DPME & Statistics South Africa Budget Vote

Meeting report

The Chairperson asked if a quorum had been achieved, to which the Committee Secretary responded that it had not been achieved at that moment.

Mr M Manyi (EFF) mentioned that he had undergone an ear operation, necessitating him to wear a head covering. He inquired whether he should keep his camera on or off.

The Chairperson replied that he could switch his camera on or off, explaining that she also faced network issues in her village and, in her absence, Mr S Subrathie (ANC) would take over.

Mr Manyi reiterated his concern, stating that he wore the head covering to hide his ear and asked if he should turn off his camera.

The Chairperson confirmed that he could switch off the camera and thanked him. She then inquired who was identified as iPhone (2).

Mr NZ Buthelezi (IFP) identified himself.

The Chairperson emphasised the need for proper identification for recording purposes and asked for assistance. The Committee Secretary confirmed he could assist.

The Chairperson welcomed the Members of the Portfolio Committee. She said that day’s meeting aimed to review the report presented the previous day, including recommendations and observations. She asked Mr Mlungisis Biyela, Committee Researcher, and Mr Julius Ngoepe. Content Advisor, to take the Members through the report.

Mr S Subrathie (ANC) reported an apology from Mr C Dugmore (ANC), who was attending another meeting.

Mr A Trollip (Action SA) mentioned he had to attend a chief whips’ meeting and apologised for his absence, but he expressed his agreement to adopt the budget as presented the previous day.

The Chairperson acknowledged the apologies.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation on the Annual Performance Plans (APPs) 2024/25 and the Budget Vote 9 of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Mr Ngoepe recapped the previous day's deliberations on three presentations. He stated that the Committee had two budget votes to review and that reports had been circulated for members' review. He suggested paging through the reports and focusing on observations and recommendations.

Mr Manyi suggested that the Committee take the reports as read and engage directly, expressing concern that the current approach was inefficient.

The Chairperson reiterated the importance of the observations and recommendations in the report, which were based on Members' inputs from the previous day's meeting. She clarified that the initial part of the report summarised the content of the presentations and proposed focusing on the observations and recommendations, unless a different approach was recommended. She asked if Mr Manyi wished for more parts of the report to be read.

Mr Manyi expressed concern that the recent activity of scrolling through a Word document was not meaningful. The document had been circulated the previous night, and he had already read it and was prepared to engage in discussions. He suggested that instead of pretending to be presented with the report through rapid scrolling, they should acknowledge that it had been read and proceed with the discussion.

Mr Subrathie said he understood the point raised by Mr Manyi but expressed his support for the scrolling process. He believed that for those who had read the report, the scrolling allowed an opportunity to identify and highlight errors, which could then be corrected. He mentioned that he had found certain errors in the Statistician General's report, which he intended to point out during the scrolling process. He argued that this process assumed prior reading of the report and provided a chance to address any noted errors.

Mr Ngoepe expressed agreement with Mr Subrathie’s points, stating that the purpose of scrolling through the report was to allow Members to take ownership of each paragraph or section written in it.

Budget analysis

Mr Ngeope referred to the budget allocation for the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), which had been reduced by R165.5 million from the previous year, resulting in an allocation of R450.2 million.

Administration Programme

The administration programme in the Department, focused on governance matters, had been allocated R190.9 million, a reduction from the previous year’s R197.4 million. The programme aimed to achieve 100 percent compliance in financial submissions and maintain a vacancy rate below 10 percent. 

National Planning Coordination Programme

Mr Ngoepe discussed the national planning coordination programme, now integrated into the Department  of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. This programme had been allocated R74.4 million for 2024/25, despite a previous allocation of R80 million. Its activities included developing National Development Plan (NDP) indicators, producing synthesis reports on research products, and supporting the implementation of the NDP.

Monitoring Services Programme

This programme received R67.3 million for 2024-25, a slight increase from R61.1 million in the previous financial year. It included activities such as local government management self-assessment and the warning system related to Operation Phakisa.

Public Sector and Capacity Development Programme

Mr Ngoepe noted the role of this programme in supporting the implementation of the medium-term strategic framework by monitoring and improving state institutions' capacity. This programme was allocated R80.1 million for the financial year, down from R81.2 million the previous year.

Evidence and Knowledge Programme

This programme was tasked with coordinating and supporting the generation and use of quality evidence for performance monitoring and evaluation across government departments. The programme was allocated R37.4 million for 2024-2025, compared to R39.9 million in the previous year, reflecting a trend of budget reductions since the Sixth Administration.

Summary of Budget Allocations

The Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) Budget had been allocated R450.2 million, which was a decrease of R165.5 million from the previous year. The Administration Programme received R190.9 million, reduced from R197.4 million. The National Planning Coordination Programme was allocated R74.4 million, a decrease from R80 million. The Sector Monitoring Services Programme saw an increase, with R67.3 million allocated compared to R61.1 million previously. The Public Sector Monitoring and Capacity Development Programme received R80.1 million, down from R81.2 million. The Evidence and Knowledge Systems Programme was allocated R37.4 million, a decrease from R39.9 million.

Brand SA had a total budget of R219.5 million, unchanged from the previous year. The Administration Programme within Brand SA received R106.4 million. The Brand Marketing and Reputation Programme was allocated R94.1 million. The Stakeholder Relationship Programme received R18.9 million.

Observations

The Committee noted that the Department's annual performance plans (APPs) provided a pragmatic framework aimed at improving government outcomes and impact. These plans placed emphasis on monitoring key indicators. The Department had developed a policy framework for integrated planning to improve institutionalisation and harmonisation in the planning system, thereby aiming to achieve better development results.

The Development Planning and Coordination Framework Bill was yet to be tabled, and the Committee highlighted the need for a roadmap for its processing. The District Development Model (DDM), which was piloted in three districts, had shown no significant progress. The Department had developed a monitoring and evaluation tool for the DDM, but the results had not been communicated to all stakeholders.

The Department was responsible for ensuring the alignment of strategic and annual performance plans with the National Development Plan (NDP) and the Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). However, there was a need for a mechanism to ensure that government departments considered the DPME's recommendations.

Concerns were raised about compliance and the quality of performance agreements submitted by heads of departments (HODs). There was a need to review the policies related to HODs. The Committee also noted the importance of the Operation Vulindlela initiative in accelerating structural reforms.

Regarding Brand SA, the proposed merger with Tourism South Africa did not succeed. The high vacancy rate within Brand SA was linked to the proposed merger and organisational insecurity. Despite limited resources, Brand SA was making efforts through initiatives like the 'Play Your Part' programme in rural areas.

Recommendations

The Department should ensure the full implementation of the integrated planning policy framework to improve institutionalisation and harmonisation. Workshops on the integrated planning policy should be conducted with all government departments. Mechanisms should be developed to ensure alignment between the NDP, MTSF, and DDM.

The Department should prioritise resources to monitor the implementation of the NDP and MTSF. A strategy should be developed to ensure compliance with the performance management system for HODs. Brand SA should continue to enhance perceptions of the national brand both locally and internationally and collaborate with various institutions to promote Brand SA.

The newly appointed Board of Trustees of Brand SA should investigate a severance package approved and paid to the former chief financial officer (CFO) to ensure due diligence was followed. Finally, Brand SA should improve its footprint in the provinces to promote its mandate effectively.

Mr Ngoepe thanked the Chairperson and Members for their attention to the Committee's report on the DPME. He noted that the report covered critical aspects such as budget allocations, policy frameworks, and implementation strategies aimed at improving government efficiency and accountability. He emphasised the importance of ongoing scrutiny to ensure these initiatives aligned with national objectives and delivered effective services. He urged the Committee to consider and support the adoption and approval of Budget Vote 9, affirming the Committee's commitment to advancing the nation's development agenda.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked Mr Ngoepe for his presentation and noted that he had addressed the concerns raised by Mr Manyi. She explained that the presentation from the DPME, including BrandSA, represented Budget Vote Nine. She then invited corrections on the first part of the report, allowing Members to identify issues not captured, especially in observations, key findings, and recommendations.

Mr Manyi began by congratulating the Chairperson on her appointment and expressed his appreciation that his apology for missing the previous day's session was accepted as he was ill. He remarked that conducting the meeting virtually enabled his participation despite his illness. He said he had read the report and, drawing on his experience from the previous administration, expressed disappointment that the Committee seemed to be off to a poor start. He highlighted that the Department's strategic focus was an issue previously raised, criticising the Department for being inward-focused rather than addressing the performance of other government departments, which was its mandate. He noted that the current report showed the Department had not heeded past criticisms and continued to operate as before.

The Department's role, as outlined by the Constitution, was to assist the President in ensuring that ministers performed their duties. However, the Department was preoccupied with itself, as evidenced by its budget allocation, with R190 million spent on administration compared to R67 million on sector programmes, which should be its core focus. He argued that the Department's conceptual understanding of its role was flawed, questioning its mandate and expenditure on self-administration rather than on performance monitoring and evaluation of other departments..

Mr Manyi said he was reluctant to propose approval of the budget until the Committee was convinced of the Department's understanding of its role. He highlighted the Department's DDM programme, pointing out that it had not been reported on and was misaligned with its mandate. He criticised the Department for duplicating work that other government departments should oversee and noted the disproportionate spending on head office costs compared to core programmes.

Mr Manyi described BrandSA as ineffective in addressing the country's bad reputation, which stemmed from issues like money laundering and high crime rates. BrandSA focused on superficial activities rather than substantive problems.

The DPME was ineffective and unnecessary. If it were shut down, the public would not notice. The Department was inefficient in handling financial transactions and he called for clarity about the former CFO’s R7.4 million package before the end of July 2024. He proposed a workshop to address these issues and stated that the Committee was not ready to approve the budget.

Mr D Bergman (DA) reiterated his concerns from the previous day about the presentation given. He acknowledged the value of having an experienced Committee member but emphasised that the Committee would be ineffective if the Department lacked the necessary authority. He noted that the Department could make recommendations and identify blockages, but it would encounter problems without authority.

Mr Bergman disagreed with a colleague's suggestion for an overarching Department but believed that, as an extension of the Presidency, the Department should be able to address problems across different ministries, recommend rectifications, and impose consequences for inaction, including the potential replacement of non-performing ministers by the President.

He concurred with his colleague on the labour-intensive nature of the ministry, pointing out that 72 percent of its budget was spent on labour costs, with efforts focused on employing more people. He stressed the need to create efficiency and requested a clearer picture of the Department's achievements and unresolved issues. He found allocating R450 million a year insufficient based on limited outcomes.

Mr Bergman also criticised the rushed nature of the previous evening's meeting, which covered three reports in an hour, and argued for more time to expand discussions on the presentations after the budget.

Regarding BrandSA, Mr Bergman expressed disappointment with the ambassadors, noting they did not effectively promote BrandSA or wear its branding. He questioned their influence in international relations and highlighted issues with the DDMs in Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Eastern Cape. He found them disconnected from the National Development Plan.

He raised concerns about BrandSA's board, the high salaries of individuals not performing their roles, and the potential merger between BrandSA and Tourism South Africa. He questioned the high vacancy rates and speculated on reasons for staff departures, such as job insecurity or more nefarious motives.

Mr Bergman also mentioned questions surrounding the former CFO's departure and the R7.4 million package, emphasising the need for more time to investigate these issues thoroughly.

He expressed concern about the rushed process and its impact on making informed decisions. His party would likely reserve their right to approve the APP and budgets, needing caucus approval before proceeding.

Mr Subrathie thanked the Chairperson and Mr Manyi for sharing his wisdom and experience from his previous service on the Committee. He noted that, like other colleagues, this was his first time on the Committee. Reflecting on the previous day's meeting, he emphasised that not only this Department but all Departments should aim for tangible, measurable outcomes that positively impact the lives of the people they serve. He stressed the importance of their actions manifesting in real improvements in people's lives, not just in reports and outputs.

He mentioned the need for a pragmatic and realistic approach, highlighting the necessity of a measuring tool to evaluate the performance of Departments. Reflecting on the concerns expressed by Members, he pointed out the need to ensure that the expenditure translated into diagnosing and remedying problems. He noted that on the previous day, he had asked for three successes and three challenges faced, but did not receive clear examples. He stated that a Department acting as eyes and ears on the ground, carrying out the Committee's mandate, was essential.

Mr Subrathie believed redefining the Committee's goals and directives for the DPME was necessary. Given that over 70 percent of the budget was spent on people, he acknowledged the labour-intensive and people-oriented nature of the Department. He emphasised the need to give clear direction. 

Despite the concerns, he believed they had a duty to approve a budget. He noted that the budget showed no significant improvement from the previous year and had slight drops in certain areas, making it a reasonable proposal. He suggested having a frank discussion with Departments to outline their concerns and approve the budgets, while planning for a later workshop and discussion.

Mr Buthelezi said he appreciated the contribution from Mr Manyi, which he found particularly beneficial for new Members like himself. He stressed the importance of looking back and having a before-and-after perspective when discussing such a massive and important issue. He found the previous day's presentation overwhelming and hard to digest due to its complexity and the limited time.

He highlighted the significant responsibility of approving the budget. He noted that he did not get a clear picture of how the Departments were performing. He had asked about their self-assessment but did not receive a clear response. He emphasised the importance of monitoring the Presidency and noted that they heard nothing about it, good or bad.

The shift towards multi-party monitoring was a positive aspect, which introduced vibrancy and robustness, as the Minister had mentioned the previous day. He acknowledged that it was not business as usual with the Seventh Administration and stressed that understanding successes, failures, and challenges would have been immensely helpful.

He differed with his colleague on the necessity of this Department. It would be a tragic mistake to eliminate it. He believed they must save the Department and provide clear direction. Despite budget reductions, he stressed the need to evaluate their impact and address wasteful expenditure.

Mr Buthelezi concluded that it would be irresponsible to rush this process due to time constraints. Instead, he suggested embracing the challenge of making this one of the most important Portfolio Committees, given its overarching nature. He emphasised the need to dive deep into these issues, and he considered a workshop to be crucial for this. He mentioned that he would consult with his caucus but believed that freezing the Department's operations now would be a mistake. He stressed the importance of ensuring its continuity and effectiveness.

Ms F Hassan (ANC) expressed her gratitude to the chairperson and explained her situation of being involved in multiple committees, which caused a scheduling clash. She apologised for not being as vocal as usual. She acknowledged the concerns raised by other Members but emphasised the necessity of approving the budget due to the constraints of Parliament, the budget, and National Treasury, noting they were already two weeks behind schedule.

Ms Hassan highlighted that special provisions had only been made until the end of July, making it crucial to approve the budget despite any reservations. She asserted that the issues raised by other Members were not being ignored or postponed but would be addressed appropriately. She emphasised the importance of a functional state and the need for the budget to be approved to move forward effectively. She gave an assurance that the concerns would be noted and addressed in due course.

The Chairperson expressed gratitude to the Members, acknowledging the importance of their inputs. She stated that the primary purpose of the meeting was to approve the budget, and all issues and recommendations, including having a workshop to further discuss the Department's strategic focus, were noted. She emphasised that the Department's main focus was to monitor other Departments and entities, and it was the responsibility of all Members to ensure that this Department excelled in its monitoring role.

The Chairperson noted that all Members agreed the budget report must be approved by the Committee. She reminded them that it was previously agreed that the Department would be invited to the Committee to address unresolved concerns and issues. Entities and the Department itself would also be invited to future Portfolio Committee meetings. She concluded by noting that Members, including the last speakers, had agreed to approve the report, despite some reservations as made by Mr Manyi on behalf of the EFF.

Mr Manyi expressed gratitude to the Chairperson but raised an objection to her summary, stating that it was overly optimistic and did not encapsulate the essence of what had been discussed. He pointed out that some members had stated it would be irresponsible to approve the budget merely for the sake of approval. Mr Manyi suggested that the summary should reflect the differing opinions within the Committee, highlighting that not all members agreed with the Chairperson's portrayal of an overwhelming consensus.

He proposed amending the summary to include the concerns raised by members, such as the need for a workshop to ensure that the budget approval was meaningful and not just a tick-box exercise. Postponing the budget adoption by a week would not have catastrophic consequences and would allow for more thorough deliberation. The intention was not to be obstructionist but to ensure that the people of South Africa received value for their money.

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Manyi's objection, along with Mr Bergman's remarks, but noted that the budget had been approved. She mentioned she would take the last two comments from Ms A Kumbaca (ANC) and Mr Subrathie.

Ms Kumbaca expressed her alignment with the Members who had adopted the report. She shared similar sentiments and acknowledged the relevance of the concerns raised by other Members. Nonetheless, she aligned herself with the views of Ms Hassan and Mr Subrathie and supported adopting the budget and the report.

Mr Bergman clarified that he was not objecting but was reserving his rights at this stage. He believed other steps could be taken without spending the budget, such as having a full meeting with the Department to address the concerns raised by Mr Manyi. He reiterated that he was not objecting but reserving his position.

Ms Hassan thanked the chair and supported the summary provided, considering it a true reflection of the meeting. She reiterated that the budget had been supported by the majority of Committee Members and emphasised that the issues raised would be addressed. She suggested that the Committee move forward with the approved budget and incorporate Members' concerns into the schedule.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Hassan and the Members, stating that the budget had been approved with reservations from Mr Bergman representing the DA, as well as an objection from the EFF.

https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5865/

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation on the Annual Performance Plan (APP) 2024/25 and the Budget Vote 14 of Statistics South Africa

Mr Ngoepe said the Committee's report on the Budget Vote for Statistics South Africa provided the background and mandate of Statistics South Africa, focusing on its budget and strategic goals for the financial year 2024-2025.

Budget allocation

Statistics South Africa received a budget of R2 billion for 2024-25, a reduction from the previous year's R3 billion, primarily due to the completion of the census. This budget reduction was noted as a significant change affecting the organisation's operations.

Strategic goals

Key priorities for Statistics South Africa included legislative reforms, sustaining the quality of national indicators, and disseminating the results of Census 2022. Additionally, the organisation planned to release results from the National Household Survey and the Income and Expenditure Survey. These initiatives were critical for ensuring accurate and up-to-date statistical information was available for national planning and policy-making.

Administration Programme

This programme had been allocated R713.5 million, focusing on the governance and administrative functions of the Department.

Economic Statistics

Allocated R29.5 million for the year, this programme aimed to produce and publish various economic indicators.

Population and Social Statistics

This programme had seen an increase in its budget to R293.9 million, reflecting the importance of social and demographic data.

Methodology and Statistical Infrastructure

This programme focused on improving the quality and methodological soundness of statistical information and assisted other government departments with their statistical methods.

Statistical Support and Informatics

Allocated R292.6 million, this programme’s allocation had decreased from the previous year but aimed to enhance the integration of statistical information.

Statistical Operations and Provincial Coordination

With a budget of R846.4 million, this programme allocation decreased post-census, as expected.

South African National Statistics System

This programme’s budget had increased to R46.2 million, reflecting its role in driving legislative reforms and statistical coordination.

Observations and Recommendations

The report noted several key observations and recommendations. Historical budget shortfalls had negatively impacted Statistics South Africa's ability to meet its objectives, particularly regarding employee compensation and filling critical positions. There was a recognised need for additional funding to sustain organisational capacity and avoid losing skilled professionals.

The Committee emphasised the importance of digital transformation to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of data collection and dissemination. Concerns were raised about the potential undercounting of immigrants, which could affect national planning and resource allocation. Reliable data was essential for informed decision-making, and the Committee recommended that official statistics be used as guiding tools in policy-making and budgeting processes.

The Committee recommended swift implementation of the Statistics Amendment Bill once signed into law, adopting training programs to enhance the statistical skills of government departments, and leveraging technology to improve data collection methods. Furthermore, it was advised that the integrated indicator framework should support the District Development Model and enhance coordination across various data systems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Committee expressed strong support for Statistics South Africa's efforts and the outlined recommendations to ensure reliable and efficient statistical services. The emphasis on addressing budgetary constraints, enhancing digital capabilities, and improving statistical methodologies was seen as crucial for the organisation's future success.

Discussion

Mr Manyi began by expressing his appreciation for the professionalism and non-partisanship displayed by Stats SA in executing its mandate. He emphasised the Department's crucial role in providing objective data essential for effective national planning.

Mr Manyi voiced deep concern over the proposed 30 percent budget cut facing Stats SA, describing it as potentially damaging to the Department's ability to fulfil its critical functions such as gathering reliable, unbiased databases. He appealed passionately to Committee Members to support Stats SA in seeking a review of its budget allocation from the National Treasury. Such cuts could undermine the Department's capacity to provide unbiased and essential data necessary for informed national planning.

Highlighting the failures of the National Development Plan in meeting its targets across various priorities, Mr Manyi urged the Committee to set clear deadlines for the National Planning Commission to review these priorities. He stressed the importance of aligning these priorities with government department plans before the commencement of the Seventh Administration.

In conclusion, Mr Manyi proposed specific actions for the Chairperson to include in her summary. These included establishing deadlines for the National Planning Commission's review, arranging a workshop to align departmental plans with revised priorities, and addressing concerns regarding proposed October deadlines for financial figures. There was a critical need to support Stats SA amidst budgetary challenges to ensure effective national planning and governance.

Mr Subrathie acknowledged the valuable insights shared by the Member regarding the Department's operations. He emphasised the critical importance of effectively utilising the copious amounts of data provided by Stats SA, highlighting that data was meaningless if not applied in practice by relevant government departments. He proposed that it be recommended that all departments collaborate closely with Stats SA to establish key baseline data at the start of the Seventh Administration. This, he argued, would enable effective measurement and accountability across various sectors such as employment and other enumerated aspects.

Expressing concern over potential errors in the document, Mr Subrathie noted discrepancies in items six and seven of the budget comparison, specifically highlighting incorrect figures compared to the intended periods. He stressed the importance of rectifying these errors promptly to ensure accuracy before further submission. Despite these concerns, he expressed overall satisfaction with the report and echoed support for the sentiments shared by Mr Manyi regarding the Department's crucial role.

Mr Subrathie reiterated the necessity for departments to not only gather data but also actively use it to measure performance effectively, suggesting that the DPME frameworks could enforce this practice. In conclusion, he proposed the approval of the budget while drawing attention to the long-term need for skilled statisticians. He emphasised the importance of budgetary provisions for training and recruitment in this field to mitigate future challenges.

Mr Buthelezi appreciated the insights Mr Subrathie and Mr Manyi shared, noting their valuable experience. He emphasised the importance of not only producing statistical data but also ensuring its legislative enforcement and meaningful application in national planning and development goals. He raised concerns about the effectiveness of statistics if they were not utilised, suggesting that Departments failing to use them should face repercussions.

He strongly recommended seriously reconsidering the budget allocation, aligning it more closely with national priorities and the needs of various regions. He expressed support for the budget approval and urged significant investment in developing statisticians from grassroots levels onwards. This, he argued, was crucial for the Department's effective functioning and long-term impact.

Mr Buthelezi moved for the approval of the budget while stressing the urgency of investing in statistical development as a strategic imperative.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their contributions and acknowledged the issues raised. She highlighted the need for proposed deadlines and the convening of departments and entities before the Portfolio Committee. Emphasising the importance of the draft programme being presented for inputs and approval, she noted it would guide the Committee's quarterly activities.

Regarding Stats SA, the Chairperson recognised its performance and targets but reiterated the need to approve the budget vote that was aligned with its responsibilities. She then invited Mr Ngoepe to address the issues raised.

Mr Bergman interjected, stating his party's position. As a representative of the Democratic Alliance, he noted that they had reviewed the report but reserved their decision on whether to support it until further debate.

Responses

Mr Ngoepe acknowledged the comments made by the Members and apologised for any oversight. He assured them that immediate consultations would follow the meeting to incorporate their inputs into the report, particularly regarding budget allocations and data analysis.

Addressing the query about the October timeline, Mr Ngoepe clarified that it was initially set based on the adoption of the DPME report and could still be adjusted. He explained that the October timeline was chosen to align with the ongoing audit of Brand SA by the Auditor General South Africa and the recent appointment of a new board. This timing was intended to ensure that the Committee received a comprehensive report from the Auditor General before calling the Department to account.

Mr Ngoepe emphasised the importance of allowing the new board sufficient time to conduct thorough investigations, especially concerning the former CEO's remuneration, before any decisions were made. He expressed readiness to revise the report in collaboration with the Members to address their concerns effectively.

Mr Manyi expressed his concern about the backlog of bills awaiting presidential assent, noting that there were currently around 30 bills pending approval. He emphasised the need for the Portfolio Committee on Monitoring and Evaluation to engage the DPME in examining the efficiency of the assent process. Mr Manyi called for these outstanding bills to be included as line items in the DPME's monitoring reports, ensuring transparency and accountability in the legislative process. He highlighted that such oversight should encompass all aspects of governance, including the Presidency, to prevent inefficiencies and bottlenecks from going unexplained.

The Chairperson thanked all the Members for their participation. She noted that the presentation on the Stats SA Budget Vote had been approved, although there were reservations expressed, particularly by the DA. Ms K Christie (DA) had adopted the report but was not ready to accept the budget. Despite this complexity, the report itself was endorsed by the Portfolio Committee.

https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5866/

The meeting was adjourned.