2013 Moderated Assessments on the Quality of Management Practices Emanating from Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT): Departmental briefings

Meeting report

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DJCD)

Mr K de Wee, COO: DJCD took the Committee through presentation, focussing on MPAT Improvement plan and MPAT performance overview regarding strategic management, governance and accountability, human resource management and financial management. He noted that the DJCD had over a 100 legislative mandates to discharge and a large number of service points around the country. This created unique management and compliance challenges. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the overall departmental performance; the DJCD achieved a score of 2.8 in 2013 which was above national average. Overall performance did not however improve. There was substantial improvement in 2014. The presentation further highlighted indicators of projected scores concerning the MPAT performance. In terms of Improvement Plan, the key performance areas, their key activities and activities’ timeframes were highlighted (see document).  Performance against the MPAT assessment needed to be improved. Focus would be to addressing the areas of low performance and achieving maximum scores in all areas.

The Chairperson sought clarity on why the Department of Correctional Services did not come to brief the Committee on its MPAT performance.

Mr de Wee responded that the invitation did not clearly articulate that the DJCD and the Department of Correctional Services were jointly called and apologised for the misunderstanding.

The Chairperson informed Members that questions and answers session would follow after all presentations were made.

The Department of Human Settlement (DHS)

Mr T Mbulelo, Deputy Director General: Human Settlement took the Committee through presentation, focussing on the MPAT key areas, including strategic management, governance and accountability, human resources management, and financial management (see document). In terms of MPAT assessment, the DHS achieved a poor performance emanating largely from non-compliance with legal prescripts and poor management practices. Overall, performance was below expectation. The overall score for the DHS was 2.3, which was level two. Performing at this level indicated that the DHS had improving capability. Level two was scored in the strategic management and governance and accountability. In terms of governance and accountability, areas of concern were highlighted including service delivery improvement, ethics, ICT, and access to information. The SHS scored 2.4 for human resources management (HRM) and four for the management of disciplinary cases under labour relations. The areas of concern in HRM included management of diversity and management of employee health. With regards to financial management, the overall score was 2.4 in all sub-performance areas which was the same as the score for the previous year. The areas of concerns highlighted included cash flow, payment of suppliers, management of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure. The DHS would establish a dedicated internal structure to develop performance improvement plans to address key performance areas and ensure that Branch Managers/DDGs and Chief Directors own up to the scores for their respective performance areas, which would assist in the implementing Departmental Improvement Plans.

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)

Mr S Mahlangu, Deputy Director General: Water and Sanitation took the Committee through the presentation, focussing on analysis of the DWS’s performance and improvement plan. In terms of MPTA 1.2 and 1.3 scores, the DWS mostly achieved scores of two and three in respect of overall performance. The areas of weakness in level one score and areas that needed improvement in level two scores were highlighted (see document). The Improvement Plan was based on four strategic goals, namely, strategic management, governance and accountability, human resources and management, and financial management.  In each of these strategic goals, areas of improvement, their gaps, and the manner in which the gaps would be closed were highlighted (see document). The DWS was challenged by labour cases and thanked the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development for its assistance in resolving these cases. The DWS was a progressive department in terms of implementing the Equity Employment Plan- this was illustrated by the fact that it had five female Deputy Director Generals.

The Department of Public Works (DPW)

Mr M Dlabante, Director-General: Department of Public Works took the Committee through the presentation focussing on the Turnaround Strategy, achievements, and key performance. The DPW in 2012 adopted a turnaround strategy that would ensure compliance with its mandate and satisfactory audit. In terms of the achievement, the first phase of the Turnaround Strategy, which ended 31 March 2014, was comprised of 23 key stabilisation projects. Stabilised areas had created the potential for more fundamental change to bring large efficiency gains through better practice and improved policy option. The second phase of the Turnaround Strategy was launched on 01 April 2014 and was scheduled to be completed by the end of March 2019. It is comprised of 10 projects, which have been selected from 23 key stabilisation projects and were identified as essential drivers of the second phase.

The DPW’s key performance areas were strategic management, governance and accountability, human resources management, and financial management. In terms of its strategic management, the DPW had been able to gradually move out of the red from 2012 to 2014. Monitoring and evaluation results were verified and audited. There was an improved linkage between the internal and external factors in development of the Annual Performance Plan (APP).  In terms of governance and accountability, governance and accountability indicators had improved, with the majority achieving level four scores. The remaining standard of non-performance was related to Access to Information as required by the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000 (PAIA). However, an Action Plan was in place to address that problem; a Deputy Information Officer was appointed. There were interventions in poor-performing areas- they include formalisation of Service Standards and Charters, educating employees about Code of Conduct, and appointment of ICT subcommittee of EXCO, and building capacity to execute on PAIA requirements. In terms of Human Resources Management, the HR unit made a significant improvement. It migrated from level one scores to level four scores. The DPW developed the Diversity Management Framework and Wellness Policies to intervene in poor performance areas. In terms of financial management, this division displayed a significant improvement on the most standards. About nine standards achieved scores of three and four, with a single level two score. A Disposal Committee was appointed in respect of intervening in poor-performance areas, towards the end of MPAT cycle, on 30 September 2014. The Committee would resolve MPAT requirements.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted that the Departments of Planning, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Correctional Services and Military Veterans were not present to brief the Committee.

The Chairperson sought clarity on the DPW’s overall budget.

Mr Dlabante replied that the budget was R6.8 billion.

The Chairperson asked what that budget could be in terms of the percentage of the government’s overall budget. Though DPW was accountable for R 6.8 billion, it failed to perform and it had no clear performing strategic plan.  It was guided with nothing- there was no sense of commitment from its presentation besides stories.

The Chairperson remarked that she hoped the Chief Financial Officers were not doing business with the government and that they had declared their assets; should they not have done so, the Committee would call them to account. With regards to the promotion of diversity in employment, the departments talked about the promotion of gender equality but nothing had been said about promoting employment of people with disabilities. When these departments are recruiting and training people with disabilities should be considered.

The Chairperson asked the DHS how members were paid bonuses and asked how much its cash flow was.

Mr Mbulelo replied that the cash flow for housing was R3.5 billion.

The Chairperson remarked that it was a huge amount.

Mr JMcGluwa (DA) sought clarity on whether the MPAT results reports were tabled before the Departments respective Portfolio Committees. Departments did not take into consideration creation of skills.  The DWS did not do well in its MPTA performance

Mr McGluwa said that there were shortfalls in governance and accountability and remarked that departments should improve their performances. He sought clarity on the issue of bonuses. The issue of poor-performance and non-performance featured a lot in the presentations. It was also worrying that the departments did not adhere to Service Standards and Charters.

Mr McGluwa noted that the DPW had not done well in terms of strategic management and failed to achieve level 3 scores.

Mr SMotau (DA) commented that the DPW after getting a new minister came up with a turnaround strategy. However it failed to include the Code of Conduct in its Turnaround Strategy. When this will happen? Departments should learn from Sasol, especially how it got it right to make a mark in the national and global economy. The DHS did not provide proof supporting its performance.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) remarked that the DWS should refrain from recycling DGs and DDGs and that transformation was not about having black faces in the top management.  Transformation is about the decisions they make and how they implement these decisions and how the people on the grassroots feel about their performance.  Did the departments’ managements have what was required taking them forward.  If a department did not have a business plan it meant it was not performing. What managers were being paid for if they were not performing? It did not matter whether a department achieved unqualified opinion or qualified opinion. If there was no clear strategic plan, the Department would not improve its performance. Why did the DWS have a lot of cases and did it have internal disciplinary measures? On the issue of diversity, the departments talked about women but they did not disclose the racial group representation as well as people with disabilities. On the DHS, there was potential perception of ghost workers and further inquiry as required before the matter could be taken further. On the DJCD, why did the turn around strategy not work well? 

Ms ZDlamini-Dubaza (ANC) sought clarity on whether the departments were aware of why they ought to brief the Committee on their performance. The Committee should decide on the bonuses on the basis of their performance. With regards to financial management, it was apparent that the Departments lacked financial management skills. It was not the duty of the Committee to educate the CFO but the onus rests on the department to ensure it employed qualified employees. Most of the problem that the departments were facing was due to the fact that managers sit in the office to work with their computers instead of working with the ordinary people- they have failed the people of South Africa. They have failed to adhere to and/or implement the policies adopted by the Parliament. They should know that the financial management was not simply about auditor’s report- why should departments only state tha t they have achieved qualified or unqualified report? The Committee was interested in knowing how the budgets were spent. The unwillingness of the top management to declare their assets called for concern. Departments should review article 5 of the Service Charter to know what was required of them.

Dr MJ Cardo (DA) sought clarity on compliance with the service delivery improvement plan and asked what the root of the poor performance problems was? All the departments did not do well. Was it due to shortage of skills- how many vacant positions did they have? What amounts totalled irregularities and fruitless expenditure? It was imperative that the Chairperson on behalf of the Committee addressed the issue of departments who failed to appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson agreed.

Ms V Mente-Nqweniso (EFF) expressed her concerns about the departments’ failure to comply with management ethics.  Most departmental officers did not know about the existence of the Service Charter, one year after its being signed into law- the document has not be internalised.  The departments approach on disciplinary matters, especially the DWS, which had a higher number of cases, was worrisome. There was inconsistency in handling disciplinary cases. Each department should employ its labour officers to handle labour disputes and to ensure they are resolved internally- labour matters ought to be controlled. Every department should educate its staff about the Service Charter- the implementation of the Service Charter was very important.

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) stated that the information shared should encourage the Committee to conduct an oversight visit and see how it can remedy the poor-performance issues. Referring to the performance of the DJDC, of six standards, it had achieved five and that was impressive. Who are the department suppliers of the DHS and what relations did the DHS have with them? The DWS did not have a tracking system for the payment of suppliers- how did it track consistence in its payment?   On the DPW, which failed to comply with most of the MPTA performance, could the Director General accept that his department was not functional at all?

Mr S Mncwabe (NFP) commented that the departments’ delegates should not have hard feelings towards Members of the Committee-Members were hard on them because the people in turn crucified Members if the departments failed in their mandates. On the issue of suppliers and the payments, the departments should be held accountable criminally because a crime could be perpetrated by omission or by commission. Failing to act in a circumstance where the requested budget was provided should lead to criminal prosecution.

Mr A Van der Westnhuisen (DA) stated that it was sad that the departments were not making use of the instruments that could have assisted them achieve their performance targets. Didb they have business plans in place and how can they improve on delivering services? What were the major problems in meeting the MPAT performance?

The Chairperson remarked that the presenters were not passionate about their work- they looked bored during questions and answers. It was clear they were not enthusiastic about working for the people. If they did not want to be public servants, they could go and start their private business. When they drove their luxury cars, they should think about the people who go to bed with empty stomachs. They should also recall that if the ANC goes down, it would go down with them. It does not matter whether they are ANC members or not. Members of the Committee were fully aware of the fact that they were shooting the messengers. The right people to shoot were DGs. How could they fail to comply with simple things, such the Service Charter or fail to meet their strategic targets? The departments should strive towards resolving the bonuses issue and the Committee would expect a superb achievement in next year’s financial performance. They should note that their major mandate was to serve people. The MPTA was a good performance evaluation mechanism- it was about continuing and incremental improvement of service delivery. It was applied by Canada and it took Canada three years to get it right. The good thing was the fact that departments knew where they were and that they were promising to continue to improve. Conforming to the MPTA remained a challenge. Departments should therefore review the policies and ensure they are in accordance with the MPTA. The Service Charter should be adopted and internalised.

The Chairperson requested all the departments to respond to questions in writing by Wednesday, 12 November 2014.

Non-members of the Committee were excused from the meeting for Members to discuss internal matters.