The Committee had received 30 responses on the National Youth Development Agency Bill. It heard oral submissions. The Office of the Presidency presented a submission giving the history and some background to the work of the Task Team. He then explained the mandate, composition and functioning of the National Youth Commission (NYC) and Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF). He noted that it was the government’s understanding that the provincial commissions were also to be incorporated into the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), so that their relevant founding legislation should be repealed. This office highlighted some of the problems around the mandate and functioning of the UYF and the weaknesses in the NYC legislation. There were also some questions as to whether these were subject to enough oversight by the Joint Monitoring Committee. It was noted that some of the programmes had not been able to reach all the youth and were concentrated in the urban areas. There was a need not to destroy the institutions but to integrate their capacities and expertise in the interests of accelerated service delivery. A process of due diligence had begun and the new Agency must be effective, accountable, and implemented programmes on a larger scale and with better impact. It was suggested that there should be extension of public hearings into the provinces. The establishment of the Agency would be linked to adoption of the Youth Policy
The SA Council of Churches Youth Forum made comparisons with other countries and noted that there should be a council for youth activities and affairs, which should interact directly with stakeholders. It proposed that every Ministry should have a youth directorate, represented on that Council, and there was a necessity to engage at both provincial and local level. The Forum believed that the structure should be moved from the Presidency. It should still maintain what was set out in Clause 6 of the Bill, and must be able to interact directly with youth organisations.
The Azanian People’s Organisation Youth Desk noted that the NYC had not met its obligations on youth development, and that although it had developed the National Youth Development Policy, it had taken too long to achieve adoption of that policy. Its interaction with civil society was insufficiently structured, and it had had limited resources and had viewed itself as more of an advisory body than an implementing agency. The fact that many State departments did not have youth directorates had led to haphazard initiatives. It recommended the establishment of a separate Youth Ministry, or as a second alternative housing the Agency under the Department of Sport and Recreation, or Education, both of which dealt already with the youth, where it might achieve better focus. The Board should not determine, but only implement policy, but should determine day to day work procedures. Local coordinators should be appointed. Members questioned these views and expressed their disagreement that the Agency should be moved out of the Presidency. They also questioned why there was a request for specific mention of promoting an inter-government framework, and questioned the statements that the Joint Monitoring Committee was not doing enough.
The Democratic Alliance Youth, welcomed the proposed legislation, and stressed that the new institution must be inclusive and focus on unlocking opportunities for the youth to participate in economic growth. It asserted that it agreed with the establishment within the Presidency, that the NYC and UYF had failed and should be disbanded, and that opportunities should be given to all youth. Failures in the past had resulted from connections to the ruling party rather than fully open programmes and the focus had been on urban areas to the detriment of rural ones. The two organisations had failed to address the real problems and appointments to the leadership were not based on true merit. There was a need for greater visibility and accountability, as also full capacitation. There was a suggestion for quarterly reports by the Agency to the Presidency, appointment of the Board by the President, and of the CEO by the Board. Members sought clarity on the comments around qualifications, transparency and the alleged incompetence of the NYC.
The National Education, Health & Allied Workers
The Northern Cape Youth Commission said that there was a need for a unitary Agency structure, with resubmission at all levels of government, including at the district level. There was no need for the provincial boards. The private sector and civil society should be a key focus area for the Agency. There should be a targeted approach to project implementation, with attention given to defining the different spheres at local level. The CEO should be appointed by the Board and be a member of it. The State of the Youth report should be a three-yearly report, as an annual report would not do justice to the subject. Members asked fore clarity on why provincial boards were not supported.
Mzanzi Youth Business in Coalition supported the establishment of the Agency and said that it must be goal-orientated. Members questioned why it claimed the UYF had failed, and asked about why it had proposed such a large board.
Umsobomvu Youth Fund hoped that past problems would not be repeated, and noted that the past expenditure on the youth was very small and represented only a small percentage of the total spending. It asked for details of the financial support required, and called for consultation with the private sector, labour and civil society, who should also be able to nominate board members. Consultation should continue after these hearings.
The Muslim Judicial Council urged that attention be given to developing the spiritual character of the youth, cultivation of a strong moral conscience, and activism for change. The Bill should also identify interventions to address HIV/AIDS, gangsterism, drug and alcohol abuse. Faith based organisations were important and should also be identified. There was a need for youth centres to protect the youth from crime. He urged education in business ethics in addition to entrepreneurship. Finally, it noted that the programmes should not be subject to political interference.
The Eastern Cape Youth Commission suggested that public hearings be held in the provinces, and the Agency should be a catalyst for government intervention with regard to the youth.
Mr X Lali urged that there be structures to service local communities, and youth counselling units were needed. Mr S Nyembe said it was important to promote an integrated approach to youth development and participation in government, and he urged that professional support be provided to establish monitoring and controls. Sporting codes should be available in all areas and youth religious needs catered for. A Ministry of Youth Affairs should also be set up. Members asked why he felt that this was necessary.
The North West Provincial Youth Commission recommended various amendments to the draft Bill, and said the objects of the Agency should include research. The preamble should be expanded. It suggested that the State of the Youth Report be published every three years.
The Chairperson noted that the Committee was following through on the resolution of Parliament, of 23 September, calling for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to consider legislation relating to the National Youth Development Agency. He noted that the Committee was hearing public submissions and thanked those making submissions for the keen interest shown, noting that thirty submissions had been received. Three submissions would be postponed to the Committee’s 18 November 2008 meeting to accommodate entities whose officials had apparently not received or not read email messages from the Committee.
The Chairperson said that it was unfortunate, that there was not better resubmission from Parliament, and that only the DA opposition party was present.
Submission from the Presidency
Mr Busani Ngcaweni explained that he was Chair of the Government Task Team established in the Presidency at the beginning of 2008 to examine the issues concerning the mandate to merge the National Youth Commission (NTC) and the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) and thereby establish the National Youth Development Agency. He presented their submission.
He emphasised that this was a draft that had been processed by the Cabinet Committee, and would be submitted to Cabinet on 19 November 2008 where it would be subject to further amendment.
At its 52nd national conference held in December 2007 the governing party had resolved that a National Youth Development Agency be established to ensure seamless integration, sustainability and responsiveness to the demands and aspirations of
Government had established an inter-departmental task team consisting of senior managers from the National Youth Commission (NYC), the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF), the National Treasury, the Department of Labour (DoL), the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the Presidency. The mandate was formalised and integrated into the work of the government by including it in the 2008 Social Sector’s Programme of Action (PoA Activity 9.7). As mandated, the Task Team had also to develop mechanisms to ensure that the Integrated Youth Development Strategy (IYDS) was formalised as government policy to be implemented by the National Youth Development Agency.
The National Youth Commission was a statutory body established by the NYC Act 19 of 1996 and was under the political oversight of the Minister in the Presidency. The UYF was a Section 21 Company established by government to address unemployment challenges facing the country’s youth. As a Section 21 Company, it could be merged with the NYC only after it had been wound up, deregistered or dissolved in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973.
Though the resolution was silent on the issue of Provincial Youth Commissions, government’s understanding was that the commissions were also to be incorporated into the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). Consequently Provincial Youth Commissions’ Acts should be repealed. In that case the NYDA would become a concurrent undertaking, meaning public hearings should be held in the provinces as and when the NYDA Bill would be processed.
The Presidency’s view was that the submission offered a substantive proposal on how the National Youth Development Agency should be structured and what its functions should be, based on the Presidency’s understanding of the challenges facing young South Africans outside the mainstream and the inability of the existing NYC and UYF adequately to respond to those challenges.
The UYF had been hampered by lack of a mandating Act of Parliament and it had therefore had to ‘regulate itself’. In 2007 it had, controversially, taken upon itself to fund individuals over the age of 35, which was an apparent contradiction of its aim. A legal instrument arguably could have avoided this diversion. This was a serious weakness, in the view of the Presidency.
The NYC had been empowered by its own Act, but there were, nonetheless, weaknesses in its legislation. In the Presidency’s view, ‘The National Youth Commission is currently a watchdog within the executive’. This was reflected in Section 3 of the Act. This had its constraints and limitations. The work of the Commission was monitored in Parliament by the Joint Monitoring Committee and there was some discussion as to whether this Committee could have the same degree of vigilance as any other portfolio committee in Parliament.
Parliament in 2007 had established an Ad Hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions. This committee argued that the National Youth Commission had a mandate to implement, but over the years the Commission had argued that it lacked a mandate to implement. Section 3 of the National Youth Commission’s Act was not clear on this point.
The Task Team had critically reviewed the NYC and UYF programmes. Some of these programmes were too small to reach all young people and were mainly concentrated in urban areas. Umsobomvu Youth Fund’ had more activities, for historical reasons, in
The limitations of these institutions indicated to the Task Team a need to integrate their activities and services. In the Presidency’s view, this was not about destroying the two existing institutions but about combining the capacities and expertise that existed, in the interests of accelerated service delivery, as well as reaching young people wherever they were in
A process of ‘due diligence’ had begun to assess the assets and liabilities of the two institutions, because these existing resources or assets would serve as a baseline for the new National Youth Development Agency. The National Youth Commission had recently signed a lease for its new premises, and this had financial implications.
A main preoccupation of government was how to establish a NYDA that was effective, accountable, and implemented programmes on a larger scale and with better impact. Therefore the lessons to be learned from the existing two institutions were being taken into consolidation so that old inefficiencies would not be transferred to the new Agency. It was important that the new legislation would indicate clearly the objects of the new Agency.
It was the Presidency’s view that the matter had wide implications for the provinces and therefore the Committee should consider extending the public hearings into the provinces. This was especially important because at the present time students were writing examinations and many young people, because of constrained resources, were unable to attend the public hearings in Parliament.
There was a consensus that the Agency must be established as soon as legally and logistically possible. The issue would then be to finalise the Agency’s programme and structure. This process should not be separated from the adoption of the National Youth Policy.
South African Council of Churches Youth Forum (SACCYF)’s submission
Mr Vuyani Pule, representative of the SACC Youth Forum, said that the Forum had identified certain core issues that directly affected young people. The aim of the Bill should be to identify skills development and ensure that there was access for young people to a number of opportunities, in particular, entrepreneurial opportunities, in order to create a better life for them.
In terms of the structure of the Agency itself, it was necessary to reconcile the history of the UYF as based on a business model and the NYC as a policy advocacy structure in government.
He made comparisons with other countries, noting that
The Department of Arts and Culture had a youth directorate established in 2008. Each and every Ministry should have such a youth directorate, and such directorates should be represented in the Council for Youth Affairs that the Forum proposed. It was also essential that the proposed structure of the NYDA should be able to engage at provincial and local levels as well as at the national level.
The Forum proposed that the proposed structure should be moved away from the Presidency. It would be ideal to establish youth directorates within every ministry, and a council that would be able to interact directly with Parliament. Mr Pule was not quite clear in his wording at this point, but raised the possibility that the members of the executive would be nominated, and the Portfolio Committee should be able to engage directly with the core stakeholders – the youth themselves.
In terms of the functions, primarily as defined in Clause 6 of the Bill, the structure should still be able to implement and drive policy positions that were proposed and aimed at improving the lives of young people. In terms of the managerial affairs of the Agency, he suggested that there would still be ‘a portfolio committee within the structure’ that would be able to engage on a day-to-day basis with the affairs and the implementation of programmes of young people themselves.
Mr Pule restated the Forum’s view that the Agency should not be located within the Presidency and should have a much more inclusive structure that should engage on ‘a day-to-day basis’ with the needs of young people, advancing the executive’s mandate, as given to it by youth organisations.
He noted that a particular problem with the NYC, appointed directly by the President, had been that it was not able to interact directly with youth organisations, notwithstanding its role in youth advocacy. Mr Pule again stressed the need for direct interaction with young people, whether as individuals or represented by their organisations. The National Youth Development Agency must be a structure that could interact directly. He stressed that the functions of Clause 6 must be implemented but the structure changed to allow interaction at provincial and local governmental levels.
Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) [Youth Desk] presentation
Mr Veli Mbele, National Youth Secretary, AZAPO shared some views on the review by the Ad Hoc Committee on Chapter 9 and Related Institutions with regard to the National Youth Commission, and stated that these views had informed his presentation. He said that the NYC had not met its obligations with regard to youth development. Secondly, despite having developed the National Youth Development Policy, it had taken too long to achieve adoption of the policy. Thirdly, its interaction with civil society had been insufficiently structured. Fourthly it had had limited resources; and had viewed itself as an advisory body, not an implementing agency. It had had limited interaction with Parliament, as had been indicated tacitly by the Presidency itself. Youth development initiatives had occurred haphazardly within State departments, because not all State departments had youth directorates, with many only having a youth desk or some ad hoc function related to youth development, which was also often equated to skills development only.
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions had observed that there was considerable overlap between the functions of the NYC and the Youth Desk in the Presidency. This had concluded that the NYC, in its present form, did not serve its purpose in terms of that report. Based on this comment, and its own observations (which he did not elaborate upon, in the interests of time) he said that consideration should be given to the establishment of a National Youth Ministry, which would, amongst other things, examine children’s rights, which had not received sufficient attention, and relate to having a specific focus on gender and the disabled under one ministry. This would avoid the necessity to amalgamate institutions that would have worked very well if they had been housed elsewhere.
He suggested that if this was not possible then the National Youth Development Agency could be housed under the Department of Sport and Recreation, where it might receive more attention. It was debatable also whether that the Agency might be housed under the Department of Social Development. Therefore all references in the Bill to “the President” should change to “the Minister”. He suggested that education should receive more attention, in addition to skills development. It should be obligatory for all State departments to have youth directorates. Moral development should be entrenched in the Bill, since this was of critical importance, and there should not be too much focus upon business development, although this was important. The aim of nation-building should also be reflected in the Bill, since it was dealing with a public sector institution.
With regard to the Integrated Youth Strategy, he said that it was essential to use the word ‘must’, as there was leeway in the bill. He also suggested that it should not be the responsibility of the Board to determine policy, but only to implement it. However, it could determine basic day to day work procedures. All directors must be bound by written performance agreements. All those employed should be aware of their contractual obligations. The Premier should not necessarily him or herself be named as the provincial official concerned. Local co-ordinators should be appointed.
Mr M Swathe (DA) asked the Forum where they wished to see the Agency housed and to whom it should account. It was in the Presidency that most of the ministries ‘came together’; and he wanted to know the objections to housing it there.
Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) also asked why the SACCYF did not want the National Youth Development Agency to be located within the Presidency.
Mr Pule replied that locating the National Youth Development Agency within the Presidency would not enable the Agency would not be able to function effectively as and when required and would reduce it to redundancy. An alternative possibility was to locate it within the Ministry of Education, because this ministry was sufficiently capacitated to deal with issues related to young people. History had demonstrated the inability of the National Youth Commission to function effectively within the Presidency. As Mr Mbele had indicated, it would be ideal to have a fully fledged ministry for youth affairs rather than an agency operating in an existing ministry.
Mr Mbele said that the Agency needed ‘an activist minister’ to function effectively. It had not received enough attention within the Presidency. Moreover, the Presidency already had a full agenda, including international work on behalf of the country. Locating it within another ministry such as that of Sport and Recreation would enable it to be given due attention.
Ms T Tobias Pokolo (ANC) felt that Mr Pule and Mr Mbele had not given convincing explanations for their objections to housing the National Youth Development Agency within the Presidency, which, in her view, was the appropriate place. The alleged failures of the NYC should be explained specifically. The NYC had been established to monitor implementation of its youth development policies by government departments. Placing the National Youth Development Agency within the Presidency would empower it to oversee all government departments in respect of their youth affairs. The Presidency was moreover empowered to set national priorities, whereas a Minister could not tell other ministerial colleagues what to do. She asserted that the South African government was the most transparent in the world.
The Chairperson asked that at this stage, Members confine themselves to questions of clarity, as there would be opportunities for debate in the Committee’s meetings to be held on 19 and 20 November 2008.
Mr Pule said that the present structure served just to monitor. He reiterated his view that it was necessary to locate the Agency where it would be effective and where it would interact directly with young people. He suggested that the Portfolio Committee on Sports and Recreation could interact directly and effectively with young people.
Ms Hope Helene Malgas, Chairperson of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature’s Portfolio Committee on Youth, Gender and Disability, asked AZAPO to clarify why it wanted to insert the words ‘promote inter-governmental framework’ when ‘organs of state’ were already referred to in the Bill.
Mr Mbele said that the rationale for that proposal was that all government departments should have youth development directorates. Because of the way government departments were structured, the NYC had faced various difficulties such as the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry did not have a youth desk. It was impossible to implement when structures were not clear.
Mr Geordin Hill-Lewis,
Mr Hill-Lewis stated that the new institution must, in principle, be founded on inclusivity and must focus on unlocking opportunities for youth to participate in economic growth.
Mr Hill-Lewis firmly asserted that the National Youth Development Agency should be located within the Presidency for the purpose of oversight, monitoring and regulation. The Democratic Alliance believed that there was a need for a new administration with a new vision and sense of mission to fulfil the mandate of youth development in
The process of establishing the National Youth Development Agency should be open and transparent and give opportunities to all youth irrespective of political affiliation and race. It should be based on the model of the ‘open opportunity society’, which envisaged empowering individuals to drive their own solutions rather than depend on the State.
The failure of the existing institutions could be traced to divisions caused by basing all programmes on connection to the ruling party rather than on openness to all young South Africans to participate. In addition, the focus of the existing institutions had had an urban bias, with rural areas being neglected. The NYC and UYF had not been visible enough. The majority of young people were struggling with high unemployment, high rates of drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, and crime, which the two existing organisations had also not addressed. Young people were tired of institutions that promised much but delivered little. Appointments to positions of leadership had not been made on merit. This had caused problems within the institutions to escalate.
Mr Hill Lewis said that some of the existing legislation was good, but there were questions around effective implementation. The National Youth Development Agency must have members in provinces and municipalities, as well as in Mayoral offices. These members must be visible and effective. The Minister responsible for youth issues must be held accountable. The National Youth Development Agency must be capacitated to ensure that all youth were treated equally and with respect, and supported financially, educationally and emotionally.
Mr Hill Lewis reiterated that the DA would support the establishment of this Agency to replace the ineffective institutions of the past, which had not been inclusive and had called for this in the past. He noted that it should be straightforward to do business with the Agency and conflicts of interest must be avoided. Powers needed to be devolved to the local level. Incompetent and incapable people in key positions would render the Agency as much of a failure as its predecessors. He said that the Board should be appointed by the President, and the Chief Executive Officer should be appointed by the Board. The Agency should report on a quarterly basis to the Presidency and work within sustainable budgets that should not be diverted to large salaries and celebration functions. The Agency should work to promote an ‘open opportunity society’. He noted that the consultation process was now comprehensive and asked that the last paragraph of his written submission, which had expressed concern on that issue, be withdrawn.
The Chairperson commended the industry of the Democratic Alliance. He asked Mr Hill-Lewis if the Committee Members, other than himself, had been supplied with a copy of the presentation.
Mr Hill-Lewis replied that he had not been asked to supply such copies but would be happy to do so later.
Ms Tobias Pokolo said that the report on Chapter 9 institutions had not yet been adopted. She had never expressed a view that there were inadequacies in that report. She disputed Mr Hill-Lewis’s remarks about transparency, and asked him to explain his comment about ‘incompetence’. The National Youth Commission and Umsobomvu Youth Fund had been challenged by the scope of their assignments and budget limitations. She thought that Mr Hill-Lewis’ recommendation that the National Youth Development Agency should report quarterly was unnecessary. She agreed with Mr Hill-Lewis about the need for inclusivity, saying this was intrinsic to the African National Congress’s vision and policies.
Mr Hill-Lewis replied that educational qualifications in themselves were no guarantee of fitness to perform a particular job, and said that competence had too often been overlooked in favour of connections with and patronage of the ruling party. There should be a focus on true merit and fitness for the position concerned. With regard to transparency, he commented that the National Youth Convention, which Ms Tobias Pokolo had attended, had been ‘about as transparent as the Russian government’. Delegates had not received substantive reports and opportunities to give input were limited. He noted that there was precedent for reporting quarterly to Parliament. Since it was a priority matter, it was important to report on a quarterly basis.
Ms Malgas objected to the generalised statements made about the National Youth Commission. She disputed allegations of incompetence. She asked in what respects the Commission had failed, and noted that it had received unqualified audit reports.
Mr Hill-Lewis conceded that these institutions had received unqualified audit reports. However, there had been ‘an element of goal displacement’. It must not be assumed that an entity that had spent 99.5% of its budget was necessarily successful. It was necessary to ask if it had met its objectives in that expenditure. Mr Hill-Lewis’s argument was that it had not, and he did not apologise for using the word ‘failure’. An unqualified audit report did not in itself make an entity’s programme successful. UYF had started to operate just as a bank. There were some 15 million members of the population formally classified as youth, the vast majority of whom were unemployed and living in poverty. The National Youth Development Agency was without question a priority. That alone merited quarterly reporting to Parliament.
A member of the North West Provincial Legislature said that there was a very effective structure in the
Mr Hill-Lewis conceded that in that member’s area there may indeed have been an effective structure; however, the NYC and UYF programmes had mostly been concentrated in the urban areas.
The Chairperson asked that the Committee not assume an oversight role at the present stage, and affirmed that there would be opportunity for ‘robust debate’ in subsequent meetings.
National Education, Health & Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) (National Youth Commission branch) presentation
Mr Johannes Mbiza of Nehawu said that although it was not intended to “rewrite the Bill” the labour movement wanted to make an active contribution. It felt that the preamble of the Bill should allow a process to involve workers in the Bill’s development, especially where employees had more questions than answers. The uncertainties of NYC and UYF employees should be answered.
The appointment of the board of directors should take the form of a provincial resubmission at a national level. To have a two-tiered National Youth Development Agency – national and provincial – would delay implementation of programmes. It had been a limitation of the National Youth Commission that the provincial commissions had not reported adequately to the National Commission. There should be a nine member board of directors, composed of nine provincial representatives and the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, whose appointment should be by way of a separate process. The Chief Executive Officer should be appointed by the board of directors rather than by the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and he should report to the board.
Nehawu did not see any need for the provincial boards and recommended that they be dissolved. A national structure was needed that had provincial and regional offices for implementing decisions made at a national level.
Northern Cape Youth Commission presentation
Mr Garrith Bezuidenhoudt, Chairperson, Northern Cape Youth Commission, said that there was general consensus on the need for a National Youth Development Agency as a unitary structure, with resubmission at all levels of government, including at the district level. He said that this was a gap in the proposed legislation that should be filled. The private sector and civil society should be a key focus area for the Agency. There should be a targeted approach to project implementation, with attention given to defining the different spheres as local level.
The Northern Cape Youth Commission was fairly satisfied with the thrust of the proposed Bill, but suggested some clarification in the objects of the Bill, and some changes, such as the inclusion of resubmission at district level as mentioned above.
He suggested that the Chief Executive Officer should form part of the Board and be appointed by the Board, and not the President. There should be continuity. There should be voting rights at the level of the board. He said that there need be no separation between executive and other staff in the context of the proposed legislation. He agreed with other presenters that the provincial boards should be removed.
The State of the Youth report should be a three-yearly report, as an annual report would not do justice to the subject.
He suggested that the National Youth Development Agency should function as a separate vote within the Presidency to give it flexibility and influence in its budget process. There should be a mechanism to ensure sufficient oversight in Parliament. There should be space for provincial variations and dynamics, with local level implementation. There should be a triennial youth summit for reporting purposes. Finally, arrangements should be made for a smooth transition.
Mr Swathe asked why the Northern Cape Youth Commission found the objects of the Bill confusing.
Mr Bezuidenhoudt replied that the objects of the Bill could be expressed much more concisely.
Mr Swathe asked why the Commission opposed provincial boards.
Mr Swathe said that the Commission had indicated that it would wish to see local co-ordinators within the Agency, but it had not indicated specifically where these local co-ordinators would be located. The Commission had spoken of districts and of municipalities, but did not indicate in which of the two categories the local co-ordinators should operate.
The Chairperson sought clarity on the Northern Cape Youth Commission’s proposal for a Schedule 3 (a) public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.
Mr Bezuidenhoudt said that the Chief Executive Officer should be appointed by the board to improve accountability. He conceded that the Commission’s proposal should have read ‘schedule 3 (b)’.
Ms Malgas questioned Nehawu on the rationale for board at national level only, when it was necessary to strengthen provincial and local government.
Mr Mbiza from Nehawu explained that the challenge lay at national level, and that a provincial approach might not be of assistance. Strategic planning should take place at a national level, and implementation at a provincial and local level.
Mr Bezuidenhoudt concurred with Nehawu in that there was no need to duplicate governance structures. Provincial boards impeded coherence. Responsibilities of provinces and districts would be clearly defined.
Mzanzi Youth Business in Coalition on Opportunities (MYBICO) presentation
Mr Preddy Mothopeng said that MYBICO supported the establishment of the National Youth Development Agency, and acknowledged the hard work of the Committee on the draft Bill. He described himself as a counter-revolutionary. He said that his submission was goal–orientated, and referred Members to his written submission.
Mr Mothopeng criticised, however, the ‘one-size fits all’ approach to solving problems reflected in the Bill.
The Chairperson cautioned the presenters not to be flippant or cause offence.
Mr J Combrinck (ANC) asked Mr Mothopeng to explain the contradiction between his assertion that the Umsobomvu Youth Fund had failed, and his assertion that the Fund had created 300 000 jobs.
Mr Mothopeng replied that the 300 000 jobs were ‘collective’. He said that the new Agency would itself create jobs.
Ms Tobias Pokolo asked for clarification of certain points in his presentation, including the frequency of meetings of the Board, the high number of 15 proposed for membership of the board, funding, and alignment of provincial youth commissions.
Mr Mothopeng replied that the high number of board members was required to ensure availability of board members to attend various functions in different places.
Members noted that Mr Mothopeng had offended them by his earlier remarks.
Mr Mothopeng apologised, but said that the situation was a reality, and he had produced a pack of condoms to illustrate that a “one size fits all” approach did not work.
Ms Tobias Pokolo said that Mr Mothopeng should apologise unreservedly.
The Co-Chairperson also requested an apology and said that said that Mr Mothopeng should apologise unconditionally. She apologised to Members who had been offended by the views expressed, and explained to Mr Mothopeng that not all Members of Parliament were young, and it was necessary to be sensitive to older people.
The Chairperson later ruled that while it was appreciated that everyone was liable to err at times, it must not be forgotten for one moment that the institution of Parliament, as the highest institution of law-making in the country, must at all times be respected by all. He explained that a meeting such as the present one had serious work to do and everyone was expected to behave in a seemly manner and in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette.
Umsobomvu Youth Fund presentation
Mr Kgomoco Diseko, Board Member, Umsobomvu Youth Fund, said that It was important to eliminate all possibilities for ambiguity and to cater for the interests of employees affected by the merger of the two institutions.
Mr Malose Kekana The Chief Executive Officer, UYF, explained the salient features of the presentation.
He noted that in the Bill itself there was a confluence of functions which the Fund hoped would be addressed. He hoped that past problems would not be repeated. Government expenditure on youth development was very small, while there was a huge attrition rate in education and that amounted to wasted expenditure . It was remarkable that there was more expenditure on youth development of young prisoners than on the development of youth who were at school or unemployed, or to sports development.
Details would be needed of the financial support required to ensure effectiveness of the new Agency.
There should be due consultation with the private sector, labour and civil society, and these sectors should be able to nominate board members. In addition, there must be compliance with all important applicable laws. The process should take into account the impact that it would have on the Fund and on the Commission, and consultation should continue after the hearings. These issues, such as were pointed out by the Northern Cape Provincial Youth Commission chairperson should not be insurmountable.
Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) presentation
Moulana Shoaib Appleby, Co-ordinator, Youth Affairs, Muslim Judicial Council, gave some background information on his organisation, which was involved in various inter-faith projects and initiatives in government structures and civil society. The Muslim Judicial Council supported the National Youth Development Agency Bill, but in the light of its concern for the youth of
It was necessary to develop the spiritual character of the youth and cultivate a strong moral conscience in the spirit of volunteerism and activism for change. Economic upliftment was not sufficient to change the condition of the youth and enable
He noted that youth should be protected from crime. Youth centres of a recreational nature should be established in different areas. Youth should also participate in moral regeneration programmes and service to the community. It was necessary to sensitise the urban youth to respect the natural environment and create awareness amongst the youth of the implications of global warming. It was important also that the youth be educated in business ethics in addition to entrepreneurship.
It was felt that the President had the right to intervene to ensure that the programmes were implemented. However, the programmes of the Agency should not be subject to political interference.
Prince Mlimandlela Ndamase, Chairperson of the Eastern Cape Youth Commission, said that an edited and amended version of his submission was being prepared and would be forwarded to the Committee.
The Eastern Cape Youth Commission welcomed the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee but would have appreciated public hearings in the provinces to give young people an opportunity to participate. It felt that all government departments must be able to show what they could deliver to young people. The National Youth Development Agency should be a catalyst for government intervention with regard to the youth.
Suitable transitional arrangements should be made to ensure stability and to avoid anxiety amongst existing employees.
Mr Xoiliseka Lali submission (no paper copy was provided)
Mr Xoiliseka Lali apologised for arriving unprepared to present properly, and said that there was a lack of personnel to service communities. The National Youth Development Agency would work well if it had structures to service local communities. A proposal adopted by the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) would be of assistance to the National Youth Development Agency. In all local communities, youth counselling units were needed.
North West Provincial Youth Commission submission
Mr Kabelo Mataboge, North West Provincial Youth Commission, noted that the North West Provincial Youth Commission recommended various amendments to the draft Bill, for example to the effect that the National Youth Development Agency should operate at national, provincial and local government levels, and that its objects should, among other things, include research. It further suggested that the preamble be expanded. There should be a differentiation between an annual report and a State of the Youth report, which should be published every three years.
Mr Steven Nyembe submission
Mr Nyembe said that there was a written copy of his presentation. He sought to promote an integrated approach to youth development and promote youth participation in government, in the economy and society at large.
It was important that all young people captured and internalised the mission of the Youth Development Agency. Professional support must be brought to the fore to assist in establishing monitoring and controls of implementation of the strategy.
The various stages of the development of the child and young person should be recognised and not omitted. He commented that all sporting codes must be available in all areas, urban and rural. In addition, youth religious needs must be recognised and catered for at a local level. He suggested that a Ministry of Youth Affairs should be established, as well as youth development agencies in the provinces. Role models for youth should be identified to provide mentoring. He concluded that the success of any country was dependent on investment in the youth of the country.
Mr Ntuli, (ANC, Free State Provincial Legislature) asked if any public hearings had already been held in the provinces.
The Chairperson corrected him on a point of protocol.
Mr Ntuli commented that the Bill did not seek to restructure the youth development machinery as a whole. He asked if the Umsobomvu Youth Fund could be incorporated within the National Youth Development Agency as an agency itself.
Ms Tobias Pokolo said that provincial youth commissions were all suggesting, unjustifiably in her view, that the Joint Monitoring Committee was not doing enough, and had made instead the suggestion that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts should assume an additional oversight role.
Ms Malgas said that the Northern Cape and North Western presentations were remarkably similar, and asked why this was so.
The Chairperson observed that it was a matter of ‘cut and paste’. He dispelled any notion that there had been public hearings in any of the provinces.
Mr Swathe asked Mr Nyembe why he specified the need for a youth affairs ministry.
Mr Nyembe explained the need for co-ordination.
The Chairperson suggested that individual presenters might find synergy in collaboration with presenters from organisations.
The meeting was adjourned.
- Mzanzi Youth Business in Coalition on Opportunities (MYBICO) submission
- Steven Nyembe: Bonstev Consulting and Projects submission
- South African Council of Churches Youth Forum (SACCYF) submission
- Northern Cape Youth Commission submision
- Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) presentation
- Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) submission
- The Presidency. Draft Submission on National Youth Development Agency
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.