Review of Committee Strategic Plan and Method of Work: AGSA briefing

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting by welcoming all present and informed Members that Ms M Khunou (ANC) was the new Chairperson of the Association of Public Accounts Committee (APAC) and jointly with Mr S Booi (ANC), they seat on the executive. Following from a previous meeting led by the AG to review the strategic plan, it was agreed that at the next meeting, the Committee would complete the strategic plan that would last it for the entire period of the 5^th Parliament. The office of the AG was invited to take the Committee through this process.

Briefing by AGSA

Ms Thandeka Zondi, Corporate Executive- Strategic Projects Outreach Programme,kick started the presentation with an outline on the attributes of an effective oversight committee. These are; Adequate powers and functions, and enough time to meet; Capacity building of members and continuity of membership; Competent secretariat/professional support (research/legal); Annual oversight objectives / effective planning structure/s; Innovative oversight practices. Constructive working relationship among members; Reliance on assurance role players such as AGSA and Audit Committee; Positive relations with media and other stakeholders; Executive authority support / accounting officer cooperation; Self-assessment by committee/M&E of all committees by speaker’s office.

It was imperative to align the Committee’s objectives to these attributes? The objectives as agreed by the Committee were;

i)              To improve understanding of the public of the work of SCOPA

• SCOPA Chairperson is to drive public awareness and understanding of SCOPA activities using various media platforms including Parliament communication capacity

ii)             To enhance the effectiveness of oversight by SCOPA

• Improving the quality and follow up of SCOPA resolutions & reports
• Enhancing the coordination & effectiveness of oversight visits
• Improving cooperation with other oversight committees
• Ensuring the cooperation of the executive and accounting officers with SCOPA

iii)            To consider all annual reports that are tabled before the Committee

• Conducting effective research into the audit outcomes of all departments including performance 
• Prioritising departments with negative audit outcomes for a hearing
• Developing resolutions on departments with negative audit outcomes

A competent secretariat and professional support would give the Committee a good summary of what is material in the reports. The Committee must ensure that other oversight structures such as AGSA and audit committees create time to engage with the Committee so as to have a better sense of what has been happening from the assurance providers. Upon further engagement with the entities, the Committee gains a balanced view of the AG’s observations as well as observations of the audit committee, national treasury and public service and hence consolidates the information.  A competent secretariat will coordinate all the information for SCOPA to give the Committee adequate and sufficient information to enable it have rigorous engagement with the respective auditees and the department.

Discussion

Mr T Brauteseth (DA) stated that during previous meetings, the Committee was advised by the secretariat which entities experienced most problems and were prioritised, the entities were split amongst the members for attention. The Committee members however have not received the research notes about the priotisation shared with them. This would have been helpful as the Committee would share their findings and give reasons for priotisation of certain entities.

The Chairperson in response noted that in terms of the mandate of the Committee, this is the responsibility of the Committee; the secretariat including researchers are merely enabling tools for the Committee to do its work. There is a need to tighten the application at the end of the day, the decision on which Department or entity to prioritise is a political decision that members must make, not a submission that the researchers give the Committee. What is provided is information that might be considered but ultimately the Committee must make the decision and be satisfied based on its own findings, as well as find a balance on what to prioritise.

Mr R Lees (DA) stated that there is no provision for researchers to perform the duties the Chairperson suggested.  The Committee is limited to annual reports and there could be information outside the annual reports that requires additional investigation and should be clarified.

Mr Brauteseth clarified that if the researchers had investigated on the different entities and made findings, why not share with the committee? It is the responsibility of the Committee to do its work, not researchers.

Mr S Emam (NFP) asked whether after identifying the entities, the Committee will be requiring information from the research team.

Ms Gugu Shabalaal, Researcher - SCOPA Parliament, responded to the discussion and stated that the research team reviewed annual reports highlighting issues, but this year when the groups met, the financial year 2013/14 was not finished, hence some information was not available. The team was currently working on the information, reviewing the trend over the last 5 years so that members have a clear understanding of how the entities were performing. When the information is ready, it will be made available to members.

Ms Zondi noted that the objective is building a capable and responsive research unit, enhancing the research capability and responsiveness as they craft activities in the next year.

Ms K Litchfield Tshabalala (EFF), suggested that the researchers summarise the reports of every entity for the Committee before the entities were invited and have the Committee have internal discussion on the entities so that by the time the entities were invited, Members had  received a summary of the report from the researcher. It does not take away their responsibility from the Committee but it makes it easier to study the report.

Ms N Khunou (ANC) stated that there is lack of cooperation with other committees- the Committee needs to forge a way to work with other committees, interact with the members there and find a way forward.

Ms Zondi responded that the cooperation of oversight committees and common understanding of what the research unit can provide was essential. It was paramount to understand the researcher’s capability and responsibility so that SCOPA members understand what is possible and what is not possible and how long it takes to perform certain tasks. There is a need to have a common practice of how research notes are done, when does the Committee get them, how they are discussed, a structure of the briefing document which members expect for the various departments etc. The briefing document should outline which other committee dealt with the same issue so members know which committee to cooperate with to get more information. The research unit will develop a briefing document template that will give members an opportunity to understand a brief summary of what is going on, who has looked at it and what risks are involved.

Mr Lees noted that researchers have been doing these brief documents for a while- what is the current status?

Ms Gugube replied that before the Committee meets any entity, researchers prepare a document, doing a thorough analysis of the annual report of the entity including any additional information and makes it available to members.

Mr Eman asked how resourced the research unit is in terms of carrying out investigations, because with limited resources not much can be done.

Ms Zondi responded saying this is why it is important for the research team to outline for the Committee what it is able to do and identify its  limitation of roles or capacity issues. Also, this helps it identify the areas that are not within the ambit of the researchers to find out and enables the Committee have clear performance criteria to measure its support structure against.

Mr Lee noted that some members sit on two committees- there is cooperation with other committees and involvement with other committees. Members should focus on what to take into other committees to use for the benefit of the Committee.

The Chairperson asked how the Committee could use the information that individual members sitting on other committees gleaned.  What currently obtained was a ‘committee to committee’ kind of relation. On cooperation with other committees, from experience the problem has been that other committees’ members, especially chairpersons come to hearings and try to lead the defence of entities which defeats the purpose. In the event that this occurred, how will the Committee manage it so as to achieve a common objective?

Mr E Kekana (ANC) stated that the danger in cooperation is that it might compromise the capacity of the Committee. If cooperation must be encouraged, the Committee needs to find a strategic way to deal with the issue.

Ms Zondi noted that strengthening the secretariat and support was an important objective.

Ms N Khunou (ANC) stated that for the Committee to be effective and make sure that what is resolved is implemented there was a need to cooperate with other committees.

Ms Zondi responded that it is a very noble notion that requires a strategic intent. The question is what did the Committee hope to get out of the cooperation and how does it to go about it? How does the Committee facilitate the sharing of information? How can this be achieved without passing off as overstepping its own boundary? How can this be balanced?

Mr Brauteseth responded that the Committee shall work with other committees but it cannot as SCOPA be seen to be walking around on egg shells. The Committee’s job is effective oversight and it must retain independence and perform the oversight function of government.

Ms Zondi asked what role of the Chairperson’s engagement in meetings was.

Mr Siyanda Daki, Senior Manager, AGSA stated that Rule 208 of the National Assembly Rules provides for cooperation between committees. If a matter dealt with by SCOPA affects a committee, there must be cooperation between both committees. What seems to be a limitation is there has not been enforcement of that particular rule.

The Chairperson questioned how other committees tap into the work of SCOPA. The practice has been that SCOPA writes to the Chairperson of a given committee to take part in a hearing and the invited committee is allowed to participate in a structured way- ask and answer questions, participate in case of follow ups etc. Some committees do not attend despite the invite- the substantive cooperation is not there. There is no structured cooperation and there is no driver to get the process going. SCOPA has a mandate of its own which must be implemented irrespective of the absence of corporation with other committees.

Ms Litchfield (EFF) stated that although all committees are oversight committees, a greater responsibility is on SCOPA. There isn’t much oversight in these committees other than defending the entities and upholding a history of good governance where people try to prove things are working whether or not they actually work  in practice. While there is a need for cooperation, it is not that important - cooperation will work where it works and where it doesn’t work SCOPA should carry on. SCOPA’s responsibility must not be underplayed- if there was no need for SCOPA, its responsibilities would have been disintegrated into the various committees and each chairperson would have had the responsibility of ensuring that public accounts are well spent.

Ms Zondi asked what the strategic objective of enhancing cooperation of the executive and accounting officers with SCOPA was.

On the second agreed objective, the Chairperson stated that the work of the Committee is to oversee the work of the executive; a core objective, is to enhance oversight work - nothing can be done if the accounting officers and executive officers do not cooperate with the Committee– no substantive work can be done without the presence of the representatives of the entities. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the Committee’s oversight, the executive and accounting officers are critical stake holders. When the Committee calls on them they must come, when asked for documents they must be provided.

Mr Brauteseth in relation to enhancing the cooperation of the executive and accounting officers asked if the committee had the power to enforce cooperation of other committees under the law.

The Chairperson stated that officials are merely invited to come for meetings. In terms of powers, the Committee has the powers to enforce corporation from whoever it wants to appear before it. The Committee however favoured cooperation against being legalistic.

Mr Brauteseth stated that such an approach will likely breed problems, where the entities do not take SCOPA activities seriously. If the Committee had the powers then officials must know that if they do not appear they will be subpoenaed and will be asked to take an oath. While the culture of the Committee is corporation and trying to be lenient, the culture out there will be not taking SCOPA activities seriously.

The Chairperson stated that what should instil the fear is the incisive questioning during the hearing, not insulting or attacking persons that appear before the Committee. SCOPA must be seen to know what it is doing.

Mr Emam asked if the word cooperation was a soft term in a sense that officials take the Committee for granted that they do not comply by not turning up. It is not an issue of the Committee not cooperating with officials, but the reverse was the case. There should be a greater level of ensuring that officials comply and must come to answer - members must consider giving SCOPA a little more weight so that people take it more seriously. That people tend not to take these committees seriously is because they can get away with it and this is a problem.

Ms Zondi stated with concern that the Committee’s  stance should not be one where its co objective is ‘militant’ as people will not appear before it voluntarily, and it will create a situation where SCOPA goes through a subpoena procedure every time persons have to appear before it.

Mr Lee stated that officials who come to meetings come- the law allows the Committee to subpoena any person. However, the Committee must focus on their role as an entity not the objective.

Mr Emam stated that officials need to know that there are processes that need to be followed, and officials must comply.

Ms Khunou noted that subject to the Constitution, Parliament can subpoena officials, and the executive is aware, that they have to appear. Over emphasising it might not help. The Committee must do its work diligently without becoming adversarial with officials. The main thing is that officials come to hearings when called upon to appear. On prioritisation of the enties, the 5 year trend mentioned earlier will enable the Committee come to a decision on entities that are problematic and hence prioritise them.

The Chairperson stated that for proper understating of the reports they must be processed; there are three categories, some entities have clean reports, others unqualified, and thirdly entities which the Committee will have a hearing on. Of the three groups, which does the Committee start with? All the reports that have come to Parliament must be processed.  In the past the Committee would not consider all reports, but the purpose of prioritisation is to help the Committee’s effectiveness and aid its work.

Ms Zondi questioned if this would not be an instance where the Committee needed its researchers to assist in terms of creating a synopsis of what the key issues are per entity, so that members can do their job knowing what key issues to focus on.  All committees should work together to provide a consolidated report so as to have a good sense of where the core issues are.

Ms Khunou asked how effective the Committee is with its budget.

Mr Lee asked if the Committee ever processed all reports in any one year and whether it is possible given the number.

The Chairperson responded stating that when set,objectives were a statement of intention; when it came to implementation or application the question is what was achieved? Is it possible to make an improvement? What needs to be done to improve? The Committee has never processed all reports- there is a need to tweak the operations of the Committee to a level to ensure that the objective was met. The Committee has been faced with problems over the years that hindered it- upon review it shall consider how much was achieved.

Ms Zondi questioned what activities will result in influencing appropriately the budgeting process, the programming and make sure the impact of SCOPA is felt by all. How does the Committee ensure accountability and transparency?

Mr Brauteseth noted that a large percentage of the media was unaware of what SCOPA did and recommended that the Committee considered engagement with media houses that were not common place in Parliament to explain what SCOPA is about.

Ms Litchfield stated that it is important to ensure through the media reports that SCOPA’s aim  was that South Africa works and was not to attack persons private and personal lives.

Ms Khunou asked what the Committee wanted to achieve- if it was to send a message out there , there are other forms of media, for example the media from Parliament, GCIS from government, which are good platforms. However, leaving issues with the general media may not achieve the desired purpose because of the risk of negative reporting.

Ms Zondi clarified that the Committee should consider how it can improve the understanding of the public on the work of SCOPA, with the media being used as one of the tools. The Committee can improve the understanding of the public without solely relying on the media by utilising different stakeholder engagement activities.

The Chairperson also responded stating that the core objective is for the public to understand the work SCOPA does through various media platforms.

A strategic plan was agreed on in the Committee, with SCOPA Chairperson to drive public awareness and understanding of SCOPA activities using various media platforms including Parliament communication capacity

Further, the strategic objectives agreed to under objective one are;

• SCOPA Chairperson to drive public awareness and understanding of SCOPA activities using various media platforms including parliament communication capacity
• The Chairperson is to engage the parliamentary communication unit and develop the communication / stakeholder engagement plan. This will be done on a quarterly basis.

On this point, Mr Lee raised an objection to the Chairperson speaking on behalf of all Members even when the contents of the speech had not been vetted and without any form of input/control into what will be said.

Ms Litchfield stated that when the Committee debated this issue, it had been stated that if there was a reference to the Committee, then that one committee member was speaking on behalf of all Committee members. It thus depends on whether the Chairperson was stating what the Committee had decided or what the Chairperson wanted to communicate on behalf of any other individual.

Ms Zondi noted that according to the rules of Parliament, the Chairperson can only engage on issues that have been tabled and suggested that the Chairperson be tasked together with parliamentary communications to develop the stake holder strategic plan. The Chairperson should engage the parliamentary communication unit and develop the communication / stakeholder engagement plan and this should be done quarterly. 

Mr Brauteseth asked if there is problem with the quality of reports, what should be done after recommendations are tabled in Parliament, what is the status of the Committee’s recommendations- are they legal or quasi judicial in nature? What legal status do they have if any, at all?

The Chairperson responded stating that there is no particular standard but there is continuous improvement. Over the years the reports from SCOPA have been thorough to make sure there is no ambiguity. In terms of the follow up it is an institution problem, but the Committee followed up with the Speaker’s office to follow up resolutions passed by Parliament. Capacity has been created within SCOPA itself making sure that time lines are followed. On the legal status of the decisions, they must be passed by the House for them to be decisions of Parliament.

Ms Zondi stated that there was a need to develop a mechanism to track the Committee’s resolutions, evaluate the way the resolutions have been implemented and follow up with the Speaker on the resolutions not tabled to the House for adoption. How will the Committee measure its advocacy?

Mr Brauteseth responded stating that it is very difficult to measure advocacy.

It was agreed by the Committee that in order to enhance the effectiveness of oversight by SCOPA, the strategic objectives are;

•       Improve the quality and follow up on  SCOPA resolutions & reports

•       Enhance the coordination & effectiveness of oversight visits

•       Improve cooperation with other oversight committees

•       Maintain the cooperation of the executive and accounting officers with SCOPA

The activities to be done are;

•       Intensify the tracking and implementation of committee resolutions

•       Advocate for SCOPA resolutions to be adopted by the House at least two weeks after they are registered in the ATC

•       Lobbying the NA House Chairperson on matters relating to tracking of committee  resolutions, coordination of oversight & cooperation with other oversight committees

•       Proper planning & research before undertaking oversight visits

•       Invite the chairperson of the audit committee to all SCOPA hearings

•       SCOPA to provide at least 21 days notification of hearings to Accounting Officers / Authorities and Executive Authorities of relevant departments and entities. SCOPA shall give a quarterly report on its progress.

Ms Shabalaal stated that before committees goes out on oversight visits a document is prepared on what the issues are in the entity, including relevant questions to ask the entity. However, implementation of the resolutions by the executive remains a challenge.

The Chairperson stated that there is a need for proper planning and research. The decision to make an oversight visit arises from the hearing held with the entity.

Ms Zondi recommended engagement with audit committees so that the Committee has better insight into the outcomes of the internal audit report. While the whole report may not be given to the Committee, the risks and emerging issues may be discussed in a bid to help the Committee understand the entity. It becomes important that coordination is properly structured to happen timely before the meeting with entities to ensure robust engagement.

The Chairperson stated that before any hearing the Committee met with the AG for briefing for majority of the cases, this has been very helpful and fruitful- the meetings most time highlight  the challenges in internal control.

On the last agreed objective, the Chairperson stated that it involves consideration of all annual reports that are tabled. It was agreed at the meeting that the strategic objectives are;

• To conduct effective research into the audit outcomes of all departments including performance 
• Prioritise departments with negative audit outcomes for a hearing
• Develop resolutions on all reports affecting national Government.

The activities under this objective are;

• Develop an annual plan of the activities of SCOPA with clear timeframes and outputs for each quarter (Q4 processing and categorization of annual reports; Q1 & Q2: hearings) .This will be done annually
• Tracking of progress against the annual plan. This will be done quarterly.

The Chairperson stated that the preliminary consideration of the reports must be done in the last quarter of the year; the Committee should review the reports and decide what to do with them and be clear about the Departments and entities to be invited for hearings.

Mr Brauteseth asked how the Committee decided which entities to invite and which entities the Committee visits.

The Chairperson responded that the decision is based on the outcomes of the Committees review which pinpointed the value of the challenges in the particular entity.

Ms Zondi stated that there was a meeting slated for the following week and suggested that the Committee used the time to craft its annual plan .

The meeting was adjourned.