Performance Management & Development System for HODs (with Ministries); Committee Legacy Report

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone in attendance, especially the Ministers. He asked if there were any apologies.

The Committee Secretary, Ms Nomaxhosa Mooi, noted an apology from Ms T Tobias (ANC), who was attending a meeting with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), and another apology from the Director-General, Mr Robert Nkuna.

Introductory remarks by Minister of Public Service and Administration

Ms Noxolo Kiviet, Minister of Public Service and Administration, said that the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) challenges are well-known. This meeting was an opportunity for the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) to inform the Committee about what is being done to address these challenges,

The National Assembly recently passed two pieces of legislation: the Public Administration Management Amendment Bill and the Public Service Amendment Bill. These bills seek to enhance accountability and ensure the public sector is conducive to productivity.

The priorities of the democratic South Africa were to create a public service that is responsive and committed to an efficient and effective service delivery. The premise of the government was to demonstrate that the performance in all service delivery categories is managed, measured and improved. Hence, the PMDS was introduced in 2001 and has since been revised. The last revision of the PMDS was in 2015, and it is currently being revised again, especially to address issues such as the political-administrative dichotomy. 

DPSA has been working closely with the Department of Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DPME) to ensure that the revised PMDS is a product that everyone can be proud of.

Performance Management and Development for Heads of Department (HoDs)

Ms Yoliswa Makhasi, Director-General, DPSA, said the presentation results from research work done in partnership with DPME. In terms of the role that each Department plays, DPSA is responsible for formulating the policy regarding the HoD PMDS, while DMPE is responsible for implementing the policy and coordinating all processes with the HoDs and departments.

Ms Anusha Naidoo, Chief Director: HRPEPM, DPSA, took the Committee through the presentation. She said that the PMDS was being revised to bring in some enhancements to the current system. Surveys, questionnaires and interviews were conducted with HoDs and colleagues in the field.

She noted the following:

• The Cabinet approved the framework for professionalising the public service. One of the five key pillars of the framework is effective planning and performance management.

• On 8 August 2023, the Cabinet approved the proposed changes and requested the Minister issue revised directives. DPSA and DPME held two critical workshops to discuss the outcomes of the interviews and surveys on the HoD PMDS.

• Some of the challenges with PMDS are non-compliance, lack of constructive feedback, insufficient focus on developmental issues for the HoDs, failure to constitute and finalise evaluations on time, lack of communication, no consequence management, and no performance bonuses.

• DPSA has implemented several reforms to address the challenges. This was done to complement the PMDS and other processes and systems in place. Comprehensive changes and modernisation efforts will improve the efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and responsiveness of public service organisations and government components. This is aimed at enhancing the delivery of public services to the people and transformation advancements.

The structural reforms will restructure public service organisations to improve service delivery. This includes decentralising authority through some of the legislation's provisions to better meet the people's needs.

The process reforms aim to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of processes involved in delivering public services.

The financial reforms aim to ensure the sustainable financing of public services. This includes reforms in budgeting processes, the adoption of cost recovery mechanisms, and improvements in the management of public funds.

New technologies will be introduced, services will be digitised (e.g., an electronic approval system for the PMDS documents), and best practices will be adopted. In addition, there will be an internal focus on human resources development, training and development programmes, and changes in recruitment and retention strategies aimed at improving workplace culture and employee motivation.

Remarks by Minister of Planning, Evaluation and Monitoring

Ms Maropene Ramokgopa, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning Monitoring and Evaluation, said there is a correlation between what the DPSA presented and what the DMPE will present. The report is on the HoDs PMDS, which gives a full overview of how national and provincial departments have performed regarding submitting the performance agreements, mid-year reviews, annual assessments, and evaluations.

She noted that there had been good compliance in submitting performance agreements over the years, but this was not the same for mid-year reviews and annual assessments. The HoDs who performed effectively during evaluations ensured timely submission of their performance documents.

Formal letters and reminders are sent to departments to submit performance documents, which does not necessarily improve the compliance rate.  DPME is putting measures in place to ensure an improvement in this regard. In particular, DPME provides ongoing support to departments and develops training manuals and videos to assist the different role-players in completing the performance documents on the electronic system. There are continuous system enhancements to ensure that it is user-friendly. DMPE engages with the National School of Government to develop different role-players and HoDs courses.

Implementation of the HoDs PMDS for the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years

Ms Phindile Baleni, Director-General of the Presidency, took the Committee through the presentation, giving details on the submission status of performance agreements, mid-year reviews and annual assessments for 2022/23. It also included the submission status of HoD PMDS for 2023/24 and HoD performance evaluations.

Ms Baleni said that the DMPE and the Presidency are responsible for implementing the HoD PMDS for the Director-Generals in the national sphere of government and the Office of the Premier in each province. The provincial Office of the Premiers is responsible for implementing the HoD PMDS in their specific provinces. The HoD PMDS integrates individual and organisational performance.

Submission status of performance agreements for 2022/23

• 56 HoDs submitted their performance agreements on time, comprised of 21 national and 44 provincial departments. This constitutes a 59% on-time submission rate.

• 38 HoDs submitted their performance agreements late, comprised of 9 national and 29 provincial departments.

• 7 HoDs did not submit their performance agreements, comprised of 2 national and 5 provincial departments.

Submission status of mid-year reviews for 2022/23

• 47 HoDs submitted their mid-year reviews on time, comprised of 12 national and 35 provincial departments.

• 26 HoDs submitted their mid-year reviews late, comprised of 10 national and 16 provincial departments.

• 35 HoDs failed to submit their mid-year reviews, 27 provinces and 8 from national departments.

Ms Baneli said that the mid-year reviews are an opportunity for the HoDs and Executive Authorities to discuss the organisation's performance and trajectory and improve the areas that are not working optimally.

Submission status of annual assessments for 2022/23

• 54 HoDs submitted their annual assessments on time, 10 were from national and 44 from provincial departments.

• 3 HoDs from national departments submitted their annual assessments late.

• 54 HoDs failed to submit their annual assessments, 13 were from national and 41 from provincial departments.

Despite regular reminders, training, and online support provided by DMPE and the Office of the Premiers, there seems to be consistently poor compliance annually, specifically with the submission of annual assessments.

See presentation for details

Discussion

The Chairperson invited Members to raise questions or comment on both presentations.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) thanked both presenters for the very concise presentations that outlined some of the key aspects that the DPSA and DMPE are undertaking. He asked if any consequent management was in place to address the low submission of annual assessments. He believed this was important because submitting annual assessments would enable proper individual and organisational performance analysis.

He asked if there were any foreseeable challenges in monitoring and evaluation, considering the transition from the Sixth Parliament to the Seventh Parliament.

Mr M Manyi (EFF) commended the presenters, as the presentations were succinct and very clear. He said that there was an elephant in the room that he wanted to deal with. In his view, the elephant in the room is what he would characterise as the “legislated politicisation of the administration”. He said that if one referred to section 9 of the Public Service Act, one would see that the original powers of human resources are vested with the Minister. He explained that this is very problematic for director-generals who are accounting officers and run the departments. Some staff members have very good relationships with the Ministers, and they become untouchable. Director-Generals would “performance manage” everybody as they normally do and perhaps dismiss an employee not pulling his or her weight – but the dismissal is subject to the Minister's approval. The employee can simply appeal to the Minister, and the corrective action by the Director-General can be overturned. He believed that if the intention was to improve public service, politicians should not interfere with the Director-General's powers. Director-Generals are the administrative heads and should have all the powers to manage his or her employees.

He said the presentation mentioned many submission delays but did not explain their cause. He suspected the delays were caused by the Ministers' delay in signing off on the documents. He believed the Ministers' political interference directly hindered the Director-Generals' performance. 

He noted that the concluding slide of Ms Baneli’s presentation mentioned succession planning. He said that the truth is that Director-Generals have no say in who would replace a vacant Director-General post. It is a political process to appoint the next Director-General, which could entirely undermine the succession plan of the previous Director-General. He believed that the reforms to the public sector would amount to zero if this elephant in the room were not dealt with. He said it was as if Ministers were kings and queens in that they were untouchable and could do no wrong – they could interfere in a department with impunity. He reiterated that the Director-Generals should be given the powers to run their departments without interference.

Mr B Yabo (ANC) said that there is a reason why the state has checks and balances in place. This is so that the state can account for whatever powers are granted to individuals and ensure that there is no abuse of power or that no person is granted unfettered powers. He said that the state has a problem where high-ranking officials would be charged with wrongdoing but would resign with immediate effect, and over a period of time, they would resurface in another area of responsibility – and sometimes in an even bigger area of responsibility. He asked what mechanisms were built into the PMDS or performance management framework to prevent such occurrences. He explained that this was an even bigger elephant in the room because these officials squander money through fruitless and wasteful expenditure and all other sorts of criminal malfeasance. These officials are left to leave with just a slap on the wrist. They “take a dive” before the disciplinary process proceeds. These officials are not held accountable for their wrongdoing, and they eventually resurface elsewhere. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Adv M Mothapo (ANC) concurred with her colleagues that the presentations were well done. She asked if there were interventions in place to assist HoDs who are only partially effective. She asked what role the National School of Government played in this regard.

Ms Naaido said that there are a number of consequence management processes in the public service. Firstly, the pay or notch progression attached to the PMDS will be denied to any public servant, including HoDs, who do not comply with the PMDS. Secondly, section 16A of the Public Service Act provides for Executive Authorities to institute various disciplinary processes to ensure that HoDs comply and that the performance of HoDs is impactful. In addition to the consequence management, if the submission dates on the PMDS are not met, then the DPSA issues out letters and deals with this in a very concise and precision-driven manner.

On the question about the transition from the Sixth to the Seventh Parliament and the monitoring tools that will be put in place, she replied that the automated system will proceed. There is a template to guide the HoDs in this regard. DPSA will also conduct regular workshops with HoDs starting in April this year.

She said that she had taken note of the other comments. It is safe to say that the Public Administration Management Amendment Bill and the Public Service Amendment Bill have passed the National Assembly and have been referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The heads of public administration are a new introduction to the public sector. It puts in place accountability measures so that the state has a single public service that is credible and developmental in nature. Part of the role of the heads of public administration will be as an oversight body to ensure that there is monitoring of issues of non-compliance, and to apply the strictest measures so that there is no repetition.

She further noted that the Executive Authorities and Office of the Premiers will no longer delegate certain responsibilities to the HoDs. The Bills and policy directives now make provision for these responsibilities to be within the direct ambit of the HoDs. Strict measures are in place to ensure compliance. DPSA has noted all the other inputs by Members, and some of these inputs will be incorporated into the directives to ensure that the public service pursues continuous improvement.

Ms Makhasi said that one of the key legislative amendments is delineating roles and responsibilities. A number of lessons have been learned in the 30 years of democracy. Some of these lessons have ensured that the proposed changes in the Bills are aligned with the current context. She believed that this would partly take care of Mr Manyi’s concerns. The amendments also align the Public Service Act with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) in ensuring that Director-Generals take full accountability for operational matters in their departments, including recruitment.

She referred to Mr Yabo’s question about the measures in place to deal with officials who have been implicated in misconduct. She replied that the performance management system mainly deals with officials' performance once they are in it. However, the system is complemented by other mechanisms that are in place. DPSA has an entire disciplinary process for the public service, for both national and provincial government. Issues of misconduct are dealt with in line with the disciplinary processes. DPSA and the Presidency also work on a central register to track disciplinary cases across the system, from national to local government. The first phase of this central register will be in operation by 1 April 2024, overseeing national and provincial departments. The second phase will include local government.

DPSA is also engaging with the Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) to track and trace persons implicated in the PPSA’s reports. DPSA’s recruitment processes also use personnel suitability tests, which include verification with the police.

She informed the Committee that she had witnessed several instances where proposed appointments for Director-Generals or Deputy Director-Generals have not gone through because of misconduct issues that were identified before the person could even be considered.

Ms Baleni referred to Adv Mothapo’s question about what is being done to address issues of partial effectiveness of HoDs. She replied that the system itself is called the PMDS, which stands for Performance Management Development System – the “D” stands for the development of individuals. In any environment, there is a question about how competent individuals are, which is why there is a competency framework (in terms of whether individuals are intermediate, advanced or expert in their ability to perform). The first step is counselling, coaching or mentoring of the individual. This may include training by the National School of Government. If the first step has failed, the next step is the disciplinary system, which is more developmental than punitive. This gives the individual an opportunity to correct the maleficence. There might also be a written warning issued. The very last measure is enforcing the actual disciplinary processes.

It is important for HoDs to comply with the submission of performance agreements. The mid-year review is an opportunity to identify and address implementation challenges.

Minister Kiviet thanked the Members for their rich input. She noted Mr Manyi’s concerns and told him that the legislation passed by the National Assembly would delineate administrative responsibilities. The administrative responsibilities of running a department now lie with the director generals. The political responsibilities of a Minister are clearly outlined. There is a clearly demarcated line between Director-Generals' and Ministers' responsibilities, so there is no opportunity to victimise anybody.

DPSA is publicising the professionalisation framework to show the linkages between the proposed amendments to the legislation and the framework's policy determinations. This is part of a package of reforms that the DPSA has begun. Minister Kiviet believed that Mr Manyi’s concerns had been taken care of.

Minister Kiviet said there is ongoing work to address the issue of delinquent officials because although there might be a few, they spoil the whole public service. The system must identify the few rotten apples in the bag and throw them out. DPSA is closing the net on those who want to enrich themselves with the public purse.

She believed that further engagement with the public and in Parliament about the professionalisation of the public service should be undertaken because she noticed that during the debate on the two Bills, some people were not very confident or clear about the proposed reforms to the public sector. The reforms are crucial to ensure that the environment is conducive for public servants to drive the transformation agenda.

Minister Ramokgopa concurred with Minister Kiviet in thanking the Committee for the constructive engagements. She said that the DMPE will also ensure it assesses the ministers' performance agreements with their director-generals. The DMPE is committed to ensuring that the delineation of powers will take place.

She noted that the vetting processes have always been in place. DMPE is quite confident that the public sector reforms will enhance the system.

Mr Manyi asked if a Director-General could conclude the appointment of a Deputy Director-General without the concurrence of a Minister under the new dispensation.

He referred to his earlier comments about employees appealing to Ministers after they had been dismissed by a Director-General and asked if this had been addressed in the proposed amendments.

Minister Kiviet replied that a Director-General cannot appoint a Deputy Director-General. However, the panel has changed its appointment process, including members of the Public Service Commission. These changes are stipulated in the directives and regulations of the professionalisation framework.

Mr Manyi reiterated his question on whether the proposed amendments dealt with the issue of employees appealing to Ministers after they had been dismissed by a Director-General. He was primarily concerned that the powers of Director-Generals were interfered with by Ministers.

Minister Kiviet told Mr Manyi that a person appointed at the Deputy Director-General level is responsible for policy, which is the Executive Authority's responsibility. The appointment of the Deputy Director-General cannot be left to the Director-General.

The proposed amendments relate to the delineation of administrative powers that are in line with the PFMA.

Minister Kiviet said there are different procedures for the various levels of administration regarding appeals. The senior managers have their own appeal processes, which do not involve the Minister. It is mostly lower-ranking employees who appeal to the Minister. She explained that the Executive Authorities would get a sense of the extent of discipline management within the departments, and each case is treated on its merits. The laws on discipline management are very fair because a person can appeal from one structure to another. There are checks and balances to ensure confidence in the discipline management system. She said that it was important to understand these issues in its context. She noted that the review of the discipline management system must also be sensitive and responsive to what is happening on the ground.

The Chairperson thanked Minister Kiviet for providing further clarity. He said that the Members had raised some key issues, but it is clear that there is work underway to bring reforms to the public sector, such as the consequence management for low submissions of annual assessments and mid-year reviews. The enactment of the two Bills will also remedy some issues that were raised, especially in terms of the delineation of roles and responsibilities. He hoped that there would be a notable improvement in the Seventh Parliament.

He thanked the Ministers, Director-Generals and their teams for engaging with the Committee.

Committee’s Legacy Report

Mr Julius Ngoepe, Committee Content Advisor, took the Committee through its draft legacy report. He requested the Members indicate if the report required any changes. The legacy report highlighted the Committee's achievements and made recommendations for the next Committee in the Seventh Parliament to follow up on.

Amongst the list of recommendations, Mr Ngoepe noted that one of the most critical points is that the Committee recommended for the next Committee to continue to put pressure on the DPME to finalise the Development Planning Framework Bill, as this legislation was on the pipeline for more than five years. The Bill is extremely important as it will assist the government in ensuring that planning legislation, policies and frameworks are coherent and coordinated in order to deliver on government priorities. It will enable the government to improve synergies and eliminate duplication of efforts in providing services. 

Mr Manyi referred to a section on planning and coordination. He recalled that the Committee was in agreement that the DMPE should focus more on its mandate in terms of monitoring the performance of departments because there was an observation that the DPME’s reports have mostly been internally focused. It would be ideal for the DPME to provide indicators to the Committee regarding how the departments have performed. He recommended that this be captured in the report.

The Chairperson said that Mr Manyi had raised an important point. DPME should emphasise overseeing and monitoring the entire government, which should be reflected in the legacy report.

Mr Ngoepe said that Mr Manyi’s recommendation had been captured under the key observations.

Mr Manyi referred to a recommendation that addressed the historical budget shortfall or resource constraints that negatively impacted Statistics South Africa’s (Stats SA) ability to attain its set objectives over the past years. He believed it would be problematic if Stats SA introduced the categorisation of various race groups that were not contained in any primary law. For example, in South Africa, two laws deal with the question of black. Black is a group term for Africans, Coloureds and Indians. There is no such thing as “black African” in South Africa’s laws. He questioned why Stats SA made reference to the term “black Africans”.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Manyi’s point was that the Stats SA’s work should be consistent with the Constitution and the Republic.

He noted that the report will be amended accordingly. This was supported by Mr Manyi and Mr Pillay.

Adoption of minutes

The Committee considered its minutes of 8 December 2023.

Mr Pillay moved to adopt the minutes; Mr Yabo seconded this.

The Committee considered its minutes of 16 February 2023.

Adv Mothapo moved to adopt the minutes; Mr Yabo seconded this.

The Committee considered its minutes of 1 March 2024.

Mr Pillay moved to adopt the minutes; Adv Mothopo seconded this.

Concluding remarks

Mr Manyi said that he was concerned about the performance of Ministers. He understood that the Ministers had performance agreements with the President, but Parliament was in the dark about how the Ministers have performed even though Parliament is the highest accounting structure for Executive Authorities. He questioned why Ministers were excluded from having their performance looked at by this Committee.

The Chairperson told Mr Manyi that he had noted his concern, which could be included in the Committee’s legacy report.

He thanked the Members for their time and said that if any other matters of urgency required a meeting, this would be indicated to them.

The meeting was adjourned.