Socio-Economic Development Committee Programme

Meeting report

JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
12 October 2005
COMMITTEE PROGRAMME

Chairperson: Mr R Mohlaloga (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Draft Programme of Action (Schedule)
Press Statement by the Public Affairs Section (see Appendix A)
Media Brief: Summary of the Parliamentary Peer Reviews and Self Assessment Process in terms of the African Peer Review Mechanism (see Appendix B)

SUMMARY
The Committee met to discuss the plan of action for the Peer Review Process. The Chairperson said the Committee would adhere to the deadlines that had been set forth in the Draft Programme of Action. The Committee decided to consult the Media Department to determine the best public advertising mechanism for inviting public submissions on the socio-economic issues outlined in the Programme. The Committee would take oral and written submissions from the public. The Committee would not select individual stakeholders for invitation so as to avoid the inadvertent omission of important stakeholders. Public hearings would be held on 7-9 November 2005. After determining the amount of its budget, the Committee would decide where the hearings would be held. The Committee would continue to meet on Wednesdays.

MINUTES
Discussion
The Chairperson reviewed each of the deadlines set forth in the Draft Programme of Action.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) raised the issue of where the public hearings would be held. If they were to be in Cape Town many people would not have the funds to get there. The Committee would need money to bring those people to the hearings.

Ms U Roopnarian (IFP) stated her understanding that funds would be made available where a Committee articulated a motivating plan.

Ms Dudley asked how the Committee would determine which stakeholders to invite for public submissions.

Ms Roopnarian suggested making use of parliamentary databases containing information regarding stakeholders associated with socio-economic issues. Also, the Committee could divide the issues and each member of the Committee could then contact the appropriate stakeholders regarding those issues. The Committee needed to narrow down strategic areas from the Programme it wanted to consider. Otherwise, the areas listed were too broad and too technical.

The Chairperson stated the Committee would take both written and oral submissions.

Ms L Mashiane (ANC) suggested not inviting specific organisations. The Committee could review the submissions in response to the public advertisement and decide which people it would hear. Also, the Committee needed more than one researcher due to the large number of issues. She suggested that the Committee make that part of the budget.

Ms Dudley suggested also that the Committee might inadvertently omit important stakeholders if it invited specific organizations only. She stated that another researcher could identify the major stakeholders for each issue. The Committee could not run an advertisement without knowing whom it was targeting.

Ms Roopnarian suggested consulting the parliamentary media department. It was unlikely the Committee would have another researcher appointed to it. Also, the Committee could call the Chairs of other Committees to identify the specific issues.

Ms Dudley suggested including the specific issues in the advertisement for public submissions. The Chairperson agreed.

Ms Mashiane stated the questions set forth for the Committee’s consideration were too technical. The Committee needed to simplify the issues so that the average person on the street could understand it and respond. She represented a rural constituency which also needed to participate in the process. The peer review process was about measuring Parliament. The Committee needed more than just responses from educated people. She also suggested decentralising the public hearings.

The Chairperson explained that the public hearings would run on three consecutive days and it would be hard to hold them in more than one location. The Committee would receive its draft budget the next week and would then consider the location of the hearings. He also stated the Committee needed to learn from the peer review processes that had taken place in other countries, such as Ghana and Rwanda.

Ms Dudley raised the possibility of asking the public what it expected from the African Peer Review Mechanism.

The Chairperson stated there were several civil societies interested in these issues. The Committee could ask the Human Sciences Research Council for its input.

Meeting was adjourned.


Appendix A:
PRESS STATEMENT

PARLIAMENT INITIATES A PEER - REVIEW PROCESS FOR SOUTH AFRICA TO ENSURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM

10 OCTOBER 2005 CAPE TOWN

Parliament is embarking on a peer review process that aims to encourage public participation and broader involvement in the country's peer review within the context of the African Peer Review Mechanism (AERM).

Suitable structures and mechanisms in Parliament have been established and are meeting as of last night to ensure the institution's effective role in South Africa's peer review process.

The process of self - assessment and review will take 9 months to complete - commencing this month (October) -and ending in July 2006. The process will have five stages and four' key areas of focus which include Democracy and

Good Political Governance; Economic Governance and Management; Corporate Governance and Socio – economic Development.

Parliament has appointed the following 4 multiparty Joint Ad-hoc Committees which comprise of 7 Members each, there is an overarching joint coordinating committee and jointly chaired by the Presiding Officers:

· Joint Ad-hoc Committee on Democracy & Good Political Governance

Joint Ad-hoc Committee on Economic Governance & Management

· Joint Ad-hoc Committee on Corporate Governance

Joint Ad-hoc Committee on Socio-economic Development

In order to successfully ensure broader public participation in this process, Parliament has embarked on a path that includes robust public involvement campaign to encourage public debate and also raise public awareness on the critical issues to be reviewed within the context of the APPM. Individuals and resource institutions will be encouraged to participate in this process. Details can be sought from the following:

Ms. Baleka Mbete
Speaker of the National Assembly
Parliament of PSA

Mr. M J Mahlangu
Chairperson: of the National Council of Provinces
NCOP
Parliament of RSA

For more enquiries, contact

Luzuko Jacobs
Manager: Public Affairs Section
Parliament of RSA
Cape Town
8000
+27 21 403 2242
+27 (0) 82 906 14 38

Appendix B:
MEDIA BRIEF

SUMMARY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PEER REVIEWS AND SELF - ASSESSMENT PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE APRM

In its bid to consolidate democracy Parliament is encouraging civil society participation in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APPM).

To ensure Parliament's effective participation in South Africa's peer review process. The following structures have been formed:

A Joint Coordinating Committee jointly chaired by the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. Four Joint Ad -Hoc Committees to focus on the following key sections of APR

Questionnaire for country's self assessment which is the first step of the review exercise:

1 Democracy & Good Political Governance

2. Economic Governance and Management

3 Corporate Governance

4. Socio-economic Development

The process will take nine months to complete, from October 2005 to July 2006) and is divided into the following {five stages:

Stage 1
This stage will entail a review of the country in terms of the above four key areas of the questionnaire During this stage a draft self-assessment report and programme of action will be developed for submission to the APPM Secretariat. The draft report and programme of action will be sent to Parliament for comment in December 2005), before it is finalised by February 2006.

Stage 2
This relates to the visit by the APR Team for extensive consultations with all stakeholders At this stage the country will also be expected to consult widely to build consensus on how to respond to the APRM issue paper and these consultations will also include Parliamentarians. This process is expected to commence in February and be completed in April 2006.

Stage 3
The APR Team will at this stage develop its report based on the consultations conducted, county self-assessment report, and programme of action, issue paper and responses or comments. This is expected to take place between April and May 2006.

Stage 4
The APR Team will submit its report to the APPM Secretariat and the APP Panel, After deliberation by the Panel, the report is submitted to the APP Forum for consideration and formulation of actions and this is expected to happen between May and June 2006

Stage 5
The APR Report and recommended actions will be tabled and this will occur 6 months after consideration of the report by the APR Forum - from June to December 2006.