National Development Plan: briefing by National Planning Commission

Meeting report

Welcome
The Chairperson began by saying that the meeting comprised one of the largest clusters of Parliament.

The Chairperson welcomed Members to the briefing of the National Development Plan (NDP) and explained that the meeting was a follow up to the entire cluster briefing that was given to all of Parliament. She noted that there was a division of clusters into the following categories: governance, economic, social services, as well as peace and stability. There will be a continuation of meetings, so the next few days would be busy with the other cluster meetings. This meeting was to focus on the issues of governance.

The Chairperson noted that all the Committees would be sharing their work with the rest of Parliament, and this was to be seen as a way to share and collaborate with other clusters, it was important for all Members to recognize the importance of the opportunity of coordinating their work. The Chairperson also noted the need to benefit from collaboration and share committee work between the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (N.C.O.P). She also thanked the House Chairperson of Parliament for organising the cluster meetings, and hopefully these meetings would lead to more collaborative ones. The Chairperson indicated that some parties had worked faster towards these joint meetings on key issues. She encouraged other parties that were participating to bring more of their work to clusters, which would help all Members to be aware of how far other Committee’s had gone in  was their work. It was hoped was that it would streamline the various Committee’s work by preventing duplication on oversight issues.

She also noted that the ANC has started to gear its activities towards clusters, and that this would hopefully make everyone’s work much easier. She then transitioned to introducing the presentation by the Commission. She explained that their presentation would be centred on issues that had been pooled from the first presentation that were of governance issues. The meeting would cover what that cluster wanted to prioritize, how the Committee was going to respond to the NDP, and how they were going to utilize their oversight powers efficiently.

Previous matters, such as the HR Development in Government, demonstrated the need for more oversight across the board. Cluster meetings were also meant to identify oversight issues.

At this point, the chairperson welcomed the Minister, and stated that she hoped everyone would benefit from the discussion that day.

Presentation by the National Development Plan Commission

Mr Trevor Manuel, Minister of the National Development Commission (NDC) thanked the Honourable Members for their time. He said that out of the 25 part-time commissioners, three were present that day: Mr Pascal Paul Moloi, Ms Bridgette Gasa, and Dr Vincent Maphai. There were also several members of the secretariat.

The Minister began by saying the Commission arrived with the expectation of not only to brief Parliament, but it also felt that this was a fundamental part of the consultations. On the 14^th of March, the Commission had an all day briefing with many Members of Parliament (MPs). This meeting however was a genuine consultation. Before the Commission released a diagnostic document on the 9^th  of June the previous year after tabling it in Parliament. There were then four additional sets of issues that had been raised that were now in the Plan. The Minister noted that since the 11^th of November of the previous year, the Commission had been seeking extensive consultations. He said that he had been to multiple caucuses and executives of different parties, and organizations like NGOs and trade unions because all South Africans needed to be involved in the Plan. From his perspective, the NDP would not be complete until the Commission had heard from a cross section of South Africans.

When the plan was released in November, the Commission was given a period of six months for consultations. Many inputs had been made online and in-person. Most notably, political science students at the University of the Western Cape had been required to make a submission as part of their curriculum. His office was still reading all of them as part of the process of consultation.

The Minister continued by saying their presentation today would be broken into two chapters. The first, dealt with the creation of a capable state, the second for accountability and anti-corruption. These were not exclusive, given the length and depth of the document. However, he hoped to focus the discussion on those two chapters.

The introduction was to be given by Ms Gasa, the green slides by Mr Moloi, and the red by Dr Maphai. The Minister then announced he would finish by talking about the questions raised from the presentation, because they were fundamentally important to this cluster.

The Minister then transitioned to saying that the Commission’s 2030 vision was similar to other plans around the world. China had released their 2030 vision, and the Minister noted the similarities between the two plans, and was looking forward to India’s plan which was going to cabinet at the beginning of May. The Minister also noted that although South Africa’s planning Committee was relatively new, it was setting a model for other established commissions.

At this point, the Minister handed the floor over to Ms Gasa.

Ms Gasa thanked the Chairperson and the Honourable members for the opportunity to come and present the National Development Plan (NDP). She noted that the Commission had been at work on the plan for roughly two years, and considered it a fulfilling process in the sense that they were building a new future for South Africa. In the NDP, it was difficult to put thing in a simple manner, yet it was ideally the plan for the country. The most notable goal was to see South Africa as a united country, where all citizens were given space to participate in the development of the nation. Her hope was that in the future everyone would be able to look back and appreciate the work that was done to get them to that point, but also to have a state that was able to drive development and serve its people.

The NDP also discussed how to grow the economy, and make it as labour absorbing as possible, this however, can only be achieved by adequate infrastructure. By 2030 the NPD planning committee hoped to have an educational system that served all people without any marginalization and which continued to develop the capabilities of the country through a variety of systems. There was a need for leaders that worked together and who overcome their own issues to resolve the problems at hand.

The diagnostic document released in June 2011 tabled nine challenges. It listed the challenges faced by the country which gave context to the necessary planning that was needed for the future. These challenges were:
            -too few people have jobs
            -an infrastructure that is either crumbling or is displaced
            -the economy is resource intensive, and that South Africa was not extracting value from its resources and doing so responsibly
            -special divides that continue to exist in the history and context of Apartheid
            -poor education outcomes
            -high disease burden
            -poor public service and
            -corruption in all spheres
            -communities continue to be divided.

These nine factors together create high levels of poverty and inequality.

The question was how would measures be imposed to fix the challenges that were mentioned, but at the same time create an aspiration about what was achievable? The NDP targeted these challenges and aimed to reduce poverty and eliminate inequality. Beginning with employment, the plan proposed an economy that created more jobs, in the private and public sectors, but emphasised the need for meaningful job creation.

There were also sections for improving social and economic infrastructure. The Commissioner also noted that the State of the Nation Address (SONA) of 2012 saw the beginning of a specific plan that would take them in the future.

Regarding South Africa’s resource intensive economy, the plan proposed moving away from unsustainable use of natural resources towards a low-carbon economy. This meant that South Africa would be more responsible about how its resources were used without damaging the environment.

For social divides, the plan proposed a reversal in the effects caused by Apartheid, one of which discussed how to achieve an integrated and inclusive rural economy, and how to insure that the nation invested in its rural areas so that those people who were able to create and develop economic opportunities for themselves would be able to do so.

For education, the plan proposed an improvement to the quality of education with a focus on training and innovation.

The commissioner then discussed how the NDP dealt with the high disease burden that South Africa faced. The hope was that both public and private facilities would offer service that was qualitative and accessible to all with an aim to reduce known diseases. It was important to reduce them at an equitable base.

The commissioner then noted the need for a public service that would create safer communities, respond quickly and adequately to matters such as crime and one that made sure that there was effective social protection and provision of welfare services. These services would be part of a program aimed at inclusive economic growth. The commissioner noted that this would be discussed more in-depth later in the presentation.

In relation to corruption, it was more than just fighting it, but knowing it had reached high levels and impacted on citizens’ service delivery expectations. She noted that the NDP discussed how to eradicate it thoroughly; this would be covered at a later point in time.

Addressing the last challenge of divided communities, the NDP hoped to steer South Africa towards a rebuilt nation that addressed the imbalances of the past, appreciated the diversity of the country, appreciated the culture and language, and how those aspects were used as a way to unite the people.

The view of the Commission was that if the proposals made by the NDP were seriously considered, Parliament would begin to change the nine challenges, and specifically address the problems of poverty and inequality. The Commission also believed that dedication to these proposals would bring prosperity to South Africa.

She summarized by saying that before moving on, it was important to reflect upon where the changes started and the challenges highlighted, and how these issues were dealt with. Dr Gasa then handed the floor over to Mr Moloi.

Mr Moloi continued with the chapter on building a capable state. He noted that this chapter was listed as number 13 in the NDP. In the Commission’s view, it was important that the state played an important part in this transformative process, which required a well-coordinated state and public servants who were committed to this public good and higher quality services for all South Africans. He stated that the nine challenges that were discussed were key points in reducing poverty and inequality, and that the state was necessary in this developmental and transformational process.

Mr Moloi summarized the four key priorities of the chapter. First to professionalize public service; second to make public service and local government a career of choice; third to improve relations between the three spheres of government and four to address obstacles related to state owned enterprises and the role they played in developing the economy. He pointed out these were also located in other parts of the plan, with the current section focused on governance and management.

Mr Moloi then addressed each point more specifically. Regarding the professionalization of public service, he stated that the public sector had to be immersed in the developmental agenda, but should be insulated from undue political interference. He pointed out those everyday issues of state politics playing a part in business; this should not result in undue influence for appointments and awarding of contracts. He stated the need to strengthen the public service commission by giving the public service commission more autonomy and empowerment to deal with issues regarding norms and standards, and to impose ethics over public servants. Thirdly there was a need for an administrative head of public service, who would be responsible for oversight and performance of senior management across the public sector. Therefore, the Commission was proposing a hybrid model for top management appointments that would allow for the reconciliation of management and political priorities. The final part of that section in the Plan outlined an administrative approach at lower levels which would allow managers to have full power of staff appointments in their departments.

Mr Moloi continued to the point of making public service as a career of choice. The first issue addressed was that staff at all levels needed to have authority, experience, and the support necessary to do their jobs, so there was a need to establish graduate recruitment and training programs across different fields. These would create career paths for technical specialists and local government servants, and would bring a training focus among roles of service. Specifically, he mentioned greater delegation within departments supported by finance and human resource functions. He stressed that this was to be across all sectors, including local government as well. It was pointed out that greater delegation was needed to increase transparency and strengthen accountability.

To strengthen the relationship between national, provincial, and local governments, the Plan made the following proposals:  the first was to resolve coordination problems between all levels of government and their departments and the second was a more focused role for provinces. It also expressed the need for core functions in areas such as education and health, which would strengthen the capacity of the provincial government which would in turn increase the capacity of local government.

At local government level, the commission recognized the need to give metros greater control over building and environmental issues including housing, transportation, and water. Currently, it was carried this was carried out by the Department of Human Settlements. Full assignment of this role should be allotted to those metros where currently capacity existed or would exist by 2014.

Mr Moloi noted that there was a need to make agreements on the division of service provisions and funding, where duplications exited between districts and municipalities, but also to look at establishing regional providers for water, electricity, and roads, where there was a lack of local capacity.

State owned enterprises and how these would be governed could be addressed in the following points:
            -the need to produce clear and publically available mandates in serving public interest
            -to clean up governance structures and make sure space was given once boards were given a mandate and had the ability to appoint CEOs who have full capabilities to run their projects
            -delineate responsibilities between departments
            -clarify the role and capacity of infrastructure regulators.

Dr Maphai then took the floor to address issues regarding fighting corruption. He explained that corruption had intensified and got worse over the years in South Africa. The first point made, was in order to deal with this issue, the country needed a demonstration of political will. That demonstration could come in several forms: the amount of resources dedicated to addressing corruption, the legal processes established that would help to fight corruption, and the independence of anti-corruption authorities.

He noted that the government needed to expand the protection of whistle-blowers, stating that suppressing them was a way of defeating the South African people. He also addressed the need to give the Tender Compliance Officers more powers to investigate corruption, and large tenders needed to be centralized, managed, and observed.

Most notably, Dr Maphai stated that eventually it will be important for it to be illegal for public servants to benefit directly from certain business activities. He stressed that not all, but some needed to be outlawed. For instance, trade restraints and agreements for civil servants and politicians to prevent the creation of an environment where those individuals would profit upon leaving office.

Concluding, Dr Maphai referred to a paradigm shift, in which the mentality was if you have more money, and the government did more, problems will disappear. Instead, he encouraged an alternate line of thought focusing on social-cohesion. There was a need for a united country, where there was a commitment to core values as citizens. Economically, he called for maximum inclusion, where there were no outsiders, and to build an environment where everyone was invested in their society.

Mr Maphai then drew the Members’ attention to the screen, where the slides listed three topics.

Mr Maphai first addressed strong society, and asked the members to recall the late 70s, 80s, and 90s, which he claimed were the most difficult times in the country, yet the most exciting because every community was involved in issues of the day. Since then, he observed that active citizenship has declined. As a commission, he said that all parts of society to demonstrate leadership in the direction of the country, as the country saw in the 70s and 80s.

The second listed was effective government. He noted a strong correlation between a disengaged society and ineffective government. For the commission an effective government was critical, as he stated without an effective government, good strategies could not be able to be implemented. These two points lead to a winning combination.

Continuing on, Mr Maphai said there was no substitute for the third circle: strong leadership. Out of these three circles, the conditions for poverty and inequality were created. He stated that opportunities created through weak society were at the expense of exploiting others, and building capabilities in government and civil society would eventually cause the paradigm shift needed to create employment, growth, poverty reduction, and so forth. The commissioner stated the need for all these conditions to be present to attain the social-cohesion he mentioned earlier.

Mr Maphai then gave the floor back to Minister Manuel, who acknowledged the detail given in the Plan by the Commission. He then turned to the questions, finding value in questions that would help the Members move forward.

Mr Manuel noted that the South African constitution is a modern one, yet often referred to as one other nations should try to emulate. He stated, however, that this should be used as an asset, but Members needed to evaluate whether or not the institutions delivered what they are meant to deliver, and how to take that in the context of governance. Especially the philosophy of approaching a situation in which the constitutional matters should be left in place or changed, if it is evidence based.

A second issue the Minister raised was regarding slippage in legislation that was developed. He brought up the Public Finance Management Act (PMFA) and the Municipal Finance Management Act. From here, he raised a question as to whether or not these pieces of legislation were sufficient to cover their needs. He saw it as an issue of primary legislation and regulations in terms of the legislation, specifically mentioning where these regulations came from, whether it be the executive or the oversight functions of Parliament. The Minister brought up a third set of issues relating to accountability and how it was constructed in a democracy, specifically how Parliament comes in to play, and what the nature of oversight was. The Minister acknowledged the provocative nature of his discussion in hopes it would create good discussion.

He continued by talking about Section 14 of the Constitution and cooperative governance of three spheres. He asked what approach Parliament should take where gaps were found to encourage better democracy.

Mr Manuel proceeded to ask how many pieces of legislation were passed since 1994, and who checks on the implementation of that legislation, or where the gaps in the legislation were. The Minister noted that the Commission made some provocative proposals such as ensuring that the public service was immersed in the development of the agenda, yet isolated from political interference. He stressed the need to ask the tough questions to unlock the potential of every South African, as noted in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and the Commissioners for their presentation, and acknowledged the presence of the House Chairperson, Honourable Fatima Hajaig.

The Chairperson continued by saying she hoped the Honourable Members would engage with the presentation made, but wanted to reinforce the idea that this was a consultative process where many parties would be engaged. Other groups involved that were involved included the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), the Joint Constitutional Review Committee, the Rules Committee and the Presidential Ministries.

In the past, the Chairperson mentioned that there was a Parliamentary Assembly, and it was clear that issues of corruption will eventually have to be discussed in a collaborative manner with other clusters. The Chairperson then opened the floor to questions and comments by Members.

Mr A Mokoena (ANC) began by thanking the commission and the Minister for their work. He continued to say that there was a paradigm shift that was a concern and the current Parliament had to address it. He also said that a meeting of this importance should have been held in the National Assembly, and the Commission should not have compromised that good input, since he believed this meeting to be at the heart of governmental transformation. The idea of professionalising the civil service was a plausible one. I was hoped that the Commission was collaborating with the Presidential Review Commission which was conducting a review into State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), as he wanted to ensure their strategies were in sync with theirs. The idea of regulatory Water Boards was a worry as it may have the unintended consequence of scattering the state and make it difficult to coordinate.

Another Member praised the presentation as a wakeup call for the direction that the country should take. Would the plan contain a set of constraining measures for actions that fell outside of its scope? How would the different government spheres participating in this process participate given the constraining provisions outlined in the Constitution? It should be ensured that these roles were in agreement with the plan itself.

Mr L Tsenoli (ANC) began by thanking the presenters for the clarity of their work. There should be more background on what was the state’s position after the 70s and 80s; why have things changed? There was a dependency syndrome among the people of the country, expecting the government to provide for them. There should be a provision of grants, which would be given to all people, not just those who are unable to extend their livelihood or those who were now able to receive pension money from the government. Now there were grants for the young people who did not want to work and just expected the government to deliver. Parliament needed to further investigate the cause of unemployment and make a plan to create jobs in South Africa. Reducing taxes imposed on businesses and investors, as well as the combating of unions could encourage more investors to create jobs and thereby reduce the dependency syndrome. Why were there were 25 commissioners working on a part-time basis, this prevented people from becoming committed and effective in their work. Tenders should be eliminated and have public works should take over and use government paid employees rather than one person taking billions and pocketing the money.

Mr M Swathe (DA) thanked the Minister as well as commissioners for a job well done. The problems identified in the report were the same as those experienced by MPs when they did constituency work. It had to be further clarified as to what Members could do to make sure that those tasked with responsibilities were doing their work and created an open system of government. The current infrastructure was not adequately addressing the problems of rural people, nothing has been done thus far to help these people, and how could Members address and fix these problems?

Mr G Koornhoff (COPE) also thanked the Minister and the Commission for their clear-cut presentations. He noted that the NDP could be a groundbreaking document in the development of the country. He also said that the mission statement was essential to the document, and hoped that future presentations would include it, as it was important to their vision and convincing South Africans of being excited by the proposals being made. He raised two questions on the SOEs, the first was on the Presidential Review Committee, and would there be synergy when the report was announced? Similarly, he mentioned the issue of simplifying the government into two ministries: a shareholder and a policy ministry, and wanted clarification between the two as he felt the current structure was not working that well. Secondly, he agreed that the role of Parliament should be more effective in its oversight capacities over the Executive. He believed there to be too many gaps and weaknesses collectively, and thought everyone should take responsibility to improve those aspects.

Mr S Thobejane (ANC) said that the issues relating to the Constitution could not be overemphasized enough including the questions that have already been raised by the Commission. He said he wanted Parliament to look at the organization of the spheres of government as outlined by the Constitution believing that there needed to be some way to evaluate each shpere. Looking at the level of performance in Parliament, he believed something needed to be done, as it supported the Executive and Judiciary. He has felt that Parliament lets things get by them, and therefore, did not perform as expected. He suggested that Members needed to feel as though they have been entrusted with the well-being of the country, which is why there needed to be some type of performance evaluation.

The second issue, he said was whether the plan by the Commission considered climate change. He said that at this pace, if climate change continued, it would be a wonder if Parliament would be able to apply the plan as they wanted. Mining would pose a threat to climate change and cause an impact on the development of the industry in the country. How many sections of the Constitution had yet to be implemented, there were many that had been left unattended? Finally, he spoke on IT and technology challenges and wondered how the security and safety of the South African people would be protected.

Mr A Ainslie (ANC) said that there was hardly any reference to the environment, this inferred  that there is plenty of clean water and air available . He said the way out of poverty was agriculture, and the land is being degraded by the amount of pollution and rivers drying up. If the plan was going to be based upon environmental resources, there needed to be more attention paid to it. He continued on by addressing corruption saying that the plan was quite apologetic towards civil servants and their business activities, saying he wanted clarification on how to restrict those business activities, and subsequently, that these restrictions on civil servants and trade agreements might be in conflict with the Constitution. Finally, the presentation talks about a capable state, and he asked what happened to a developmental state that worked to benefit all of its people saying that capable states might not necessarily develop all of its people.

Mr J McGluwa (ID) wanted to recognize the importance of the NDP. He began by addressing the issue of a paradigm shift to in building social cohesion, and was concerned about the impact of the recommendations by the commission. He said he wanted a commission with much more capacity to deliver decisions. He also asked about terms of reference for some of the plans, as those might shift the debate towards specifics for instance; what the creation of jobs meant and how it dealt with corruption etc. He also asked about the process, wondering if the Committee foresaw a Parliamentary debate on the NDP.

Dr D George (DA) addressed the issue of accountability noting that current framework was ineffective. He noted there were some very good ideas, but believed there needed to be more attention given to Cabinet accountability in poor governance.

Mr S Marais (DA) believed that the Commission had done their diagnostic in an honest way, and thanked them for it. Going into details, the question would be what would happen between now and 2030 given that there was a lot of skill and capacity shortages, suspended staff etc How would Parliament go about facilitating or implementing the plan. He also addressed the problem of appointing the right people to public service posts. He also acknowledged that there was a contradiction between two things that had been mentioned in the presentation, first the Commission wanted to isolate appointments from political interference, but then for top appointments allow “reconciliation” between administrative and political priorities, this sounded like political appointments. He also asked about terms of reference of the strengthened role of the public service. Was it to support the reconciliation of administrative and political priorities? Without a proper civil state, people would not invest, this was crucial.  Which should come first between employment and growth within the context of improving the economy?

A Member from COPE began by stating that the Commission and their vision was an exciting endeavour. Despite this, he stressed that in any long-term plan, there must be “wild” ideas, which challenged the country’s thinking. He also thought the issue of accountability was an important one. He returned to the idea of imagination, saying the Commission was challenged Honourable members to think  outside the box, this could not be done with party-based positions in mind. There was a need to define what a unitary state was, or at which point you had a non-racial, non-sexist, united South Africa. The planning should be based on what unified South Africa and what politicians should do to bring the nation together. Another point raised was the issue of an educational state as part of a unitary and capable state. It was important to build a responsible society where the people had ownership. Education was important and the quality had to improve as well as delivery to the underprivileged. South Africa had created a shortcut to wealth, not individuals who worked to build a company.

The Chairperson said that as a reminder to the remaining three speakers, there was a time constraint, and doubted there would be time for more speakers and apologized.

Ms E More (DA) spoke towards developed communities, noting that this should not be limited to the gaps between rich and poor and health, but also issues of people with disabilities and gender, as those issues could be divisive. She noted the database of graduates that the Commission brought up, which she hoped would include those people. She also had a problem with the role of public service, saying there was no way to measure impact, and wanted to look into measuring changes and what was done with what the Commission learned. She also noted the issue of implementation was a large problem in South Africa, saying that no one monitors and evaluates it. Corruption was also an issue that was brought up, saying that corruption must be measured in how much has been taken, but how much the government has done to get it back, and steps that had been taken. On tenders, she said the government needed to look into expertise and qualifications when companies were awarded contracts.

Ms D Ramodibe (ANC) thanked the Minister and the Commissioners for their plan, but said she wanted more information on the issue of implementation, Parliament was drafting legislation without proper implementation of previous legislation, and Parliament needed measures to ensure it was implemented. She was also concerned about the present culture, and the type of citizens the country hoped to see in 2030. She asked what happened to the minimum threshold test that was used when applying for grants. She said that in the long term tests would be cost-effective, and would prevent building a society that is dependent on government. She also agreed that South Africa had one of the best Constitutions, but said that with the rights that were given, there were also responsibilities. Another issue she brought up was the illegal occupation of land asking if the Commission was only looking at rights rather than the responsibilities of people. She said there is a worrying factor of those who were being investigated as those people were suspended with pay, which allowed them to have the benefits of a salary even if those individuals end up being charged. At the end of the day, her hope was that Parliament would work towards bridging the gap between the rich and the poor.

Mr D Stubbe (DA) said that what South Africa needed was an Implementation Commission. He wondered if there was a plan to morph in to implementation as a way to coordinate departments, as the Cabinet lacked that function.

The Chair then asked the Commission to sum up on some of the issues they needed to respond to. She summarized the need for the following topics to be covered: the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), the creation of the head of public service, fighting corruption, improving education and training, human resource capacities, good governance, and mainstreaming aspects of children, people with disabilities, youth, and women. She then allowed the Commissioners to address the issues raised by the honourable members.

The Minister asked to start on a note of discord, saying he thought South Africa had a crisis being that if Parliament wants to hold the Commission and the Executive accountable, Members needed to read documents and act quickly, saying most of their questions would have been answered if Members had read the document the Commission distributed beforehand. He believed that oversight would be diminished if Members did not do this.

The Minister then began addressing the paradigm shift and presidential review. He said there would be synchronization of the Commission, but asked how legislators’ objectives were delivered on? He said that applying appropriate models and structures that were followed and ensured that management objectives reached were the issues that the plan deals with.

Another issue was looking at the other plans of other nations like China and India, saying it was possible to deal with education and rural economy issues, which were touched upon in specific chapters in the document. He said doing all this is possible, as it would be done sequentially. He said with better oversight, there was likely to be a saving of money in the long run.

Addressing grants, the Minister said that was not what the Commission had come to discuss. He said that there would be other joint meetings which would deal with economic and social issues.

The Minister then turned towards the issue of tenders. He said tenders were likely to remain, as they were an opportunity for government to take competitive bids, and different designs and tenders. He said that government alone was not capable of doing all those things.

He said that a Member was right about the Constitution, and it needed to be evaluated along the lines of whether or not it did what it was meant to do, and close the gaps on legislation that doesn’t always deliver. He also listed chapters in which other concerns of the Members could find answers to their questions, such as environmental concerns and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Answering Mr Ainslie’s question on why the government has been apologetic on public servants, he noted there was a regulation that says that them, or their first degree relatives, receives a tender, it must be covered as a footnote. Hiding it from view meant there was more of a chance of abuse, yet it was still not being implemented. He suggested that SCOPA take a fresh look at these things.

Mr Manuel said the impact of any decision is as good as the quality of the oversight, and told Parliament if they did not hold people accountable, why should departments and commissions bother? He then addressed the formulations in the PMFA saying there was an executive split of constitutionality and responsibility to outcomes, and accounting was responsible for output and the way money was spent.

Mr Manuel said that the plan was for what South Africa should look like in 2030, and agreeing on the way to get there was another thing. It was not to defer decisions until 2030. He then asked for an active Parliament, now, not just in 2030. He then asked the other commissioners to come in.

Mr Moloi then took over to address the hybrid approach on public service appointments. He said the presentation suggested that there was some hybrid between the two points that were brought up earlier, but upon reading the chapter, the hybrid arrangement is for some positions such as Head of Departments or Deputy Generals to be appointed in a collaborative manner between the Presidential Review Commission (PRC) and Administrative head of government. He said that the increased role of public service should mean there were more than just advisory positions. He also touched on corruption, as the Plan is much clearer on preventing civil servants from engaging in certain kinds of business transactions.

Mr Manuel responded to the question of “where should we start?” saying that the Commission was continuously debating the issue, and asked that if members of Parliament would like to make submissions, the Commission welcomed their ideas.

Mr Moloi continued saying that there are 146 priorities in the NDP, but the Commission expects that the plan will be presented and adopted by Cabinet, as there had been extensive consultation on the issue. He saw the first step as the adoption of the Plan, and then implementation framework that would allocate resources through the budget votes.

Mr Maphai thanked the Cluster Committee for providing their feedback, and wanted to address a few issues. First the issue of what happened to citizenry after 1990. He said it was not a South African issue alone, but could be explained by the phases of transition that countries go through. The first step was excitement, followed by disappointed, and finally a stage of realization. He believed that South Africa was going through this, and the post-Revolution euphoria inspired the idea that the government would be able to provide so much. Currently, South Africa was dealing with reality. He also spoke towards “where do we start?” saying his sense was the three circles presented earlier was a good place to start. He repeated Mr. Manuel’s thought that change needed to start in Parliament with more leadership.

Mr Tsenoli asked again why there were 25 part-time members of the Commission.

Mr Manuel said there was a choice exercise address by the President. He said he wanted independent analytical thinkers, who would talk to South Africans. In this way, the NDP was not a political document and therefore it was compiled by virtue of their personhood. He stressed that every member gave a significant amount of time, and that was one of the Commission’s largest assets.

The Chair wanted to thank everyone who was present, and to take offense at some of the things the minister was saying, as Parliament lacked the capacity and resources too. She also said these were good engagements to the reality of the situation the country faces, as well as inspiring them to work to make South Africa a better place to live in. She thanked the Minister and the Commission for their good work.

The meeting was adjourned.