National Youth Commission Programme & Preplacement Commissioners: discussion

Meeting report

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS
12 May 2006
NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION PROGRAMME & REPLACEMENT COMMISSIONERS: DISCUSSION

Chairperson: Ms W Newhoudt-Drunchen (ANC)

Relevant Documents:
30th Anniversary June 16th Uprising (Presentation)
Advertisement: Nomination for appointment of Commissioners to the National Youth Commission [please [email protected]]
National Youth Commission Act (19 of 1996) as amended by Public Service Laws Amendment Act (47 of 1997) and National Youth Commission Amendment Act (19 of 2000)
Estimates of National Expenditure 2006, Vote 1: President (available at www.treasury.gov.za)

SUMMARY
The National Youth Commission briefed the Committee on its programme and plans for Youth Month (June) and the 30^th Anniversary of the 16 June 1976 student unrest. In other matters, the Commission reported that its focus was on the economic participation of young people and how to place them in the economy of the country; as well as the National Youth Service. One of the key issues was to create a link between the generation of 1976 and that of today.

The Committee agreed to exclude self-nominations for candidates to serve as National Youth Commission Commissioners, but would request acceptance letters from those nominees who had not sent those to the Committee. A shortlist would be drafted, interviews would take place and Parliament would recommend five persons to the President for appointment to the Commission.

MINUTES
Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen welcomed all and informed the meeting that item 3 on the agenda would not be discussed as the Minister in the Presidency had apologised that he was unable to make the meeting but would attend on 19 May.

’Youth Month’, with reference to 30^th Anniversary of June 16^th: Briefing by National Youth Commission
Delegates from the National Youth Commission (NYC) introduced themselves - Mr M Nketi (Commissioner); Mr V Domimgo (Chairperson of the Western Cape Youth Commission); Mr N Kenneth (Manager); and Ms A Vanda (Parliamentary Officer).

Mr M Nketi gave a brief overview of the programme and plans for Youth Month and the 30^th Anniversary of the June 16^th uprising. The NYC had been given the mandate to coordinate and Cabinet had also formed a ministerial committee to look at all the celebrations that would unfold, with the NYC participating in that committee. On the 28^th anniversary the NYC and the Youth sector as a whole had decided to launch the 30^th anniversary; key to that the focus was the economic participation of young people. Key issues would also be how to place young people into the economy of the country.

The 28^th anniversary had included a gathering of about 1500 youth at the Mankwe Military Base in Moses Kotane Municipality, where young people had expressed themselves on the challenges facing them.
There had also been a successful celebration in the Northern Cape, and key to that was the Youth Economic Fair where all government departments, the private sector and NGO’s that provide services for young people had been invited and to talk about issues relating to young people in terms of the economy and learnership opportunities.

As part of the State of the Nation Address the President had indicated that young people must be recruited into the National Youth Service. The focus that year would be more on the National Youth Service.

A coordinating task team had been formed jointly with the Gauteng government and SETA (Sector Education Training Authority). It was agreed celebrations would take place at the FNB Stadium in Gauteng and activities would build up to the day itself. Last year guidelines were formed to provide access opportunities to learnerships because the commission was not happy with the manner in which government and SETA were unfolding the issue of learnerships.

On 29^th May the NYC would be launching and unfolding the programme for the month of June in Soweto. This would be done at the Isaac Morrison School that started the march in 1976. During the first week of June the National Youth Convention would look at the policy review in terms of the implementation of the National Youth Commission framework. The Youth sector agreed that after 10 years there was a need to look at the challenges facing young people and how to address issues of development.

One of the key issues was to create a link between generations of 1976 and today, it was important to learn from that generation that had made them so committed to their cause and learn from their experience. The plan was to do this by the launching of the annual June Month Lecture in Soweto on 9^th June at the former Vista Campus, now called the University of Johannesburg, Soweto Campus. It was agreed that the President would launch this project and the point would be made that the June 16^th generation had became part of the launch to engage the young people of today and expel the myth that young people of today were not committed.

The Commission was planning the National Youth Service Week in partnership with the Department of Housing to engage different municipalities. Together with the Department of Education, young people would be building low cost houses, and had already built 2500 houses in 109 villages, which was seen as a flagship in recruiting young people into service. It also provided young people with skills and participation in the economy of their own municipality. The Commission was hoping through that process to recruit 9000 young people.

The Youth Service Expo would encourage government departments, NGO’s, and the private sector to speak to young people about the National Youth Service and about key economic opportunities within the department. For example the Department of Home Affairs could speak about the opportunities relating to economy within that department and what young people could do in the department. The National Youth Service Expo would be held at Nasrec from 13 to 15 June.

On the 16^th the programme would begin in the morning with the President leading the march from Isaac Morison to Hector Petersen Memorial, a seven km walk and a symbolic march that would try to create a connection between 1976 and the present. From there it would move to the FNB Stadium, where the political rally would take place with an address by the President and cultural activities.

The last event as part of the 30^th anniversary would be the Premiers and Presidents Presidential Youth Awards. There had been many awards in South Africa after 1994 but never a concerted effort for the young people in the country. There were sport awards, the Presidential awards, the Communicators Awards, but there had never been a programme aimed at young people who were doing incredible work in engaging their community, so that year there would be a launch of the Presidential Youth Award. The programme was a partnership between the NYC, the office of the President, the Government of Gauteng, including the Premier, and the City of Johannesburg and the office of the Mayor.

Discussion
The Chair thanked Mr Nketi for briefing the Committee and related that in 1976 she had attended a school for the deaf in the Western Cape run by Catholic nuns and there had students read about what had happened outside. When information had begun coming through, the deaf students had started a campaign for better education for the deaf in their schools. In 1976 one couldn’t think about better education for deaf students, but fought for a better education system. Many students had been kicked out in 1976 because the nuns had not been able to control students. The education system for deaf students had been very bad at that time and the teachers had moved her to a hearing school for better education. A veteran had said that the youth of today had different ideas and attitudes to the youth of 1976. She asked how the NYC intended to incorporate the experiences of the veterans of 1976 into today’s school curriculum. It was important that the youth should know what had happened in the past.

Mr B Mkongi welcomed the input from the Commission, coming at a time when the whole country was preparing itself to really commemorate and celebrate the achievements of the Soweto uprising of 1976. He wished to concur with what the Youth Commission had achieved since the democratic breakthrough in1994. However, he wished to understand the relationship that the NYC had today with government departments because there had been problems, particularly with government departments implementing strategy programmes for youth development. Departments had been relegating youth development to the Youth Commission, misunderstanding the role of the Youth Commission, which was not an integral organ of government. He asked what the relationship was currently and whether there had been a willingness to assist youth development, especially after the call from the President, in the State of the Nation Address, for government departments and institutions to develop programmes for youth development that year. An example was the National Service Programme, where the NYC had been struggling to ensure that government departments accepted their role in the National Service Programme. The departments’ comment had been that the NYSP would add ‘extra padding’ on their own work, which relegated youth development into the peripheral sphere of the strategic programme of government. He asked how the NYC saw the future possibilities, given government’s historical attitude.

Ms J Chalmers (ANC) found the briefing very interesting, not having had a lot of experience with the NYC and having come from the Eastern Cape. She commented that in the 1970’s and ‘80’s, the Eastern Cape had been in a shock after the Soweto uprising, which had been felt throughout the country. Her constituency was in the Eastern Cape, and she wished to know how such a small rural constituency could make use of the Youth Commission in a positive way to become part of the general education of youth, in engaging in skills and job opportunities so that those guidelines mentioned could become a concrete reality. She had a passion that could make a huge difference to the youth of this country, and although it was expensive she would like to see every youth leave school with a valid drivers licence. She would like to see that every matric class in the country had access to a vehicle and a teacher who could teach students how to drive. It would be expensive but would have an enormous impact on the accident rate and in the assuming of responsibility in young people with regard to the issue of driving, which was a critical part of their lives and their futures. She asked how they could help in making those links between the past and the present in her constituency.

Mr M Moss (ANC) concurred with Ms Chalmers in thanking the NYC for their input and referred to the National Youth Service. When he met with the Commission he pointed out to them the importance of the NYS and also that there were many departments that had money left over on their budgets and the President’s Department had done last year and it was clear they had done very little for youth and saw that as an opportunity to engage them because there was no department of youth, in that way get them to do something for the youth. The programme seemed to be centred in Gauteng as a national programme but many of the programmes could be duplicated to all the provinces to a national level.

Mr Andrews added that he would have preferred to have the input earlier. He wanted to share in the questions around what was happening in the provinces and hoped to meet Mr Vincent Domimgo, who was the Provincial Chairperson. There was great excitement in his constituency around the June 16^th celebrations and he would like to have a discussion with Mr Domimgo to see if they could integrate what was being done at a local level with what was happening nationally. This could be the start of an intensive focus on youth development, not only in the local areas but also of what was happening throughout the country. He felt the NYS was very important and must be supported. He asked for a programme of what was happening in the provinces so that constituencies could be directed to partake in those provincial events.

Mr Nketi thanked Members for their questions and responded on how to create that link between the 1976 generation and the generation of today, linking it to make sure they understood the historical context of 1976 and what brought 1976, that we were here because of the sacrifices that were made by that generation and that was key inasmuch as the challenges of 1976 might be different to the challenges of the youth of today. Last week Friday had an opportunity to meet with the Chair of the NCOP, Mr Mahlangu, in terms of looking at a programme to target the Grades 11 and 12 in schools, where the point could be made where Members of Parliament could be deployed at different schools, especially in those rural provinces, to engage young people about the opportunities that were there and created by government, and to understand what the challenges were for young people, and also to link them with the role of local municipalities in their own constituencies. They presented their plans and the NYC hoped would be able to tie them into the programmes. They also wanted to unfold all provinces, culminating to a National Youth Parliament that would take place around the end of June. It was key to also engage our people in schools and he would update the committee in terms of that process.

Mr Nketi responded to Mr Mkongi’s question, which was one of the challenges faced by the Commission, the interpretation of the mandate of the Commission by government departments. Even Ministers failed to understand that the role of the Commission was to play a facilitative role of coordination, but also take the department on board in terms of their understanding of youth development in South Africa. That was key in that an inter-departmental body on youth affairs at national and provincial level had been created, which was now starting to bear fruit. A lot of departments at national level created offices that dealt directly with youth development, some of them located in the Director-General’s office. In terms of seniority, people that came to the departmental committee now were people that were part of the management. Key to that was continuous engagement of making sure that people understood the concept of youth development, informed by the policy framework.

Mr Nketi continued that the National Youth Service would welcome the assistance of the Committee in terms of engaging the departments to explain it was not the programme of the Commission; it was the programme that countless South Africans had adopted. The only time people moved with speed was when the programme involved 10 000 young people – everyone was talking to the Commission, everyone wanted to understand and but the Commission felt that youth development must be part of an integrated strategy of each and every department. The Commission would welcome the help of the Committee because there were very few departments that had youth service programmes. It was almost four years since government adopted the implementation plan and government had indicated that it was not going to come up with a new budget. The department must be able in their own programme to convert some of their programmes to have an element of youth service in it.

In terms of the provinces, they had agreed that the whole programme of youth development month (June) would also unfold in the provinces. Provincial Youth Commissions would have memorial lectures, youth services and other activities, but key to that were the economic participation of young people and the national youth service. They would also look at utilising the constituency offices to engage young people. He called on Members to engage the Commission and inform it of what they were doing in their constituencies to enable linkages, also to municipalities. The role of local government officials in youth development had been discussed at a recent conference.

Mr Domimgo added two issues. The first dealt with the budget. He felt an integrated budget was needed in consultation with Parliament and the Minister of Finance so that any money unspent by government departments at the end of the financial year should go to youth development. The second issue dealt with the future of youth development in 30 years from now. A month-long programme in June was insufficient; planning for future generations had to start now.

Before continuing with the discussion Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen welcomed new members Hon Ndaka and Hon Tobias.

Mr D Gamede (ANC) raised a number of issues dealing with the structures of the Commission and synergy between national, provincial and local levels. Were the structures appropriate for the task of youth development? Why had some provinces not launched the National Youth Service?

Mr Gamede then raised the issue of learnerships. Had scarce skills been targeted to create a future for the youth? What about ASGISA (Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa)? This interventionist approach would assist the youth. Parliament had launched the Equality Review. Was the NYC on board in this review? It was very important that it comment on legislation passed since 1994 on youth development.

Mr Mkongi concurred that this was a year of opportunities not to be missed by the Youth Commission and the youth of the country to really make an impact. He raised the question of the National Youth Convention and hoped it would not be merely a review from 1976 to 2006 only in terms of the milestones that the youth of the country had achieved or their contribution to liberation. He was worried about the Department of Labour reports about exit opportunities for young people in learnerships. A lot of people were repeating learnerships because of limited exit opportunities.

Mr Mkongi also proposed national coordination of activities in the provinces. National coordination was a replication of the ministerial committee to give capacity to provinces because some provinces had problems and it was very important that the Youth Commission should drive these projects from national level.

Mr Gamede added on exit learnerships that the same problem had been identified last year. The Commission should inform the Committee how it had addressed the problem and how much progress had been made.

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen asked what the NYC was doing regarding the exit problem and what SETAs’ response had been. Obviously they were aware that the youth were going from one SETA to another SETA. Obviously they had been warned about this. What had their response been?

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen also referred to the department section for youth affairs to be put in the DG’s office. She asked whether that had been established already.

Mr Nketi responded that in terms of structures at local and provincial level the Commission worked very closely with them on youth issues that were key to delivering its mandate. In other instances, the President was making direct interventions by launching projects in some of the poorest districts in the country. There was still a challenge to mobilise civil society as a whole. In terms of the engagement with local municipalities one of the key issues was the establishment of local youth unions in municipalities and the creation of an environment where local youth councils could be established to create a link between local municipalities and young people.

Mr Nketi responded to the launch of the National Youth Service in provinces. There were still problems and a key issue was where one placed Youth Service as one of the key programmes of the government. There were programmes from the social clusters. North West had been clear in terms of the targets and the programme they were going to unfold, Limpopo had come on board, Free State and the Northern Cape also. There was still a challenge with KZN and the Eastern Cape because at present there was no Commission presence there. Gauteng hoped to have the Youth Service up and running soon.

In terms of the learnerships and scarce skills, the Commission would play an important role through the JIPSA (Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition). The Commission had made presentations on the skills required in the ASGISA and JIPSA processes to the Deputy President and Cabinet would adopt some of its recommendations.

Mr Nketi responded to the issue of exit opportunities for those in learnerships. There were no clear opportunities and the NYC had created skills and engaged SETAs to demand that at least 70% of the people that entered learnerships must have clear exit opportunities. But service providers also did not understand what SETAs were supposed to achieve. The Commission would continue to engage the Department of Labour because one could not afford skilled young people without job opportunities.

In terms of the Youth Convention, the challenges in implementing the National Youth Development Policy Framework should be identified. Was it a lack of understanding of youth development or was it a lack of strategy to achieve key focus areas. The Convention must come up with a clear integrated development strategy that the NYC would bring to this Committee and to the Cabinet Lekgotla in July. Mr Nketi hoped that when the Minister appeared before the Committee next week it would be able to engage him on challenges, government’s role and the processes.

Mr Nketi clarified the interdepartmental committee. This was a committee used as part of a monitoring and evaluation tool because it planned in terms of youth development. There was a need to integrate youth development issues to create the youth offices that must be in the DG’s office that would be responsible to coordinate youth development within different departments. It was key to be located in the DG’s office because a chief director would be part of management. Even at local municipality level there should be youth managers that were responsible for coordinating youth development issues that would be located in the office of the municipal manager.

The Chairperson thanked the NYC for the presentation. There were some points that the Committee needed to follow up and raise with the Minister when meeting him. She asked for the June 16^th programme at all levels and for updates on achievements.

Appointment of Candidates to serve as Commissioners on the National Youth Commission
in terms of the National Youth Commission Amendment Act (No. 19 of 2000)
A list of all the nominations received had been drafted. The Chairperson asked for legal advice as to 1) whether individuals could nominate themselves if not nominated by an organisation; 2) those who were nominated and CVs were received but no acceptance letter had been received from the applicant; and 3) whether those who had been nominated could be phoned after the deadline.

Adv M Vassen (Parliament Legal Services) responded that the written nominations must contain the full names and addresses of the person or organisation making the nomination; there must be a signed acceptance of the nomination by the nominee, and a brief CV attached. Self nomination could not be accepted because in terms of Section 4 (2) the Committee required for example that the Commissioners must collectively represent a broad cross section of the youth of the Republic, which was a substantive provision and was at the discretion of the Committee and what was put in the advertisement. Therefore where people did not comply those nominations could not be accepted.
With regard to the second question of applications where there was a valid nomination with a CV handed in but no acceptance letter signed by the nominee, this could be considered and they could be called to submit acceptance letters. That was acceptable as long as there was fairness and no individual was prejudiced.

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen asked whether the Committee wished the Committee Clerk to phone those people that were nominated but did not submit acceptance letters and ask whether they accepted the nomination.

Mr Mkongi felt the Committee should be very careful not to bend procedures as it might set precedents for the future. This could complicate matters in a legal sense.

Mr Gamede agreed in principle but differed on the approach. He felt applicants should re-send acceptance letters.

The Committee Secretary said people had sent the nomination letters and CVs but not acceptance letters. The Chairperson’s proposal was that these people be telephoned to ask for the acceptance letters.

Adv Vassen clarified that the requirements were not in the Act, so there was slightly more flexibility. The acceptance letter was intended to ease the administrative burden on the Committee only. The nomination still had to be valid in other respects. Valid nominees could be called to see if they wanted to accept the nomination or not.

Mr A Madella (ANC) proposed that when calling the applicant there should not be any perception on the part of the receiver that they were being offered the post applied for, otherwise people could use the phone call to argue that reasonable expectation had been created. He preferred a request in writing for the acceptance letters.

Mr Moss enquired how many applications were incomplete and agreed that communication should be in writing.

Mr Mkongi submitted that there were 17 incomplete applications; but specifically 13 people without either CVs or acceptance letters.

Mr Moss stated if a person applied for any position there were specific requirements expected of the person to comply with by a certain time. Fairness and consistency should be the basis on which to decide to call people to send outstanding documents.

Adv Vassen agreed that fairness and consistency would definitely be criteria. The process would be in jeopardy if discriminated on the basis of outstanding documents. Once these had been received it would be up to the Committee to decide whether it wanted to accept that person or not. If it were only a question of the acceptance letter being outstanding, then that would be acceptable.

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen summed up that the committee clerk would therefore send a letter in which it clearly stated that no expectation was created to inform the relevant persons that they should forward their acceptance letters. It was also agreed to only accept nominees who had been nominated and had submitted CVs - self-nominations would be excluded.

Mr Moss suggested that e-mail would also be acceptable.

Adv Vassen said e-mail would not be acceptable, as the acceptance letter would have to be signed. It would be safer to send faxes.

Mr Gamede raised the question of applicants who had just sent in CVs. It had to be recorded that the Committee would not accept self-nominations and those people who had only sent CVs.

Mr Moss felt those who nominated themselves we should be informed why they had been excluded.

Adv Vassen responded that that was not a requirement if the nomination was not valid.

Mr Mkongi stated a letter explaining why an application had been turned down should be sent.

Adv Vassen responded that should they call and ask why the application was not accepted, the Committee would be obliged to answer.

Mr Moss said those who nominated themselves would be excluded automatically.

Mr Mkongi stated that the advertisement was clear that this was a call for nominations, not for applications. Nominations should be by more than one person.

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen had also invited the Senior Legal Advisor in case Members wanted to go through the Act.

Mr Gamede suggested that could be done later if certain challenges were encountered. The Committee would go through the applications and if there were a problem of a legal nature, then would ask for interpretation of the Act.

The Chairperson said the shortlist would have to finalised by 19 May. She had problems in getting the programme approved. Parliament planned an Equality Review campaign and wanted the Committee to play a role in that process. She asked Members whether it would be advisable to establish a small committee to work on the short listing, or whether the full Committee should be involved.

The interviews would be conducted on 24 and 26 May. The committee clerk would inform Members of the time and other arrangements.

There were in any event so few Members attending the meetings that the Chairperson felt those that were present should do the short listing.

Mr M Mohlaloga (ANC) agreed that the whole Committee do the short listing.

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen also informed Members that the Committee would select five persons on 2 June and Parliament would need to approve this before 15 June. It would then be sent to the President for final approval.

Committee Minutes
The minutes that had been handed out were for Members to read, and for approval at the next meeting.

Children’s Institute
Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen informed members she had received a letter from the Children’s Institute at the University of Cape Town. She had asked the Committee Secretary whether there were any events relating to Children’s Day in the area of Cape Town that the Committee could attend. It would be nice if this were possible. She asked Mr Andrew to provide some information regarding the Children’s Institute.

Mr Andrew explained it was an organisation dealing with child justice and child health. They had been involved in various studies on how poetry impacted on children. They would like Members to engage with them on the work they were doing and hopefully lobby changes to improve the general life of children. He had met with them some time ago just to learn what they were all about. The last week in May would be when the focus nationally was on child protection. He had not seen anything planned by the Department of Social Development but the Institute intended convening a round table of various specialists who had been involved in children’s issues.

Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen thanked Mr Andrew. She said the Institute was interested in doing a presentation to the Committee to inform Members of developments around children’s issues. The Parliamentary programme would determine when this meeting could take place. The Chairperson of the Justice Portfolio Committee was active in meetings on child abuse and other children’s issues and their experiences could feed into this Committee.

Documentation left by the Children’s Institute was distributed.

The meeting adjourned.