Committee Reports on Department of Planning, Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation; and Statistics South Africa Budget

Public Service and Administration

14 April 2016
Chairperson: Ms B Mabe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee met for consideration and adoption of the Report on Budget Vote 8: Department of Planning, Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation and consideration and adoption of the Report on Budget Vote 12: Statistics South Africa.

Members of the DA complained about not receiving the reports beforehand so that they could go through them on time. The Chairperson that the problem was that they did not have a Committee Secretary, which was why they experienced such problems of documents not been processed on time. She had raised the matter with the House Chairperson who promised to resolve the matter.

The Committee considered and adopted both reports with amendments.

The EFF recorded its objection to both reports.

Meeting report

Report on Budget Vote 8: Department of Planning, Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation
The Chairperson said although the report was ready the previous day but Members of the Committee had not received it.

The first few pages of the report were about the mandate and legislative requirements of the Department; the Committee discussed the observations and recommendations. The Chairperson and the Chief Whip of the Committee had had the chance to go through the report before the meeting and thought that some of the recommendations should be taken off because they were not necessarily recommendations but just programmes and work in progress and need not to be recommendations. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee focus from page 15, which covered observations and findings up until the last page of the report or they go through each recommendation.

Mr S Motau (DA) said as the Chairperson and the Chief Whip had done some work on the observations and recommendations the Chairperson should indicate which observations and recommendations the Committee should look at so that time was not wasted and they could tackle other issues that were necessary. The Committee was pressurised for time but it was not acceptable to rush things.

The Chairperson requested the Chief Whip to indicate which observations and recommendations were work in progress and not necessarily recommendations.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) said starting from page 15 the numbering should be standardised and the bulleting should be 10.1 up until 10.15. In terms of bullet point 10.8 under observations, the Committee Researcher be requested, without going into detail, to indicate on the stats of the Presidential Hotline that there had been improvements in the 2014/15 financial year.

In terms of the observations of the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) the numbering should end at 10.15.

Recommendations 11.1 and 11.2 should be reworded and be one point because it became one context in the filling of vacancies and the expenditure thereof. It would also be more instructive because Parliament approved the budget of the Department. Then 11.3 would be 11.2. Th e suggestion was that 11.5 should go under observations because continuous monitoring was what the department was supposed to do and Parliament could not instruct what the Department was suppose to do. Bullet point 11.6 should go under observations as well.

The Committee Researcher suggested that bullet point 11.6 be retained but the first sentence of that paragraph be removed.

Ms Lesoma agreed with the researcher that it made sense if the first sentence was removed. It should be remembered that the Ministerial Committee was only focusing on Marikana but there were other distressed mining communities, which was why they were recommending that Department should coordinate other areas and provinces.

Ms Lesoma added that on 11.12 they the word “Committee” be replaced by “Committees” because the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) should be across the departments and Committees should ensure it was inward looking.

It was also suggested that the current 11.13 should go to observations because the Department’s monitoring of Operation Phakisa was ongoing and it was the Department’s duty to do that.

It was suggested that 11.15, 11.16, 11.17 and 11.18 should go to observations. Bullet point 11.19 should be redrafted so that the Presidential Hotline could accommodate people living with disabilities because they were not only focusing on deaf people but rather focusing on people living with disabilities. 11.20 should also go under observations because in terms of improving evaluation templates it was ongoing work of the Department. 

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) appreciated the way Ms Lesoma has gone through the document. But it seemed that she was granted an opportunity beforehand to read the document, which opportunity was not given to other Members of the Committee, which was an unequal treatment. Members were all equal in the Committee and objected to the fact that the document was available last night but they only received it that morning and were not afforded an opportunity to study it and make their inputs. The Chairperson should also afford them the same opportunity. They could not support something they did not study.

The Chairperson said that if that was the case they could then reconvene the meeting tomorrow or maybe later in the afternoon. Most of the Members would not be available and therefore they should come up with a solution.

The Chairperson suggested the Committee go through the report with the understanding that Members would be allowed to send further recommendations before Monday.

Mr van der Westhuizen appreciated the Chairperson’s willingness to accept his point, but the problem was adoption of the report. They could not adopt report today and change it afterwards.

Ms Lesoma said she did not receive the document beforehand but only asked her secretary to print it that morning.

The Chairperson said they had gone through the report that morning around 08:00 am. The problem was that they did not have a Committee Secretary, which was why they experienced such problems of documents not been processed on time. She had raised the matter with the House Chairperson who promised to resolve the matter.

The Chairperson apologised and took full responsibility for the problem. But protocol did not allow her to give notices for meetings because people were employed to do that. She would again go to the House Chairperson, after the meeting, and explain the situation and the pressure the problem gave to the Committee.

Mr van der Westhuizen suggested that the Chairperson should approach the House Chairperson with the request that next week’s debate should be postponed so that the message would really go through that the administration had failed the Committee and with serious implications, the programme of Parliament was affected by this continuous failure of the necessary support. That was the only way they could show the seriousness of the problem.

The Chairperson said that next week’s meeting could not be postponed because Parliament’s programme would not allow that.

Mr M Dirks (ANC) said they should continue with the report because that situation was not of their own making and they had a tight programme going forward, the local government elections were also coming up. The opposition would still have an opportunity to object to this report and make declarations and express them next week when they debate in the House.

Mr Motau said it was not about the DA rejecting the report but rather objecting to the position they were put in to do slip short work, which was wrong. They could not run the business of the country that way. Nobody took that Committee seriously.

Mr S Mncwabe (NFP) said supported Mr Dirk that they should continue with the report because in the list of dilemmas they should find a solution because they could not change the programme of Parliament. They should proceed on the basis that they were not stopped to engage the report further in a form of declaration in the House.

Mr M Booi (ANC) said that they were all in the same boat and from the side of the ANC they should assist each other to try and solve the problem. They acknowledged that the problem compromised their objectivity and the Chairperson has apologised given the circumstances.  He persuaded opposition Members to go along with them throughout the process of the report and adopt the report, and where there were hiccups time would be given to reflect on them.

Mr van der Westhuizen had consulted his colleagues, they would remain in the meeting but their objection should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. It should be pointed out that the highest court in the country was very scathing in terms of how Parliament conducted its affairs. Therefore, they need to pull up their socks.

The Chairperson reassured Members of the Committee none of the Members received the documents beforehand but only received them that morning.

Mr van der Westhuizen noted that on paragraph 11.7, where it spoke about distressed communities and they were highlighted because support for distressed mining towns was in the programme from the President’s office. He requested the Committee consider adding other distressed communities because it was not only mining communities that were unfortunately affected by economic affairs. In the Western Cape forestries were closing down and people were unemployed and far from town. Government should consider extending its current forest programme to those communities 

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) said that should be a separate recommendation because at this point in time they were focusing on the distressed mining communities.

The Chairperson said it also should be noted that there was a Committee that dealt with that.

Ms Lesoma suggested that on the NYDA recommendations bullet point 11.24 should go under observations because the quarterly briefing of the Agency was ongoing. Then bullet point 11.25 will become 11.24.

Ms Lesoma corrected the word “please” with the word “welcomes” on the third line of the conclusion.

The Chairperson also corrected the word “satisfied” with the word “noted” on the second last line of the conclusion.

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

Report on Budget Vote 12: Statistics South Africa
Ms Lesoma suggested that the numbering should find its expression to the document.

Ms Lesoma suggested on recommendations bullet point 9.4 and 9.5 should go to observations because in terms of support by StatsSA in community survey it was an ongoing task of Stats SA. Also a proper sentence should be crafted to explain the work of StatsSA to other departments.

Ms Lesoma said that a new recommendation was that the KZN Citizen Satisfaction Survey should be rolled over throughout the country.

The Chairperson corrected the word “satisfied” with the word “noted” on the first sentence of the conclusion.

Mr Ntombela suggested on bullet point 9.5 to put the words “the media should be used optimally” rather than saying “the relationship with media should be strengthened”.

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

Ms N Mente-Nqweniso, EFF, said her objection to both reports should be recorded. She complained that she didn’t receive an invitation to the meeting.

The Chairperson said that maybe the email address of Ms Mente-Nqweniso was not correct and the other factor was that the committee was challenged, not having a secretary.

Mr Booi said as a collective the Committee noted that the challenge of staff and took a decision to continue with the adoption of the reports before Ms Mente-Nqweniso arrived at the meeting. He would appreciate if Ms Mente-Nqweniso understood that point.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their inputs.

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: