National Youth Commission: Introduction of New Commissioners; Commissioners’ Roles & Functions: briefing

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS
18 August 2006
NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION: INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS; COMMISSIONERS’ ROLES AND FUNCTIONS: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Ms W C Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC)

Documents handed out:
National Youth Commission Briefing to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons: Part1 & Part2

SUMMARY
The newly-appointed Commissioners of the National Youth Commission were introduced to the Committee and described their roles and functions. Three key areas were found to be central to the Commission’s role. These were a strong focus on policy and research to better inform the various components of government, secondly the objective of advocacy and lobbying, and finally co-ordination and capacity building. Within these primary mandates they felt the need to focus on four cross cutting areas of promotion, which included economic participation and youth employment; education and training; social mobility and capacity building; and finally social well being, justice and planning.

The Committee was concerned about the new Commissioners overstepping their mandate and creating inflated expectations. Further concern was expressed over the role of provincial governments and municipalities, as well as the standardisation of youth development projects across the nation. Further emphasis was put on stronger communication and the relationship between the Committee and the Commission to ensure that the latters efforts were not marginalised.
  

MINUTES
Presentation by National Youth Commission
The Chairperson welcomed the delegation from the NYC (National Youth Commission). She highlighted the programme and invited the Commissioners to begin their introduction and presentation.

The Chairperson of the Youth Commission, Ms N Nkondlo introduced her delegation, which consisted of herself, Ms V Tulelo, the Deputy Chairperson of the NYC, and Commissioners O Sipuka, E Van Rooyen and M Modiba.

Ms Nkondlo explained that the role of the new Commissioners were not independent of the role of their predecessors and the rest of the government that aimed to ensure social transformation through the youth. She maintained that a crucial and close relationship with the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Life and Status of Children should be established. Ms Nkondlo said that she and the other new Commissioners had been through orientation and meetings with their staff and the presidential policy unit and expressed a keen interest in engaging closely with the Presidency and other departments. She explained that the question that needed to be asked was where the Commission fit into the rest of the government structure. It was their position that the Youth Commission be instrumental in assuring youth development and creating an enabling environment where youth could realise their potential. Ms Nkondlo explained that it was their aim that youth participate in the consolidation of democracy.

Ms Nkondlo highlighted some key issues at the strategic level. They felt that their mandate should be expressed unhindered through three key areas. These were firstly through policy and research development, which would inform the bulk of the NYC's work efforts. A second objective was lobbying and advocacy of issues relating to youth development. Finally they felt that the objectives of co-ordinating and capacity building be developed together in a dialectic process.

Ms Nkondlo further highlighted the primary areas of focus for the NYC. These included firstly economic participation and employment of the youth. The challenges in this respect were poverty and unemployment. She maintained that the NYC would aim for synergy with government goals to half unemployment by 2010. The second area was education and training, where they felt there was no access to education and training for the majority of black youth in the country. Thirdly the NYC would focus on social mobility, capacity building and most importantly youth awareness.  With regard to the latter they felt there was a significant gap between senior leaders and the consciousness of the youth. Finally they would focus on social well-being, justice, and planning.

Ms Nkondlo clarified the three strategic focuses i.e. policy and research, advocacy and lobbying, and co-ordination and capacity building. With regard to policy and research the aim was to ensure access to information on youth development. It would also serve to guide and integrate youth civil society. The research was also aimed at capacitating the Commission to ensure adequate information is available for local government to deliver and broader civil society to enable the youth, strengthen their activism and understanding the working and processes of government.
With regard to advocacy and lobbying emphasis was put on the role of the private sector in making available contributions to youth development. Ms Nkondlo also emphasised the need for qualitative participation on behalf of the NYC when it is invited to certain social cluster debates and not to be marginalised by these engagements.

With regard to co-ordination and capacity building, Ms Nkondlo maintained that the NYC intends meaningful participation in international relations and with other departments. This participation should be understood as a measurable contribution made to develop a clear strategy for participation. She argued that the NYC needs the support of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Life and Status of Children as a resource. 

Discussion

Ms T Tobias (ANC) argued that their needs to be clarity on the Commission’s capacity as it pertained to public perceptions. She argued that the perception should not be created that the Youth Commission could deal with too many challenges as this might lead to excessive expectation. Ms Tobias also suggested that research should be closely related to development strategy and duplication of work across departments should be avoided. She warned that the NYC should be careful not to overstep their mandate and create expectations.

The Deputy Chairperson of the NYC, Ms V Tuelo maintained that the NYC did not intend to create expectations but rather construct a "wish list" for capacity building. It intends to use the Committee as a resource in constant communication with the NYC. Ms Tuelo argued for a "two way support mechanism" between the Committee and the Commission, where the Committee would be a “mouthpiece” for Parliament while the NYC became the public voice of the youth. She argued that an open line of communication at least between the two chairs should be established. With regard to participation on behalf of the NYC, Ms Tuelo maintained that it was crucial for the Committee to be exposed to the work of the NYC to understand better the challenges of the youth.

The Chairperson said that there had been complaints from the municipalities over the lack of youth development in certain areas and asked what is being done about this.

Mr C T Molefe (ANC) argued that the marriage of the Committee and the NYC should not be one of convenience but of objectives. He claimed that many departments were not taking youth development seriously and this should be remedied. He asked how the NYC proposes to include the objectives of the Committee into the NYC's strategic plans.

Mr M I Moss (ANC) asked why the CEO of the NYC could not make his flight to Cape Town when the meeting was planned in advance. He found this to be unacceptable. He also argued that the Committee had very little research capacity and there had to be a meeting with the NYC to work out research objectives.

Ms Tobias argued that the meeting should not consider the NYC's strategic plan because the CEO was not present; hence the accounting officer was not available to explain the plan adequately. She agreed that a quarterly report could be a solution to bridge any communication gap between the Committee and the NYC.

Ms J Chalmers (ANC) affirmed the idea of quarterly reports and asked what role the NYC has in the various provinces. She asked if there were any programmes in place to deal with juveniles in prison.  She suggested that alternative channels of communication between the Committee and the NYC should be used such as e-mails and faxes if any problems or areas of concern arose.

Ms Nkondlo agreed with the idea of quarterly reports. With regard to the issue of local government programmes she said that a detailed report would be sent to the Committee. She maintained that a strategy is being developed in terms of the resources for local government but explained that there was no uniform approach. Ms Nkondlo argued that there must be an established and institutionalised understanding of what youth development is, and it would be the responsibility of the NYC to make the Committee and other Committees aware of this. She said that a report on the synergising approach of the NYC to youth development would be sent to the Committee. Ms Nkondlo further agreed that there should be a proactive approach to communication with the media to clarify the role of the NYC and to address the lack of positive exposure of youth development.

Mr M Modiba, a new Commissioner of the NYC explained that the overarching role of the NYC is to facilitate the mainstream understanding of development and the NYC's cross cutting responsibility, but the Committee should be the window and the voice. He stressed the institutionalisation of youth development in Parliament and the rest of government.

In response to this Ms Tobias explained that it was the role of the Committee to pass legislation and not to tamper with the role of policy makers.

Ms Tuelo said with regard to juveniles in prison that a successful pilot programme was set in place by the NYC to develop the skills of those in prison in order for them to be re-integrated into society. However the main challenge faced by this programme was the stigma attached to ex-convicts which prevented them from being re-integrated, and that should be addressed by the broader civil society. Another concern for Ms Tuelo was the lack of standardisation of age which conceptualised "youth" where institutions would take a variable approach to considering youth development. She said it was the role of the Committee to make government aware of the disjuncture between the law and policy.

Mr L Van Rooyen (ANC) argued that the NYC should be measured with respect to their fulfilment of their priorities and re-emphasised the lack of cognitive restructuring with regard to prisoners.

Ms Tobias suggested that a full day workshop be scheduled to facilitate a much broader engagement with the National Youth Commission.

The Chairperson reiterated the need and welcomed the idea of the quarterly report. She also re-emphasised the Committee's struggle with research capacity; however she assured the NYC that the Committee would help where it could.

The meeting was adjourned.