Department of Social Development Q1-3 2021/22 Performance Reports

Social Development

01 June 2022
Chairperson: Ms N Mvana (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee met virtually with the Department of Social Development (DSD) to receive a report on the Department’s performance for the first three quarters of the 2021/22 financial year.  

The presentation covered the performance trends for quarters 1 to 3, an overview of the Department’s five programmes -- Administration; Social Assistance; Social Security Policy and Administration; Welfare Services Policy Development and Implementation Support; and Social Policy and Integrated Service Delivery -- and issues such as non-profit organisation (NPO) registration, funding and information management, and a summary of expenditure over the nine-month period. The Department said 2020/21 was one of the most difficult financial years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent rise in social ills, which had disrupted its service delivery. The Department was, however, able to achieve 81% of its set targets, with 76% achieved at the end of the third quarter.

The ensuing discussion by Members included the Department’s failure to achieve targets and the impact of not achieving goals; the effect of budget cuts; its lack of understanding of policies or legislation; the prolonged cancellation of tenders before they could be readvertised for the Information Management Systems and Technology (IMST) system; delays in the Fundraising Amendment Bill; and non-profit organisation (NPO) registrations and reports not being processed. The Committee also asked for progress on the Victim Support Service (VSS) Bill, and for access to public comments on the Bill; women's empowerment issues; programmes in place to end the scourge of child kidnapping and child trafficking; details of irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure cases, and action taken in areas of misconduct.

Further discussion included proposals to increase the child support grant age limit to over 18-year-old children still at school, and/or amendments to the Social Assistance Act to achieve the same outcome; the safety and security of firewalls at the Department; the impact of the Youth Development policy being implemented in the provinces; ensuring contractors used women-owned businesses in sub-contracting; how the DSD's policy on services to persons with disabilities would address challenges; the monthly R4 million bill for the Telkom toll-free line for social relief of distress (SRD) grant applications; and reporting on the status of the Early Childhood Development (ECD) Stimulus Relief Fund.

The Committee considered and adopted the minutes of 4 May and 11 May. It also considered and adopted the minutes of 18 May, although some Members were of the opinion that it was missing a resolution to include section 21 as part of the foster care-related clauses in the Children’s Amendment Bill. The Committee interpreted its decision to be an agreement to adjourn and start afresh at the next meeting. The DA, EFF, and FF+ subsequently rejected the minutes of 18 May

Meeting report

The Chairperson highlighted that it was 1 June 2022, which meant that it was Children’s Month and Child Protection Week. She welcomed everyone to the meeting and said that the Committee had very important work ahead of them. She requested that the agenda be flighted and for confirmation of the presence of Members and apologies.

Ms Lindiwe Ntsabo, Committee Secretary, noted the Members in attendance, and confirmed that the Committee had a quorum and could take official decisions during the meeting. She had received an apology from Ms Lindiwe Zulu, the Minister of Social Development, who was attending a presidential economic retreat. She did not recall receiving any correspondence from Ms Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, the Deputy Minister of Social Development.

The Chairperson asked that the apologies that were put forward be accepted.

Ms N Bilankulu (ANC) said that the Committee accepted the apologies, as reasons had been provided.

Ms A Motaung (ANC) seconded the acceptance of the apologies.

Department of Social Development Performance Report: Quarters 1 – 3

Mr Linton Mchunu, Acting Director-General, led the Department’s presentation on its Quarters 1 to 3 report for 2021/22 (April to December), supported by Mr Fanie Esterhuizen, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr Khumbula Ndaba, Acting Deputy Director-General (DDG), Ms Brenda Sibeko, DDG, Mr Thabani Buthelezi, Acting DDG, Ms Isabella Sekwana, Acting DDG, and Mr Peter Netshipale, DDG.

The presentation covered the performance trends for quarters 1 to 3, an overview of its five programmes -- Administration; Social Assistance; Social Security Policy and Administration; Welfare Services Policy Development and Implementation Support; and Social Policy and Integrated Service Delivery -- and issues such as non-profit organisation (NPO) registration, funding and information management, and a summary of expenditure over the nine-month period.

2020/21 was one of the most difficult financial years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent rise in social ills, which had disrupted the DSD’s service delivery. The Department was, however, able to achieve 81% of its set targets, with 76% achieved at the end of the third quarter.

The annual targets within the following sub-programmes were at risk of not being achieved at the end of the financial year:

Finance -- The annual target to establish and utilise a database of women-owned businesses;

Information Management Systems Technology (IMST) – The annual target to develop substance abuse systems and the alternative care management systems into the information management system;

Social Security policy development – The annual target to complete a consultation report on the Green Paper on Comprehensive Social Security and the annual target to develop and publish draft regulations on the amended fund-raising legislation for public comments;

Services to persons with disabilities The annual target to submit the policy on Social Development services to persons with disabilities to Cabinet for approval;

Professional social servicesThe annual target to submit the Social Service Practitioners draft Bill to Cabinet;

Victim Empowerment Programme –  The annual target to submit the Victim Support Services (VSS) Bill to Cabinet for approval may not be achieved due to the change in Cabinet schedule;

Non-profit organisations (NPOs) – The annual target to table the NPO Amendment Bill to Parliament; and

Population and developmentThe annual target to train 92 municipalities on the integration of migration issues into the Integrated Development Plan (IDP).

The Department was developing policies and a framework to regulate the NPO sector, which included the policy framework and the DSD's sector funding policy. 21 065 applications for NPO registration had been received, of which 20 709 were processed within two months. 31 010 reports were received, of which 25 287 were processed within two months.

A summary of expenditure for Quarters 1 – 3 was presented. A total of R170 million was spent by the end of quarter 3, which was 73.64% of the total adjusted estimate of national expenditure of R232 million. 83% of the spending was on programme 1, where the unusual high spending was related to the payment of the Telkom toll-free line for social grants. The increased cost was related to the extensive queries being received from the social relief of distress (SRD) R350 application queries. The average monthly charges amounted to R4 million per month. However, a letter had been sent to the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) for the reimbursement of this amount, and regular engagements with the CFOs were held to resolve this matter.

[See the document for details.]

Discussion

Ms L Arries (EFF) said that there was nothing to celebrate during the Child Protection week if children were still suffering from the Department’s failure to achieve their targets. The targets were key to improving the lives of children, as most children were relying on government in order to survive. It was the Committee’s and the Department’s responsibility to stop the cycle of negligence, abuse, violence, and exploitation of children. The Department really needed to pull up their socks if one looked at the presentation and the under-spending and not achieving their targets.

What was the reason for the prolonged cancellation of tenders before the tenders could be readvertised for the IMST system on slide 5? The Fundraising Amendment Bill was introduced to the Committee long before COVID-19. Why was there a delay? On the NPO reports, 5 111 had not been processed. NPOs played a key role in society. Why were these reports not processed? How many NPOs were funded by the Department? What was the reason that only 85 social workers were trained out of the 119? How far was the VSS Bill?

The Department must provide the Committee with a list of service providers that provide food for Community Nutrition Development Centres (CNDCs), and the number of women involved. It looked like the Department was not serious about women's empowerment. What programmes were there in place to end the scourge of child kidnapping and child trafficking? What would the impact be of not achieving the goals and the budget cuts?

Ms A Abrahams (DA) welcomed Mr Mchunu’s comments that the Department appreciated input from the Committee about what Members did. However, there was something that she had an issue with and which she always raised, which was that the Committee never received sight of the policies within the Department. The Committee could give more valuable contributions if Members had sight of these policies. While she appreciated that the presentation was a high level report, the wording in the report was just that these policies were there to make things functional and efficient, improved and integrated. The Committee was therefore taking the presentation at face value in that the policies that Members had never seen were in fact doing that. She pleaded with the Department that when these policies were finalised, such as the maternal support policy, they share these policies with the Committee so that Members could give more contributions and input to the Department, which was welcomed.   

She understood that the Department may not have the information at hand, but asked if they could provide the Committee in writing with the details of the irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure cases. The policy on income support to 18-59 year olds, being the basic income grant (BIG), was something that had been under discussion for 22 years. The Committee did not know when or if it would become a reality, and how long it was still going to take.

Slide 13 said that there was evidence to show that the child support grant improved attendance and education outcomes. Why then was the Department not considering increasing the child support grant age limit, in the same way as had been done with the foster care grant, to over 18-year-old children who were still in school? It was not many children who were still in school and over the age of 18, but the realities of the public education system, with all of its challenges, meant that more children over the age of 18 were seen in school. If the argument was that the Department was bringing in this new BIG proposal, which would then cover 18-year-old children still at school, would it then mean that amendments would have to be made to the foster care grant in taking away the regulation that said that if over 18-year-old children were still in school, they should still receive the foster care grant? If that was the case, why would the Department not consider another amendment to the Social Assistance Act, to say that those children who were on child support grants, still in school, and over the age of 18, could then still be eligible? When, or if, the basic income grant did come into play, those amendments to the foster care and child support grant could then be removed when the time came. It had been 22 years in the making and the Committee did not know how much longer it was still going to take, but there was a solution to keep those children in school if an amendment was made to the child support grant, similar to that of the foster care grant.

She wanted to hear the Department’s view on this. She wanted to know how far the VSS Bill was, because she knew that when the bill first came out there was a lot of public comment that had come in. Had there been any amendments to the VSS Bill after the public comments came in? When would the Committee get access to those public comments on the VSS Bill? Where was the Department in its progress on the VSS Bill? The report made mention that it was supposed to provide support to victims of violent crime, but Members knew that there were other factors of abuse, such as emotional and mental abuse by a partner, that were also classified as abuse.

On the NPO registrations, ‘processed’ and ‘processed in two months’ did not mean registered. Looking at the numbers, this meant that the Department was still averaging around only 50% complete registration. She thus sought clarity that ‘processed’ and ‘processed in two months’ was not the same as being successfully registered.

Did the Department categorise the types of non-government organisations (NGOs)? Food was becoming an increasing problem, and in the months to come the cost of food was going to be skyrocketing. Of the new applications coming in, how many of them were feeding scheme centred? With registration, an NGO could get access not only to government funding, but also to private donors.

On the contracts with women-owned businesses, would the Department put that specification into the original contract in order for the contractor to go out and sub-contact? How would the Department ensure that the contractors were in fact using women businesses in their sub-contracting? How safe were the firewalls at the Department, especially those involving the SASSA? The Committee knew that there was a lot of fraud at the SASSA, and hearing that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had been hacked, how secure were the firewalls of the SASSA, the National Development Agency (NDA) and the Department?

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) said that the youth development policy implementation plan had been developed and conducted in seven provinces, and excluded two provinces. When would the youth development policy be conducted in the two provinces not mentioned in the presentation? Did the policy have any impact in the provinces where it had been conducted? Regarding persons with disabilities, it was understood that during public hearings a lot of concerns were raised by people with disabilities. How did the policy on social development services to persons with disabilities address these challenges?

Mr D Stock (ANC) said what he appreciated the most about the presentation on the different quarters of the Department was that in the areas where there was under-spending, or where targets were not achieved, the Department was not shying away or hiding away from the fact that they had not achieved the target. The Department was actually explicitly saying to the Committee that they had not achieved the targets and provided the reasons why the particular target was not achieved. He had noted in quite a number of meetings where the Committee had dealt with the expenditures and the Department came and presented to them, that most of the time the explanation that was given to the Committee sounded the same, or was almost similar to what had happened in previous years. In areas where the explanations were the same, what was it that the Department was doing to ensure that there was no repetition of the same old stories that were happening from time to time?

On the NPO reporting, he knew that the issue in the presentation was about the NPO reporting and the large number of reports -- 5 111 of them -- that were not actually processed by the Department. This was quite worrying, as the number was huge. What were the reasons why the reports were not processed? He was busy conducting a research study for his thesis, and the study dealt with the monitoring and evaluation of NPOs. His particular focus was on the NPOs that were funded by government. He knew that government spent a lot of money when it came to NPOs –about R8 billion to R10 billion – which went to different NPOs annually for the type of work that they were doing in communities.

His area of interest related to his research, was to find out exactly whether there was monitoring and evaluation for the huge amount of money that government was spending. This was so that it did not look like money was being thrown at some of the problems that there were, without necessarily following up on the issues. Further, it was to make sure that the money being allocated to NGOs was ultimately spent for the right purpose, and to ensure that there was real impact on the ground, to protect vulnerable children, and deal with a number of services being offered by the NGOs. What was the Department doing in this regard?

Regarding the reduction of the irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, it had not come out very clearly for him in the presentation as to how the reduction had actually been achieved. How exactly did the Department manage to reduce the irregular and fruitless expenditure? What action had been taken in the areas of misconduct and fraud that had taken place? The Committee knew that some of the irregular and fruitless expenditure had an element of misconduct -- had action been taken? How many cases had been resolved or were in the process thereof?

Ms Bilankulu thanked the Chairperson for her opening remarks, and for reminding the Committee about the month of June being Children’s Month or Youth Month. She thanked Mr Mchunu for his input and for realising the efforts that Members were making in order to assist the Department in its work. On the issue of the NPOs, was there any lifespan or number of years that had been set by the Department to say that they were going to assist NPOs for a certain period, and that from there on the NPOs were supposed to sustain themselves? It looked like the NPOs that were being funded were to be funded forever, and she asked for an explanation from the Department.

On the youth development policies that had been implemented in only seven provinces and excluded in two, was this the way that the Department had planned it according to their targets, or did the Department not manage to do it in all nine provinces? Was there a shortfall, or was this how the Department had planned to do it?

She referred to the policy matters raised by Mr Mchunu in his opening, where he had said that policy matters or legislation were what had made the Department not achieve their targets because they did not understand them to the letter. Was the Department saying that from now onwards the Committee was no longer going to see what they were seeing now, because the Department now knew how to handle the issue of legislation and now better understood how to use the policies or legislation?

The other concerning issue was that of women-owned businesses. She had heard the Department talking about it, but it was not clear to her. It had been said by the President that each and every department should make sure that 40% was set aside for women-owned businesses. She did not think that, as yet, there were departments taking this into consideration – except that perhaps women were being fronted as if the companies were women-owned. What was going to be done - to make sure that the sub-contracts that the Department was to contract, were to women-owned companies?

On the issue of the Telkom toll free line for SRD applications, she had heard that the bill was in the DSD, and was supposed to be for the SASSA. The Department had said that the bill amounted to R4 million a month. She had heard the Department saying that there were bilaterals between the CFO of the Department and the CFO of the SASSA. This was happening every month, and it had run for more than a year, but now the Committee was getting a report to say that there were still bilaterals. Was there any monitoring and evaluation in the Department? If there was, why did the Department not pick this up earlier and deal with it before it escalated to a year or above? Were there any internal auditors in the Department, or did the internal auditors want to be assisted in the process that they were supposed to do? The internal auditors should have also picked this up earlier. She had heard a report saying that the Department was now looking into it. Was the Department still going to implement it, or had it already been implemented?

Ms J Manganye (ANC) had heard the Department acknowledging the hiccups that they had encountered, which she appreciated. However, she still had to say that the Department had been doing well in terms of the bills and the legislation that they dealt with. She was just amazed today for the Department to have missed the Victim Empowerment Bill. How could the Department have missed it while they had been involved with this policy for a long time? She did not think that there were only new people in the Department. Perhaps the Department should tell the Committee if they were short of people who were dealing with the policies so that the Committee could understand.

The other bill was the Persons with Disabilities Bill, which she thought was long overdue. When the Committee had gone to the public hearing, Members knew what had been raised regarding persons with disabilities. It was just frustrating, as the Department was supposed to support persons with disabilities, who fell victim to the municipalities -- and including the Committee. When one went to the offices of the Committee, one would not find a ramp where persons with disabilities could walk on. The Department had to make sure that they got the Disabilities Bill right.

The SASSA was an entity of the Committee and the Department, and as their entity, it could not take them so long to negotiate for the R4 billion that the Department had been paying to Telkom. It was just a matter of saying that the money had to go back to the Department, and that the SASSA should do so. Why was it taking so long to make sure that the SASSA paid back the money? What was happening? The Department just had to say that the SASSA had to make sure that the money was back in their account. She noted that the Department’s monitoring was so strict that they always checked if their entities were doing well. She did not want to hear the Department always saying that so many people had been identified as having committed fraud, but rather wanted to hear that so many people had been charged. The Committee had to see those people wearing orange overalls and should not be hearing about it only when the Department came to their meetings.

While she supported the Department, she did not support them on this point, as they were not doing well in terms of people who had misused the money of government. This was the money of taxpayers, and had to be used properly. She wanted to hear the Department report to the Committee and say that so many people were behind bars and so many people were paying back the money. Even if those people were behind bars, there should be something that said that the Department must be able to recoup the money that those people had taken. This did not sit well with the Committee, as the DSD was the one that was looking after the people of South Africa. The Committee liked the Department because it was looking after the poor people. It needed to be ensured that the Committee and the Department kept to all of the things that they had been saying every time.

Ms Abrahams wanted to find out from the Department where in the presentation there was any reporting on the Early Childhood Development (ECD) Stimulus Relief Fund. What was the status of that fund in terms of National Treasury rolling it over?

DSD's response

Mr Mchunu said that he was not sure that there were any targets on children that were specifically not met. He thought that the Department may need some clarity on that question. It was not true that the Department did not take women's empowerment seriously. If one looked at the specific response provided by the CFO insofar as the 40% procurement to women enterprises was concerned, the Department had surpassed the 40% and was actually sitting at 46%. He was very conscious of the fact that it was also a difficult target to meet insofar as Treasury’s directive was concerned. It was important to highlight that the Department actually took this matter quite seriously, and that even throughout provinces it was a matter that it highlighted to provinces, in that they had to make sure that they implemented it effectively. Out of most government departments, the Department had actually gone beyond 40% and was sitting at 46%, and the SASSA was sitting at 51%. The 46% was exclusive of the Community Nutrition and Development Centres (CNDCs), as those were managed at a provincial level. If the CNDCs were to be included, the Department would be sitting at around 70% of procurement from women -- possibly even 80%.

The Department had processed the Fundraising Amendment Bill, and the only thing that they were waiting for now was for the scheduling from Parliament on the Bill. On the Department’s side, they were therefore done, and were just awaiting guidance for the scheduling. He believed that it would be scheduled soon – either in the current or the following quarter. Regarding the budget cuts, there were no budget cuts specifically with regard to the three quarters. The only budget cut that the Department had referred to was that of the cost of employment, which they had indicated had certainly hampered them. The budget cut was for the entire financial year, and cut off an entire Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) period. However, he thought that the Department had been able to manage this.

Mr Ndaba said that the culmination of the substance abuse systems tender was a result of the variance in price between the two bids. The variance was too huge, being about R21 million, and the Department had decided that they should go back to the drawing board. There was no delay in the first instance, but once the Department was assessing it they had realised that the variance was probably telling a story that the Department had to look at very closely. This was the reason why the Department had had to reissue the tender. The second time around, when the Department was processing this, they were then failed by National Treasury, because it had to be submitted to government printers,which in itself took a bit of time and was the reason for the delay.

Ms Sekwana said that in terms of the prevention services for child killings and child neglect, the Department was very concerned about the issues that were affecting children. It viewed it as bigger than government or the Department itself, and therefore they were working collaboratively with the structures in communities and other government departments to make sure that safe spaces were created for children. For example, there was a programme called "Receiver," which was basically being implemented through drop-in centres where the Department utilised its child and youth care workers who were working very closely with children. The Department thought that if it up-skilled and strengthened these types of programmes, they would be able to create safe spaces for children. However, what was important was to instil this in communities, because the Department wanted to believe that children belonged in communities and families. Caregivers, parents and families needed to be empowered so that they could create safe spaces and make sure that children were well taken care of within their communities and families.

Mr Mchunu added that besides working with different departments, the Department was also working with NGOs and relevant stakeholders to try and avert child abuse. Within the context of the families programme, it was important to highlight those families and communities were central and at the heart of ensuring that the kidnappings and killing of children were avoided. The Department was commemorating Child Protection Week as they spoke, which came to an end on 5 June. It had started two days previously, when the Department had opened it in the Eastern Cape and would be closing it KwaZulu-Natal. The reason these specific areas were chosen was because of the challenges that were faced around teenage pregnancies in the main in these particular provinces, which remained the highest. The Department was raising awareness around not just the programmes that they had as government, but together with other government departments and agencies around the care and protection of children.

The Department was highlighting the importance of families and communities in the care and protection of children. South Africa had successfully hosted the fifth global Elimination of Child Labour conference in Durban, in consultation with the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The fundamental aspect that came out of that conference, which was a legacy aspect for South Africa, was the fact that the voices of children were heard loud and clear. Children had participated throughout the conference, even at their own session, where they had contributed and highlighted. The Department was able to hear the challenges from children themselves that they faced around child labour, and a number of other areas that spoke to the care and protection of children. It was actually an opportune time, as the Social Assistance Act that the Department had promulgated was published in the gazette two days earlier.

Mr Netshipale referred to the question on the NPOs not being processed, and what processing was. When applying as an NPO, one went through five stages: registry; data capturing; quality assurance; scrutinisation and verification with other bodies to check for criminal records, if they had been found guilty of something, or if there were any fraud or other issues, such as not having the correct identity document (ID), in which case the NPO would be out. Processing was a long process, and it would be realised that by the end of the quarter, those NPOs who had applied in the last week of a quarter would not be processed before the quarter ended, or when the Department did the summary report. This was why it would be found that the Department was between 90% and 98% in compliance in terms of what the Department had planned regarding processing. Registration meant that once the NPO had gone through the five steps, had valid constitutions and IDs, and members were in good standing in terms of the background checks, the NPO would then be registered. The Department had found that only 55% of all applications reached the registration point at once. The majority of applications had to be sent back, as IDs were left out or the NPO was not compliant. All of the NPOs were class 5 in terms of the United Nations classifications, and there were about 12 classifications.

The Committee had asked whether the Department was funding many NPOs that dealt with food. The Department had not done an analysis as such, and done an analysis at the end of the year only to check how many NPOs there were, and for which classification for the year. There were many different classifications, and the Department classified those NPOs accordingly as they were registered. The Department had a database per district and per municipality.

On how many NPOs were funded, the Department had just over 22 000 that were funded in the sector, in all nine provinces. It spent about R 8.2 billion funding the NPOs that were rendering services and were funded in terms thereof. NPOs that were funded in provinces were monitored in provinces. There was literal monitoring and academic monitoring. Literal monitoring was that all NPOs were visited every quarter to check whether they existed or not. Reports were provided on a quarterly basis, physically so, and data was collected.

The issue of whether the NPOs would be funded for time immemorial was a challenge which the Department had, as there were NPOs that had been funded for a long time. Those NPOs would have been founded to render services like old age homes and children's homes. They therefore existed and rendered those services, and would be funded year in and year out. This was something that the sector was complaining about, as to what could be done for the Department to render the service itself.

Mr Mchunu said that an important question had been raised around similar explanations that were coming through when the Department presented its reports. The Department’s analysis had been that the biggest challenge was around the policy and legislation space. The reason why its performance had improved in the past two financial years in particular was because of the measures that the Department had put in place – firstly, the way in which the Department now planned, and secondly, to avoid the issues and challenges around the legislation aspect. The DSD had actually put together for themselves standard operating procedures, which made it easier for them to understand and manage those aspects. The Department also had its own support services called the Audit Development Programme (ADP), which entailed the standard operating procedures.

Something that never really used to be done to the extent which it was being done now, was performance reviews on a regular basis. This helped the Department, and was the way in which they were managing it. Another important aspect was that the Department was actually doing this within the context of performance management and consequence management, particularly insofar as ensuring that the targets were met and that the performance of the organisation mimics the performance of individuals and vice versa.

On the funding that went to NGOs, the quantum was around R8.2 billion per annum. The R8.2 billion was not from the national Department, but was primarily from the provinces. In the national Department there were about 22 NPOs funded at a national level, and the rest was split throughout provinces. It was thus largely run by the provinces, and the monitoring was effectively done by the provinces. The Department also had a level of monitoring that they conducted in the provinces. For example, some of them would be ECD facilities, and the funding was provided to them through various mechanisms such as the conditional grant, old age homes, etc. This was what increased the funding quantum, but at primary level it was run by the provinces in the main.

Concerns were mentioned about the Department understanding legislative matters. The context around this was not that the Department did not know the processes, but rather that in some cases they might have underestimated the timeframes related to the processes. The fundamental aspect to highlight here was the fact that the Department had dependencies when it came to legislation. He had given the example around how the DOJ had been hacked and the Department was not able to correspond with them on the basis that they were hacked and colleagues were not able to utilise their private email addresses. The Department then had to ensure that they had all of the documents on memory sticks so that they could send them physically to the DOJ. There were also numerous delays from the consultation perspective insofar as the COVID-19 regulations were concerned, as the Department had not been able to go out and consult adequately.

In some cases, the Department had to go back for additional South African Insurance Agency (SAIA) certificates, or renewed SAIA certificates of the Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), which had taken a long time. He had highlighted the delays that the Department had had, even with the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor insofar as certification was concerned. The Department had put systems in place to try and address this, and he thought that the Committee should take comfort and confidence in the fact that the Department had these systems now. The Department had employed more staff internally and had standard operating procedures which made it much clearer in terms of process, so the Department was not able to over-commit in a year in terms of what they would do insofar as legislation was concerned, but were able to spread it over time. Over and above the staff complement that had improved, the standard operating procedures were fundamental to him, and had assisted the Department in moving on.

Mr Esterhuizen responded regarding the irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and said what the Department had presented was that there had been one case of irregular expenditure. The amount was very small -- R1 400. This case had been dealt with and had been resolved, and the submission for condonement of this amount was approved. In terms of the fruitless and wasteful expenditure, the Department had a total of 22 cases from the first to the third quarter of the financial year. The loss control committee had been sitting more than once a month to ensure that all cases had been dealt with and investigated, looking at whether employees were in fact negligent or accountable in terms of the loss. Of the 22 cases, in nine cases the Department had enforced consequence management to ensure that they recovered some of the funding where it was found that the employees had in fact been negligent. The money was thus being recovered in the previous financial year. There were about 11 cases the Department had investigated and it had been found that the employees were in fact not negligent, and those losses had been written off or condoned. There was only one case remaining where the Department was still busy with investigations, and the total amount involved was R11 000.

If the Department found that employees were negligent or found wanting, and that the cases should be elevated, they would refer the cases to human resources (HR) to ensure that further action was being taken if there was serious fraud involved. Looking at the Department’s policies currently in terms of travel and subsistence, and those types of policies that guided employees when they travelled and what they needed to do, the Department enforced those policies to the letter. The Department had circulated the policies and done orientation sessions on them, so employees were quite aware of what needed to be done in terms of compliance as well as the consequences that would follow if they stepped over the line. Regarding the fruitless and wasteful expenditure, there were only one of the 22 reported cases that were still outstanding. When the Department reported on the fourth quarter, that case would have been resolved.

Mr Netshipale responded to the questions on the youth policy and consultations. He said that the Department was reporting on quarters one to three, which meant that it was reporting up to 31 December 2021, and had done seven provinces. The other two provinces had been done in quarter 4, which was January, February, and March 2022. The Department was on course to achieve the policy. The norm was that the Department had to consult all provinces so that all provinces could take part.

Mr Mchunu requested the Committee’s indulgence to take leave, as he and Mr Netshipale had to go to a memorial service. However, the rest of the Department would be present to proceed.

Ms Sibeko responded to the question about why the Department was not considering extending the child support grant to children over 18 while they were still at school. This was a policy question that the Department had looked at and considered. One of the challenges was that the Department did not have money and had not received funding for it, but they were always identifying all of the gaps in the social assistance framework and making policies – hence, the income support grant. At the moment, anyone over the age of 18 was able to access the R350 grant. The way that the Department was looking at it was that the policy on income support for people between the ages of 18 and 59 was currently not in legislation or the Social Assistance Act. When the Department wanted to introduce a policy in that regard, they had to finalise the policy to help in the current year. Once the policy got approved, the Department still had to amend the Social Assistance Act and thereafter do the regulations which specified the rules of engagement for people to be able to access that grant.

Similarly, in the Social Assistance Act, there was not any provision currently for a child or person over the age of 18 to get a grant. The legislation had to be in sync with the Children’s Act in terms of how one defined a child, being a person up to the age of 18. If the Department wanted to extend the grant above the age of 18, they would then also have to go and change the legislation and regulations. The time it took to change legislation and regulations was similar, whether it be to introduce basic income support for 18 to 59 year olds, or whether they would be introducing an increase to the child support grant for children above the age of 18. In terms of the timing of the policy work, it would thus be the same from a policy and legislative perspective. The view that the Department was taking in terms of moving forward was that currently, they were implementing the R350 grant. The Department was learning many good lessons about how to extend income support to people over the age of 18. The Department acknowledged that it would not be possible, tomorrow, to implement a basic income grant for everybody at a universal level because of the fiscal constraints. It was proposed that the R350 grant be viewed as a basis on which there would be basic income support for people over the age of 18. Therefore, as it existed currently, it would cover those children who were still at school and above the age of 18, because they would also be able to apply and meet the criteria as defined in the regulations. Going forward, it would then "morph" into basic income support, and once it was approved it would then become the basic income support for everyone above the age of 18. The issue around covering children above the age of 18 was provided for in the Department’s mind, although the R350 grant was lower than the child support grant. The trajectory towards implementing the basic income support would cover those children from the R350 grant and then towards the implementation of the basic income grant.

The legislative process would be the same, as the same amount of time would be taken. The Department’s view was thus that those children would be covered in that way. Hopefully, as the Department made incremental increases in the value of the grant and the income threshold by which people needed to be able to access it, then it would be easier. In fact, if one looked at it now, the criteria for accessing the R350 grant would also include those children above the age of 18 who would at least be getting that income support for the moment. The Department had considered it, but the key thing of course was whether it had financial allocations. It was not able to implement any policies that were not supported by budget, and it then still had to process the legislation in that regard.

The policies that the Department was establishing had to go through consultations, and then had to be approved. At the moment, those policies that the Committee had not yet seen still had to be finalised and approved. The Department had said that they had revised the draft policy that they had done, which had not been approved as yet. Once the policies were approved, they could then be shared. It was in the nature of policy development that it took a long time, because a draft had to be completed, then the costing, and then a lot of consultations and revisions. It thus took quite a lot of time, especially with regard to the maternal policy, as it actually had an impact on other departments. One of the things that the Department wanted to do was to oblige the Department of Health (DOH) to ensure that it was providing information about pregnant women who were accessing their benefits. This was so that those same pregnant women could then be identified for other benefits provided by other government departments.

There was a cost implication in the obligations that it had put on the DOH, as they needed to ensure that they were able to meet those obligations once they became policy. Similarly, the other departments needed to be engaged in the same way. For example, when the DSD required the provision of birth certificates for children at birth, they also then needed to get the DOH to commit that as soon as these women were giving birth, they would get the birth certificates as soon as possible so that the children could be considered for the child support grant. There were therefore many other government departments that were involved in this, and it took time to get them to commit and understand what the commitment meant in terms of their own resources. She said it had not been a very quick policy development process, but that the Department had moved quite far now, having done the costing. As soon as it got the policy approved, they would be able to share it.

Mr Ndaba said that the Department had received comments from the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor on the VSS Bill. These comments had been consolidated and sent back to the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, who was currently considering it for pre-certification and Cabinet approval.

Adv Nkosinathi Dladla, Director: Legal Services, DSD, said that Mr Ndaba was correct. The comments received from the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor had already been consolidated by the Department and sent back to them for the pre-certification for Cabinet approval, for introduction to Parliament.

Mr Esterhuizen said that the Telkom issue was a very tricky one. The grants were actually the Department’s responsibility -- and also the costs associated with some of the other things as well. The DSD had signed an agreement with Telkom way back in the 2000s that when the grants became its responsibility, they also had a toll-free number. Over the years, the costs for the Telkom toll free number had been really insignificant because there were not many queries coming in. When the R350 grant was introduced, all of the applicants had started phoning through the toll-free line. In terms of the statistics, there were nine million applicants phoning in on a daily basis and the Department had to retain those charges and costs. The only reason why the Department was trying to resolve this between themselves and the SASSA, was because the SASSA had the budget planning for it. It could be imagined that the R75 million that the Department had paid in the previous year for the Telkom account was one third of its operational budget. The Department had picked this up already as early as the first quarter of the financial year, because the bill was somewhere in region of R4 million to R5 million on a monthly basis. Engagement had then been started with the SASSA to ask them to assist the Department in the payment of the bill.

The Department was busy resolving this, but was looking for the contract because it had to comply with supply chain processes as well. If the SASSA took this over, there had to be certain documentation and compliance-supporting documentation. It was not just a matter of giving the SASSA the letter and telling them to take the account, as they also had to comply with the supply chain policies. The Department was in the final stages with the SASSA, ensuring that hopefully, they would take over the account. The problem was that the Department could not just take the money from the SASSA administration, as there had to be a budget process. The most suitable solution was that the account must be taken over by the SASSA, which would be done in the first quarter of the current financial year. The Department could not carry the costs and could not afford to again have a R75 million expense for Telkom, as they just did not have the funding for it. It was currently quite tricky, as the grants belonged to the DSD and therefore the Telkom line, but the Department was busy resolving it. 

Mr Buthelezi responded to the question on persons with disabilities and public hearings. The policy had been concluded after the consultations that had been reported. The Department had then developed the Cabinet memo so that the policy could go through the Cabinet processes, and they would also be taking it to the cluster forums, including the economic forum.

Ms Totsie Memela, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), SASSA, commented on the issue of the Telkom account. She highlighted that both CFOs were going to engage to look at what it was that needed to be done so that the SASSA could change where the account was owed. Unfortunately, the SASSA had not been given a budget for them to take responsibility for the R350 grant. As it was now, this therefore meant that the SASSA would have to find the R75 million within their current budget, which continued to diminish. This was going to be a challenge. Although she was not saying that it would be the responsibility of the Department, at the same time the SASSA did not have the budget to not only carry this, but also all of the responsibilities that they had for continuing the R350 grant. She felt it was important for Members to understand that the SASSA had this particular challenge. 

A DSD official said the Department had finalised the policy on services to persons with disabilities. The reason why there had been so much delay was that whilst the Department was looking at aligning the policy with the White Paper on the rights of persons with disabilities, which commenced the domestication of the United Nations Convention, the Department was vigilant of the fact that they needed to look at those programmes that would actually talk to the deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities. This was especially given that most provinces that were currently rendering it looked internally at the institutionalisation of persons with disabilities. The Department was looking at new policies and the development of new programmes that would actually look at how to service persons with disabilities who were staying in their communities, and also ensure that there was integration and mainstreaming of disabilities in other municipal programmes. It was not that the Department did not have a policy that looked at the services for persons with disabilities, as the initially improved policy was still there. What the Department was working on now was to legislate it in the review of the initial policy. Her belief was that the policy was en route to Cabinet, and they were hoping that with the approval of the policy they could then start the process of legislating it.

Mr Esterhuizen responded to the question on ECDs, and said that the Department had been pushing the payments of ECDs quite hard in the previous financial year. By the financial year end (March 2022), there were still a number of unpaid ECD practitioners. The Department had all of the funding that was in the conditional grant, which included the second phase of the R178 million for all the provinces, and they had assisted the provinces to request the rollover of funds for the continuation of the payment of ECD practitioners. The difficulty that the Department had, because ECD had been shifted to the Department of Basic Education (DBE), was that once they got feedback from National Treasury on what they had recommended for rollover for the ECD, they would assist the DBE in the process. The Department would supply the DBE with all of the source documentation and unpaid providers that they still needed to do. The DBE had their own compliance regulations and other payment methods, but they would supply the DBE with what they had done since they had started with phase 1 in terms of ECD payments and assist the DBE in this process for the continuation thereof. His understanding was that National Treasury would finalise the matter, or give a recommendation in terms of rollovers, within the month of June. The Department would then start the engagement with the DBE again, in that it would process the outstanding ECD practitioners for payment in the current financial year.

Further Discussion

Ms Manganye was concerned about the DSD's presentation. If the Department had raised the issue of Telkom while they knew what the problem was, and had brought it to the Committee as if they did not know, it gave her a serious problem. The Committee could not deal with issues that the Department knew did not belong to the SASSA. The Committee needed to be informed properly. If it did not belong to the Department, being the SRD grant, for instance, the Department should have written and said that it did not belong there, but that they were still talking because they wanted to assist each other. Where it stood now, it showed that it was the SASSA’s responsibility. She needed it to be properly crafted.

Ms Bilankulu followed up on the issue of the Telkom bill. She had received an explanation from the Department, but had failed to get an explanation from the SASSA CEO. According to her understanding, R75 million was a lot of money, whether it was to be paid by the Department or the SASSA. Could the Department not have a way of dealing with the issue of the Telkom line in future -- instead of paying a lot of money to Telkom, rather spending a lot of money giving actual services to poor people? If push came to shove, why could it not be left out? She said that the Department could take out the Telkom bill and not have the free line, but rather use the actual money for services.

Department’s response

Mr Buthelezi said that it was important to understand that the Telkom bill reflected the extent of the desperate situation of people, if there was this high demand for all beneficiaries to access the Department’s services. As government, the Department might not be able to make the beneficiaries pay to access the services – hence it was toll free. The fact that these figures had been reached was on the basis that its services were in high demand, especially during COVID-19 and the violent attacks. This matter had, however, been resolved.

Mr Esterhuizen said the Telkom issue was a very operational matter, but the Department thought that they should be open to explaining why there was high spending in Programme 1 (Administration). The Department was currently sitting in the region of 90% on their goods and services for quarter 3 for administration. This was the biggest reason why administration had actually overshot its target. When the Department presented quarter, the Committee would see what the actual over-expenditure was for the programme.

However, the social grants toll free line number was not the only one that the Department had. The Department had toll free numbers for the gender-based violence command centre and others, where they could not expect the public to pay or be charged for phoning in. R75 million was a big amount that needed to be paid for this, but at least the Department was rendering a free service to the public for them to phone in, get clarity on their applications, and assist them in the process. The issue would be resolved between the Department and the SASSA. This was a funding issue, and not about whether it belonged to the Department or the SASSA. The Department was just trying to get the SASSA to assist the Department, so that they could carry the cost of it. If the Department continued paying for it, they would have to terminate some of the services that they currently had in their performance plan, and they did not want to do so.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for their presentation, but said that this did not mean that the Committee was satisfied with everything. If the Department had not managed to achieve its quarter 1 and quarter 2 targets, the Committee needed to see a huge improvement in quarter 3. The Committee understood that the first and second quarters might not be fine, but it needed to cascade a little bit upwards, as then it would make sense. If the Department got what they received in quarter 1 again in quarter 3, it would be really out of order and an embarrassment. The Department had to try and improve quarter by quarter.

The Department was excused.

Consideration and adoption of minutes

Committee Minutes – 4 May 2022

The Committee Secretary read through the minutes of 4 May 2022, when the Committee met to deliberate on inputs on the Children’s Amendment Bill.

The Chairperson asked whether the minutes were a true reflection of the meeting.

Mr Hlongo moved the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Stock seconded the adoption of the minutes. 

Committee Minutes – 11 May 2022

The Committee Secretary read through the minutes of 11 May 2022, when the Committee received a presentation from the Department and deliberated and made inputs on the Children’s Amendment Bill clause by clause, and adopted the report on the annual performance plan and the revised second term programme.

The Chairperson asked whether the minutes were a true reflection of the meeting.

Ms Bilankulu moved the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Stock seconded the adoption of the minutes.

Committee Minutes – 18 May 2022

The Committee Secretary read through the minutes of 18 May 2022, when the Committee met with the Department to again discuss the Children’s Amendment Bill clause by clause, and for the Department to finalise the presentation on the foster care clauses.

The Chairperson asked whether the minutes were a true reflection of the meeting.

Ms Abrahams was of the opinion that the minutes were missing a resolution. The resolution had been mentioned by the Chairperson in the meeting, in that the Committee would be taking section 21 as presented by the Department in the Children’s Amendment Bill. She had gone back and watched the YouTube video of the meeting, and that from 03:09:00 the Committee had started deliberating on section 21. At 03:42:00, the Chairperson had made a ruling that the Committee would then take section 21 as presented by the Department in the Children’s Amendment Bill. At 03:45:00, Mr Stock had also said that he was happy that the Committee had reached consensus on the matter without voting. At 03:46:00, Ms Manganye had also concurred. She was of the opinion that the minutes were missing that resolution made by the Chairperson, and she encouraged all Members and staff to go back to the YouTube video and watch from 03:05:00 until 03:42:00, when the Chairperson had made her ruling that was not incorporated in the minutes.

Further, she understood that for some reason some Members felt that the Parliamentary Monitoring Group's (PMG's) minutes were not relevant. However, PMG was in fact the most independent and non-biased unit that was in Committee meetings to monitor them. The PMG minutes also reflected that the Committee had agreed on 13 clauses and not 12. She thus rejected the minutes until everybody went back to the video to see exactly what each Member had said, and for that to be reflected in these minutes. The reason why she was being so pedantic about this was because the Committee knew that Committee minutes sometimes served a bigger purpose – they appeared before commissions, and as sources in court cases. The Children’s Amendment Bill, the foster care crisis, and the comprehensive legal solution, were currently in court proceedings. The Committee needed to be extremely careful and accurate in what they put down in their minutes.

Ms T Breedt (FF+) said that she had been present at that meeting, and although she was not an official Member, she thought that her attendance should be noted. She seconded Ms Abrahams on her suggestion and concurred that she was there during that meeting and had re-watched the YouTube video to confirm what the situation was, as in the previous week the Committee had had a debate about this as well. She agreed with Ms Abrahams that that was also how she had experienced and understood it. The Committee could not just play loose and fast with the rules, especially not the minutes, taking into account that this amendment was due to a court case. The Committee could not proceed if Members did not agree with the minutes. She added in the chat that she did not accept the minutes, and requested that her objection be noted.

Mr Stock said that the minutes were a true reflection of the meeting on 18 May 2022. He reminded Members about a few fundamental issues with regard to the processes of the Committee. The Committee was within its right to deliberate and take a decision, and based on the rules of the National Assembly they could make and rescind whatever decision had been taken. It was thus within the rights and rules of the National Assembly as part of the processes of the portfolio committees. He did not know how many times he had already watched the video, and he had watched it last the previous night. He did not watch only certain portions of the video, but had watched all of it. Without any fear of contradiction, he said the video itself had captured what had been captured in the minutes. As a Member who was present in the meeting, he confirmed that there were deliberations in the meeting. Those Members who had an interest in section 21 being included as part of the foster care-related clauses which the Committee was supposed to consider were missing a point, because they were focusing only on the first part of the video, where the Committee was deliberating.

His name had been mentioned as having come in, and he had confirmed at that time that it was good that the Committee was actually resolving its issues through a consensus. After that, there was a proposal by Ms Van der Merwe for the Committee to vote on the issue. What he had then said in the video was that as a portfolio committee, the Committee had its own way of dealing with issues in the Committee, but he did not remember once where the Committee had actually voted. He had said that it would be good if the Committee agreed in terms of a consensus, so the Committee had therefore deliberated and Members had made their inputs, comments, and different proposals. At that time, the Committee had agreed to include section 21, and the meeting had proceeded to start with clause 1. There was then an issue from Members in the meeting, which was in the video. He appealed to all Members to look not only at certain issues, but to look at the whole video. It was thus captured when the Committee was deliberating, and then Members felt no, because the presentation from the legal team had left out the issue of the matrix cross-referencing.

It also left out the issue of the public participation submissions which the Department had managed to gather from public hearings. It made Members’ work very difficult to remember what the public had said, what the view of the Department was regarding this particular clause, etc. At that time, there were different views. Ms Van der Merwe had made the proposal that because of the issues of cross referencing and the different views and proposals that were coming from different stakeholders and the public, which had made it very difficult for the Committee to consider and remember what had happened -- what the public had said, and what the view of the Department was. Ms Van der Merwe had proposed in the meeting that the legal team go back and start the whole process afresh. This was on record in the video, and the proposal was supported by Ms M Sukers (ACDP). The Chairperson then gave the opportunity to the legal team, and Adv Nathi Mjenxane, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, had used a legal term there saying that it was within the rights of the Committee if they felt that they wanted to start afresh, de novo.

He then tried to research what de novo meant, and it meant ‘starting afresh’ in legal terms. This was what the meeting had resolved towards the end, as there were different views and the Committee had resolved to meet the following week. There were different proposals, as the meeting was on a Wednesday, as some Members felt that the Committee should meet the following day. The Committee Secretary had even checked and presented the Committee programme for the different dates, and it had been suggested that the Committee meet the Friday, Saturday, and so forth, and only the next coming Wednesday was confirmed. Members agreed that the Committee needed to reconvene again and start the process afresh. The minutes and the video were therefore a clear reflection and had captured what had transpired in the meeting. There was nothing sinister about it, there was nothing wrong that the Committee had done, and he did not see anything clandestinely captured in the minutes – it was what was agreed upon in the minutes. The Committee had thus agreed on the meeting date of 25 May 2022, which was the following Wednesday, and that they would start the meeting afresh.

The meeting of 25 May 2022 was the same meeting where the Committee had started, and a proposal was made to let the legal team present to the Committee the 12 surviving clauses which were foster care related. This was the meeting where Members of the opposition had stomped out of the meeting and missed the opportunity to express their views and take the process forward. The minutes were therefore a true reflection of what had happened in the meeting. Members, irrespective of their party-political affiliation, were Members of the Committee and represented the interests of their parties. However, he appealed to Members that when they differed or had different views that related to how the Committee was to do its work or regarding a particular perspective or position in the Committee, it was within the rights of Members to raise their issues in their individual capacity as Members and address those issues to the Chairperson. He did not think it was right when the Committee disagreed at the level of the Committee, based on the protocols and processes of Parliament.

He knew that there was the Chief Whips Forum, party whips, and the Chairperson chairing the Committee. If there were issues in the future, he appealed to Members that they do not raise the issues to their party whips, who then communicate with and addressed their issues to the Committee Secretary. It was his view that this was an irregular approach, because the Committee was actually not accountable to party whips. If there was any dissatisfaction that had to be addressed, it was within the rights of Members to raise their issues and direct them directly to the Chairperson of the Committee. If Members still felt aggrieved, or as if their issues had not been resolved, they could also raise such issues to the House Chairperson or the Speaker. If after all of these platforms Members still felt aggrieved, they could then go to their party whips and raise their issues at the level of the Chief Whips Forum. This was a very important issue that he wanted to raise. When the Committee differed the following day, a situation should not be found where there was correspondence that came to the Committee from the party whips. It was important for the Committee to have a coherent approach to the issue.

Since he had clarified himself and put across himself why he felt that the minutes were a true reflection of what had transpired in the meeting, he moved the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Bilankulu said that the Committee had to be given the floor before it was given to the legal advisor. She was just surprised how Members were now dealing with issues of the Committee. She proposed that the Committee remove the name of Ms Van der Merwe, and said that Members should listen to the video. In the video, it was not only Ms Van der Merwe who had spoken, but also other Members of the Committee. The issue that had made the Committee not adopt the minutes was an issue that had been raised in the first place by Ms Abrahams, to say that there was something that was not captured in the minutes of the meeting of 18 May 2022. Before the Committee got into all of these things, listening to the video would assist the Committee to get the exact version of what had transpired on the day. She did not think that Members were failing to resolve the issue of what had been said and what had not been said.

Secondly, on the issue of saying that if a Member was not present in the meeting, the Committee could not proceed with the processes of the day, she did not think that this was correct – especially now that it was being raised by Ms Breedt, who had not there since the Committee had started except for having joined in the previous week. Today, Ms Breedt was bringing in the issue of saying that a Member was not present, and therefore the Committee could not proceed.

Ms Breedt raised a point of order, and said that Ms Bilankulu was not being true and honest. She had indicated that she had been present at the previous week’s meeting -- the meeting of 18 May 2022, as well as a number of other meetings. She asked that Ms Bilankulu retract what she had said, as it was really unfair.

Ms Bilankulu acknowledged that Ms Breedt had been present, but did not think that the Committee could say that they were not proceeding simply because a Member was not present.

Ms Arries said that it was the interpretation of a word said by a Member that was being disagreed upon. She asked the Chairperson to consider the proposals on the table.

Mr Stock seconded Ms Arries’ proposal.

Ms Bilankulu said that Ms Van der Merwe had been present but had recused herself today due to her ill health. Other Members had just apologised for not being in the meeting today. The issue was that the Committee should remove the name of Ms Van der Merwe and play the video to get exactly what had transpired on that day for the Committee to proceed with the meeting in adopting the minutes.

Ms Abrahams asked the Chairperson to make a ruling, as she had another meeting to go to and this meeting was supposed to end at 13h00.

The Chairperson asked that Members not degrade the meeting. If a Member wanted to speak, they were given permission. She asked that Members stop this process of dialogue, and said that it should not happen again. What she was saying was that the Committee should hear the legal advisor on what used to happen, as the Committee needed to get into that video. She herself had a meeting to attend at 13h00. There were other issues that needed to be attended to by all Members. However, there was this issue and although there was no rush for it, the Committee had to finalise it – they could not be going backwards and forwards. She had been in Parliament for a long time and she had never heard it being said that minutes could not be read because a Member was not present, who had said whatever they had said outside of the meeting discussion that had taken place. She asked if she could give the matter to Adv Mjenxane, because she wanted to proceed. She assumed that the video was not even two minutes long. She herself had to join another meeting that had already started, but the Committee needed to finalise this.

Ms Breedt commented that the issue should be finalised the following week.

Ms Bilankulu commented that she also had another meeting, and that both meetings were important.

Ms Abrahams commented that the issue was presenting a video about another Member who was not present. That was the problem. The video was not two minutes long, and needed to be viewed from 03:00:00 until the end.

Adv Mjenxane said that the issue of the minutes from a baseline perspective was a record of the proceedings of the Committee. Where there was a discussion about the true reflection of the record of the Committee, as there was evidence to support the minutes now, there was no rule which excluded the viewing of the video by the Committee for it to certify itself that that which was reflected in the minutes was in fact the true record of what had transpired in the Committee on the day in question. Listening to the video was a fortunate position for the Committee, as it gave clarity into what had really transpired on the day in the form of the video, which was the visuals, and the recording of Members and staff who would have contributed to the discussions of the day. Viewing the video, in his view, would assist the Committee to get to its decision.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee could allow the person who had the video to flight it, then the Committee could move forward from there. This was so that everyone could have an idea of what had happened on the day.

Ms Abrahams sought clarity on from what time the video was being played.

The Committee Secretary said that the video would be played from 04:19:00, towards the end, which was about 12 minutes.

Ms Abrahams said that she had a problem with that too, because now the Committee was selecting parts of the video to serve a purpose when the discussion on this had started at 03:09:00 until the end.

The Chairperson said that 12 minutes would be enough for the Committee, as they sometimes broke it up when they had something that they were not finished with. If there was a need for the video to be replayed and started afresh, the Committee could do that, but for now, she asked that the Committee Secretary be allowed to present whatever was there.

Ms Arries said that she had made a proposal, and the Chairperson had not said whether she accepted the proposal or rejected it. The Chairperson had just continued and said that the video would be played. She asked the Chairperson to indicate that her proposal had been rejected or accepted, as there were seconders to her proposal.

The Chairperson said that were also seconders to other proposals, so there were two proposals. She was saying that the Committee should rather play the video, even if it was ten minutes.

Ms Arries said that since the EFF was not being taken seriously in the meeting, she would ask that they be excused.

The Chairperson noted Ms Arries' request.

Ms Abrahams also excused herself from the meeting, as she had another engagement. She also did not believe that the Committee was acting in a fair and transparent manner, and therefore she was excusing herself from the meeting.

Ms Breedt said that, for the exact same reason as indicated by Ms Arries and Ms Abrahams, she would also be excusing herself from the meeting.

The Chairperson noted the comments of Ms Abrahams and Ms Breedt.

The Committee Secretary played the video.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had agreed to adjourn, because they were going to start afresh.

The Committee Secretary agreed, and said that Ms Van der Merwe had even proposed 25 May 2022 as the next meeting date. She proposed that the legal advisor prepare advice on the legal standing of the decision taken prior to a resolution to start a meeting afresh. This included whether the decisions taken were still applicable, given that towards the end the Committee had decided to start the meeting de novo. She thus asked if perhaps the Committee could have something in writing to support the Committee should anything happen, so that they had legal advice on the decision taken by the Committee. Her take was that after the Committee had deliberated, they had then said that they needed to start afresh. What did this mean for the decisions taken before such a resolution to start the process afresh? Could the Committee get a legal position in terms of what had transpired on that day? Perhaps this would also assist and support the Committee in any decision that it would take.

Adv Mjenxane heard what the Committee Secretary was suggesting. The legal issue in respect of the minutes and what had transpired on the day was, in his view, quite clear. He was the one who had advised in his capacity as the parliamentary legal advisor at the meeting of the day in question. In the meeting, he had been asked about the way forward in respect of Ms Van der Merwe’s suggestion that the process should be started from scratch, which position was also supported by other Members. His legal advice on the day was that it was really a decision of Members. If Members decided so, then the matters could start de novo. He had specifically used the legal word, which meant that the process must start afresh or from scratch. This then became the decision of that meeting, as reflected in the short audio that the Committee Secretary had played, as well as reflected in the written minutes. The decision of the Committee on that day was that the processes would start from scratch, and it would be remembered that in the previous meeting of the Committee, that was exactly what had happened. The legal advisors then went to prepare the advice on the clauses that would be reflected on by the Committee from scratch.

When the last meeting started, the Committee had started from scratch as directed by the previous meeting of the Committee, starting with clause 1 of the proposed clauses. In his opening remarks, he had noted the previous decision of the Committee that they needed to start the process from scratch and reflect on those clauses, and deliberate on them and make decisions. Even in the meeting of 18 May 2022, there was no decision taken which would stand if the final decision of the Committee had been that the processes must be started from scratch. It appeared to him that it was a straightforward matter of the Committee having decided to start the meeting from scratch. The Committee had then done so in the previous meeting, having started the process from scratch. The document was presented and deliberated on by a quorate meeting of the Committee, and decisions had been taken on it. This remained the firm legal position of the legal advisors. The decision of the last Committee meeting was that the legal advisors then had to go and prepare their A-List, which was a list of Committee amendments, and was the process that the legal advisors were working on now. He was just a bit confused about any further legal advice on the matter, which would not be repeating exactly what had just been advised.

The Chairperson thought that the Committee was clear on what had been said and advised on the day, because the video was presently with the Committee.

Ms Bilankulu said she understood everything and had even listened to the audio attentively. When the Committee had agreed upon starting afresh, were they saying that they no longer took into consideration that there had been a meeting on 18 May? Or did the minutes of 18 May still stand? She understood the issue of what had transpired on that day until the end, but wanted to know whether the Committee still had a set of minutes for 18 May or not. Secondly, she wanted the legal advisors to advise the Committee. Since it seemed as if the issue would not be agreed upon as Members of the Committee, was it advisable for the Committee to have only people who were eligible to be Members of the Committee? This was only because the Committee had to take decisions, rather than having Members who would influence negative things and were not allowed to form a part when taking decisions of any discussions in the Committee.

The Chairperson said that as the Committee had agreed to start again, there was no need to adopt the minutes. However, she wanted to check with Members, because one person had proposed adopting the minutes and another person had seconded this. The only thing that the Committee was stuck on was to get exactly what it was that they had now agreed upon and discussed out of the presentation that had been made.

Mr Stock said that the Committee had satisfied themselves in terms of the video, and had listened. What Ms Van der Merwe had actually said also confirmed what had been captured in the minutes. He proposed that the Committee move to adopt the minutes. He moved the adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the meeting on 18 May 2022.

Ms Hlongo seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The Chairperson said that the minutes had been adopted.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson said that on Friday, 27 May, the Committee had been requested deal with what had been outstanding all along in terms of the SRD grant discussion, and get information on what was happening on the grant. It would be one item on the agenda. The Committee would then proceed, as Adv Mjenxane had said, as the legal advisors were busy drafting the A-List and were trying to refine the B-List. The Committee would see the programme in terms of how they would put all of this in to suit their programme.

She thanked Members for being patient and said that it had not been an easy meeting.

The meeting was adjourned. 

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.

Share this page: