’s mandate. Candidates who turn 35 during their term would be permitted to complete their term. They must also demonstrate a commitment to advancing the vision, goals, objectives, values and principles outlined in the National Youth Policy.

Lastly, Ms Nobatana noted that nominations or applications must include the full name, address, email address, and contact details of the nominator, and must have a signed acceptance of the nomination by the nominee. The closing date for applications was set for midnight on 11 November, and inquiries could be directed to the Committee Secretary, whose contact details were provided. The advert was issued by Ms L Dunjwa (ANC), Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee.

(See attached)

Discussion

The Chairperson opened the floor for comments on the advert, emphasising that any changes must remain within the bounds of the law. She clarified that alterations could be made only to grammar and the closing date, but other elements were dictated by the amended legislation.

Ms Spies expressed her gratitude to Ms Nobatana for the advert, and raised a point regarding the format of the advert. She suggested that the application requirements and selection process should be clearly outlined to facilitate a smoother application process for candidates. She acknowledged that the online application process could often be cumbersome. She recommended that the advert highlight critical information such as the application deadline and term of office, to eliminate any uncertainty for applicants.

Ms Van der Merwe agreed with Ms Spies, praising the advert for allowing individual applications and nominations, as well as the inclusion of WhatsApp for accessing information. However, she suggested that the advert should include a direct link to the online application on the parliamentary website, making it easier for applicants to access the necessary information without searching for it.

Ms Mrweqana raised concerns about the accessibility of the online application for individuals living in rural areas who may lack the necessary technology. She sought clarification on how the Committee would address this issue to ensure that all potential applicants had a fair chance to participate.

Ms Chauke-Adonis commended the presentation and highlighted three key areas of concern. Firstly, she requested that the Committee be afforded an opportunity to review the online application for accessibility, noting that many applicants in the disability sector face challenges due to a lack of inclusivity in the system. Secondly, she echoed the need for strategies to assist those in rural areas who may not have access to technology. Lastly, she expressed the importance of meeting equity criteria. She asked how the NYDA would ensure that applications from underrepresented groups, such as individuals with disabilities and young women, would be identified and encouraged to apply, despite the absence of specific criteria in the application process.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their input and assured them that their concerns would be taken into consideration as they moved forward with the application process.

Ms Khawula suggested using traditional media platforms, such as radios and newspapers, to reach individuals in rural areas who may not have access to the internet and modern technology. She inquired whether representatives from the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) were present.

The Chairperson responded to Ms Khawula, and clarified that the process now involved only the National Assembly. She pointed out that the responsibility for ensuring the advert reaches rural constituents lay with all the Members, including Ms Khawula, who represented a constituency in a peri-urban farming area. She emphasised that while the advert would be broadcast on radio in various languages, it was also crucial to display it in accessible locations such as clinics and supermarkets like Shoprite. She stressed the importance of Members actively participating in this process to assist Parliament and their constituents, recognising the valid concern that young people in rural areas often feel disadvantaged or neglected.

She said that, as public representatives, all Members had a responsibility to ensure that the voices of their constituents were heard, noting that although her constituency was located in one region of the Eastern Cape, her duty extended to the entire province. She reassured a Member that her point about including people with disabilities in the advert would be taken into consideration during the shortlisting process, affirming the commitment to ensure no one was left behind.

The Chairperson confirmed the closing date for applications as 11 November, and asked if there were any further comments or questions.

Ms Abrahams indicated there was nothing else to add, and the Chairperson concluded the discussion on the matter.

Application form for NYDA board members

Ms Abrahams explained that the application form specifically requests applicants to indicate whether they have a disability. However, she noted that the disclosure of this information was at the applicant’s discretion. She had just received a link from the information communications technology (ICT) department, and offered to walk the Members through the online form. However, for now, she proceeded to explain the paper version of the form. She clarified that the online application would have specific categories, and Members would need to type in the necessary information.

The Chairperson responded, acknowledging the importance of reviewing the application form now to avoid a barrage of questions later. She reminded the group not to overlook concerns Ms Van der Merwe raised, and encouraged them to review the application thoroughly.

Ms Chauke-Adonis requested that the link be sent to her, as she would not be able to follow the visual presentation.

The Chairperson reassured her, stating that the link would be sent.

Ms Van der Merwe reminded the Chairperson that they had previously asked if Parliament could prepare the advertisement faster, so the deadline could be brought forward from 11 November. If they could save a few days, the date could potentially be adjusted.

Ms Abrahams returned to her presentation, highlighting key aspects of the application form. She reiterated that the form aligns with the National Youth Development Agency Amendment Act, No. 11 of 2020, and serves to assist the Portfolio Committee in selecting candidates for the NYDA board. She then walked through the various sections of the form, from the personal details section, which includes fields for name, date of birth, gender, preferred pronouns, and disability status, to the education and work experience sections. She emphasised that the application form was designed to organise the candidate's curriculum vitae, which would be assessed based on the criteria outlined in the Act.

Moving through the form, Ms Abrahams elaborated on the various documents and information required, such as an updated certified copy of the applicant's identity document and qualifications. She explained that the form was designed to be accessible from both computers and mobile devices, allowing applicants to upload documents or take photos of their identity documents (ID) and certificates directly from their phones.

She also discussed the inclusion of gender identity options and preferred pronouns, explaining that this information was necessary to ensure that shortlisted candidates were addressed appropriately. Regarding disabilities, applicants were given the option to disclose this information if they chose to.

Regarding work experience, the form allows candidates to list up to 10 previous positions and any advocacy or academic experience related to youth development. This provides candidates, particularly students or those without formal work experience, with the opportunity to highlight relevant activities and contributions.

Ms Abrahams then touched on the motivational section of the form, which asks candidates to explain why they believe they are suitable for a position on the NYDA board and how they could contribute to its effectiveness. She highlighted several key questions related to board experience, fitness for office, and any past convictions or misconduct, including those involving dishonesty, violence, or gender-based violence (GBV). She noted that the previous Committee had placed significant emphasis on excluding candidates with a record of GBV from serving on the board.

She explained that applicants were required to disclose whether they had ever faced internal investigations, disciplinary inquiries, or dismissals from any previous or current employment or educational institutions. She pointed out that not all candidates would have had employment experience, as many applicants might still be students.

She highlighted that applicants were also asked to disclose any matters that could affect their honesty, integrity or reliability, reiterating that Parliament's State Security Agency and human resources department would conduct checks on all shortlisted candidates. She also discussed the requirement for applicants to indicate whether they were self-nominated or nominated by others, and if so, to provide a nomination letter.

In the final section, applicants were asked to summarise their CVs in a format that complies with the Protection of Personal Information Act. Shortlisted candidates' summaries, without personal details like ID numbers or home addresses, would be posted on Parliament's website for public commentary.

Concluding her presentation, Ms Abrahams reviewed the declaration section of the form, which requires applicants to affirm the accuracy of the information they provide and authorise Parliament to verify their qualifications and personal details. She reminded the Committee that any dishonesty or omission could lead to disqualification.

Discussion

The Chairperson said the process seemed straightforward, and all the concerns raised had been outlined in the invitation. She also reminded Members that the advert was within the constraints of the law.

Ms Khanyile posed a question regarding the declaration section, particularly number 24, where a signature was indicated for online applications. She wanted to know how applicants or organisations nominating candidates would sign in such cases. Her second question focused on Section 1, which mentions persons with disabilities. She suggested that if applicants indicated "yes" for a disability, they should provide details to ensure necessary arrangements could be made, such as for sign language interpreters in Parliament. She raised the issue of a WhatsApp number being omitted where applicants might request a link, and asked that the number be added next to the link when finalised.

Ms Abrahams agreed with the suggestion to remove the signature requirement for online applications, as submitting the form would serve as a form of agreement. Regarding disabilities, she suggested adding a field for applicants to provide details if they chose "yes."

Ms Van der Merwe supported the idea of removing the signature, as leaving it in could create difficulties, such as people struggling with electronic signatures and possibly abandoning their applications.

Online application form

Ms Abrahams then demonstrated the online application form. She explained that when the form was accessed via a link, a G-mail account entry was requested, though she would verify with ICT whether it could be accessed without a G-mail account. The Committee secretariat could forward the link via WhatsApp to anyone needing it. She explained how the form works, covering fields like name, surname, date of birth, and the need to ensure that applicants were under 35. She also pointed out that applicants would be required to upload their ID and other documents, like qualifications. The form would allow them to proceed only once all mandatory fields and documents were completed and uploaded. She assured Members that they would conduct test runs to ensure there were no errors, and that the system functioned smoothly. Lastly, she mentioned that adjustments would be made based on the Members' feedback, such as removing the signature field and including additional details for persons with disabilities.

Discussion

Ms F Shabangu (ANC) raised a concern about the form allowing incorrect information to be submitted. She asked if this was simply part of the demonstration, or if this would be addressed in the final application, particularly highlighting how missing details like an incomplete email address could lead to errors. She sought clarity on whether the system would correct such issues.

Ms Chauke-Adonis sought clarification on whether the online application would be tested on various assistive devices. She pointed out that many online forms often lacked compatibility with accessibility software, which could disadvantage those within the disability sector. She highlighted her own use of assistive technologies, such as JAWS and voice-over talk-back. She questioned whether the application would be tested to ensure proper grammar and functionality with these tools.

The Chairperson suggested leaving the matter to IT, as she did not want to delve into areas beyond their expertise. She assured Members that IT would address these concerns, and advised that Parliament would communicate how accessibility for those who were visually impaired would be ensured. She noted that the response might not be immediate, as the process would take time, but IT would guide the way forward. While the matter was important, it should be managed in a way that did not delay the process unnecessarily.

Ms Chauke-Adonis said her concerns were not about disagreeing, but rather about ensuring that the Committee would not be accused of overlooking accessibility issues. She pointed out the importance of prioritising inclusivity for all young South Africans, particularly those with disabilities. She advocated ensuring the online application process was accessible and compatible with all necessary devices and programmes. She urged the Committee to consider this during the testing phase, and not overlook these matters for the sake of expediency.

The Chairperson apologised if the mention of potential delays had caused frustration and reassured Members that IT would handle the concerns raised. She made it clear that she was not insensitive to the needs of persons with disabilities, sharing her personal connection to the issue through a family member. She reiterated her commitment to inclusivity, but also explained that some aspects were beyond their immediate control and were the responsibility of Parliament and IT.

Ms Khanyile raised the issue of advertising the application process on various radio stations, particularly to reach rural constituencies. She also asked if the application could be made accessible in other languages and in Braille. She expressed her hope that these suggestions could be implemented within the available time frame.

Ms Gasa, coming from a rural background, supported this concern. She also inquired if young people who could not obtain their qualifications due to outstanding fees, could submit a letter of completion instead, as many were unable to access their certificates for this reason.

The Chairperson agreed that this was a valid concern, and asked for further clarification on how this could be addressed.

Ms Abrahams confirmed that, in previous rounds, applicants who could not graduate due to outstanding fees had been allowed to submit their transcripts and a letter of explanation. She stressed that they would not be excluded for financial reasons, as long as they were honest and transparent about their situation.

On the issue of advertising in different languages and radio stations, Ms Abrahams explained that they would need to check with supply chain and communications regarding the cost implications. She assured Members that these options would be explored. She also addressed Ms Shabangu's concern, explaining that the system would ensure applicants could not proceed without entering the correct information, such as the full ID number, to avoid errors.

Dr Tembe addressed the issue of academic qualifications. He emphasised that while qualifications were important, they should not be the sole determining factor. Experience should also be considered. He commented that if a person had experience, it should not matter if they lacked formal qualifications, especially if there was verification that the individual did attend an institution. The primary consideration should be the confirmation of their experience, making it sufficient for the Committee’s decision-making process.

Ms Khawula remarked on the value of radio platforms in assisting the Committee, particularly in reaching rural areas. On the topic of inclusivity, she said that many Members had relatives living with disabilities, which had motivated them to prioritise inclusivity. She included people living with albinism as part of this priority group, as long as they met the requirements.

The Chairperson thanked the Members, and acknowledged underestimating the time needed for the session, noting that it had already run longer than expected. She commented that it would not be an easy task. She reflected on the weight of responsibility involved, particularly in selecting only seven board members from a vast number of young applicants.

She urged Members not to forget the importance of disseminating the advert, suggesting they place it in public spaces like shops and churches. She also reminded them to inform Ms Nobatana of their other committee memberships, as this would help with scheduling and managing the workload.

The meeting was adjourned.