Revised Development Planning Framework Bill: preliminary discussion; with Minister

Meeting report

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson said the Revised Development Planning Framework Bill aimed to assist the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) as part of its enforcement element. However, it was not the only thing that the DPME needed to ensure compliance -- it also needed to earn its own respect as an overarching Department in government that looked at everyone’s work within the state. As a Portfolio Committee, they would want to see the Department playing its role and offer their support to them.

With the Bill being in the making for the past few years, part of the Committee’s work was to monitor the progress of programmes so that they know the full details of processes. For this meeting, they were interested in the challenges the DPME had faced in the process of approving the Bill. He asked about the nature of the challenges -- if they were at a concept level, or involved the policy mandate orientation, if they were the result of legal bottlenecks, or if they were an indication of the incompetence of the Department.

Minister's comments

Ms Maropene Ramokgopa, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, said that they had included the amendments to the Bill that arose from the process of Cabinet. The framework that was adopted in 2022 had given them a base they had managed to work on to build the Bill. The policy atmosphere in which they were working needed more refining. For this reason, she believed that the DPME lacked the capacity to address the initial idea and vision of having the National Planning Commission and the departments in at a later stage. In the Cabinet meeting held the previous day, the Auditor-General (AG) had recommended that the DPME strengthen their internal and external auditing processes, provide better clarity on the roles of the executive and administration, and that the DPME be put at the centre of everything happening in the government to strengthen compliance and service issues. For these reasons, there were amendments made to the Bill so that it provided more solutions, and law enforcement to ensure that service delivery prescriptions were followed.

She said that there was room for improvement, such as getting external assistance from institutions like the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA) and adding more people with specific skills relating to monitoring and evaluation. An analysis and assessment process should also be applied to situations where fewer targets were met, but all the budgeted funds were spent. She recognised that there was not enough budget to employ the needed staff members and equipment, but these components were necessary to escalate their monitoring process. Everyone in the Cabinet meeting was happy with the policy framework for integrated planning, as it would represent an important building block in the efforts to build a capable developmental and ethical state, in line with the National Development Plan (NDP). Integrated planning provides a comprehensive view of resources and commitments that contribute to the alignment of financial resources with government priorities that should be able to ensure that all functions are coordinated and could work effectively and efficiently, in a collaborative way.

The framework would guide the integrated planning in the country, and provide the basis for the NDP Bill. Its effective implementation would therefore contribute to achieving the country’s developmental outcomes. It was applicable to all institutions in the national and provincial spheres of government, and had seven sections. These were:

• The purpose of the framework, its applicability, and the use of the framework to promote integrated planning.
• Detailed overview of the background to integrated planning in South Africa.
• Approaches followed in developing the framework.
• The problem statement that the framework seeks to address.
• The policy vision, objectives of the framework, and the underlying theory for change.
• Policy recommendations to institutionalise and integrate planning systems in SA, and the roles of different stakeholders.
• Governance, monitoring, evaluation, review, and guidance to management on how to implement the policies.

A few appendices focused on the benchmarking based on international practice, with cases from Malaysia, Canada, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and China. The policy framework had three main recommendations -- the legislative reform that leads to promulgation of integrated legislation, an integrated planning system responsive to development priorities across government, and an enabling environment for undertaking development and institutional planning. The implementation plan encompasses outputs and indicators responsible for departments, and targets that should be included in institutional plans for implementation.

There were 21 outputs implemented by the DPME, the National Planning Commission (NPC) secretariat, the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCOG), the Presidency, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), the National School of Government (NSG), the National Treasury and the Offices of Premiers in the respective provinces. The DPME continuously engages with relevant stakeholders to track progress on implementation, and regular progress was reported to the planning forums and the Portfolio Committee.

Based on the progress report, the DPME would amend the implementation plan annually, relevant contextual factors and processes. There had been extensive consultation on the Bill through the planning forum and working sessions with the National Planning Commission to address the current levels of fragmentation in the planning system, to improve coordination and harmonisation to achieve the development goals and provide for the role of the Minister and Deputy Minister of the DPME, the NPC and the whole country. The regulatory challenges and the inputs on the Bill were what they needed to improve on so that their responsibilities were clear for the long term.

Among the key issues that informed the revision of the Bill was that they should ensure that it was explicit on what the problem was, what it aimed to solve, and its objectives. It should provide clarification on the roles of the different spheres of government in the development planning system, a clear explanation of the role of the NPC as an advisory body, and explicit reference to the District Development Model (DDM) 1 plan.

Discussion

Mr J McGluwa (DA) thanked the Minister for her high-level explanation of the intention of the Bill, but was worried by her use of words like “better and more skills”. He asked if there was a need for additional legislation, considering that there was already an inter-government relations framework for government to coordinate plans, and if the legislation would be a problem. He noted that the Inter-governmental Relations Framework Act 13 of 2004 addresses the establishment of the framework for all spheres of government, the promotion of intergovernmental relationships, the provision of mechanisms and procedures to facilitate the settlement of government disputes, and the provision of matters connected. He felt that this involved establishing something already existing, and requested a further explanation for this.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) appreciated the extensive input made by the Minister, and agreed with the Chairperson’s view not to proceed with any presentations after her inputs because no bill had been sanctioned by Cabinet. Until then, the Committee could not discuss, deliberate, and take the process forward and because of time constraints and Parliament rising soon, they had to prioritise their duties.

Mr B Yabo (ANC) seconded the motion not to proceed with the presentations for this meeting.

The Chairperson appreciated that the Department had prepared presentations for the meeting, but pointed out that it would not make strategic sense to proceed with them, as they had to interact with other entities. Those interactions might change the direction of the framework. They hoped that by the time the Sixth Parliament rises, the DPME would have done enough work to achieve clarity on the framework.

DPME's response

Minister Ramokgopa said it comforted her that the Committee understood what DPME was about, what it needed to achieve, and the history of where it came from. They aimed to improve legislation in such a way that they could enforce the law. The intergovernmental framework was all about coordination, and for it to be about enforcement, there should be more capacity. They accepted the Committee’s inputs, and would work hard to achieve approval of the Bill so that they could also focus on the developmental agenda of the country, despite the financial limits imposed by National Treasury. 

The Chairperson acknowledged the support the Committee offered to the DPME.

The meeting was adjourned.