Hansard: Debate on Vote No 6 – Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
House: National Assembly
Date of Meeting: 28 May 2013
Summary
No summary available.
Minutes
UNREVISED HANSARD
EPC – COMMITTEE ROOM E249
Tuesday, 28 May 2013 Take: 621
TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2013
PROCEEDINGS OF EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMITTEE – COMMITTEE ROOM E249
____________
Members of the Extended Public Committee met in Committee Room E249 at 14:00.
House Chairperson Mrs F Hajaig, as Chairperson, took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY
START OF DAY
APPROPRIATION BILL
Debate on Vote No 6 – Performance Monitoring and Evaluation:
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, this House was very active an hour ago; I hope it will not be as active as it was then.
Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Appropriations; Deputy Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, as well as Administration in the Presidency; hon members; honoured guests; members of the audit committee; management and staff of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation; members of the media; friends and comrades; and ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to present the third Budget Vote of this young department, which has had remarkable achievements within a short space of time. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation is one of the two anchor programmes of the ANC government that received an overwhelming mandate from voters to govern this country for another five years from 2009.
The ANC made a commitment to all South Africans that it would introduce national planning and performance monitoring and evaluation to close the gap in long-term planning for the country and to ensure that government produced the key outcomes we want and our people desire.
There are no major changes or policy shifts from the strategic choices we made and published in our strategic plan and annual performance plan. We will continue on the journey that we have started, of monitoring government performance against the five key priorities of education, health, reducing crime, job creation, and the development of rural communities. I will use this opportunity to report back on some of the advances we have made with our monitoring and evaluation programme, and to describe a few areas that we will focus on during this financial year.
This year marks the eve of our country's celebration of 20 years of South Africa's young democracy. This will be a time to reflect and take note of the achievements we have gained as a country in delivery to our people and in improving their lives for the better. It will also be an opportunity to reflect on the challenges ahead in the consolidation of our democracy.
During the last financial year, as a follow up to the mid-term review, we started doing research work for the production of a twenty-year review of the country's progress towards becoming a nonracial, nonsexist and prosperous society. We set ourselves the target of publishing the twenty-year review by the end of this year.
The twenty-year review will use evidence to reflect on the progress we have made, as well as the challenges we have faced since 1994. It will also reflect on the things we need to do going forward, in order to consolidate the gains we have made and plug the gaps that exist.
The building blocks of the review will be the work we have done so far through the outcomes approach, as well as existing and new research work which is being undertaken by us and by various research institutions. The five thematic issues that will inform the review will be: the extent to which the wellbeing of the citizens has changed; the way in which society has transformed; changes that have occurred in the wider environment; changes have that occurred in government, and, finally, international outcomes.
This government has delivered many services which have led to the improvement of the lives of our people, but more still needs to be done. Our latest development indicators report, which will be released shortly, provides an indication of the progress made in a variety of areas. The indicators reveal that, with regard to the delivery of basic municipal services, access to the basic level of water infrastructure increased from 92% of households in 2009 to 95% in 2012; access to a minimum level of sanitation infrastructure increased from 77% in 2009 to 85% in 2012; and access to electricity increased from 81% in 2009 to 88% in 2012. An example with regard to the building of a nonsexist society is that there has been a vast improvement in the representation of women in all three tiers of government since 1994.
In 2009 we undertook to make government work better, faster and smarter. We did this by introducing the outcomes approach and negotiating interdepartmental and intergovernmental delivery agreements for the 12 priority outcomes.
We have been monitoring progress on the implementation of the delivery agreements for the outcomes, as well as facilitating quarterly reporting to Cabinet. We are pleased that the evidence and trends emerging from our work confirm that we are correct to focus the attention of our nation and the government on these key priority areas.
In June last year we published the mid-term review of progress made against the targets set in the delivery agreements. The review described the good progress which had been made and made concrete proposals for steps to be taken to improve performance in areas where there had not been as much progress as had been hoped for. For example, unemployment remains a challenge, and our economic growth rate remains too low. The implementation of the National Development Plan, NDP, the National Infrastructure Plan, the New Growth Path, NGP, and the Industrial Policy Action Plan should catalyse investment and support industry in creating more employment.
Many departments have adopted the new approach of focusing on measurable results and impacts, and government as a whole is starting to achieve a number of targets that we set for ourselves. There is improved co-ordination between government departments and between the three spheres of government, particularly in the important concurrent functions of basic education and health. In both of these sectors the national and provincial departments are now working together more effectively to improve service delivery. This is particularly so in the health sector, where the national department has been able to successfully oversee a range of improvements in the delivery of health services at the provincial level.
As a result, life expectancy has improved from 56 years in 2009 to 60 years in 2012. The infant and under-five mortality rates have been reduced from 40 and 56 per 1 000 live births respectively in 2009 to 30 and 40 per 1 000 live births. The mother-to-child transmission of HIV rate has declined from 3,5% in 2009 to 2,7% in 2012. The tuberculosis cure rate increased from 63% in 2009 to 74% in 2012. Patient satisfaction measured through the Statistics South Africa General Household Survey has also improved from 54% in 2009 to 64% in 2011.
We are now working with the National Treasury and the national departments responsible for concurrent functions to ascertain the potential for further improvement in the management of concurrent functions through the greater use of national norms and standards, and drawing on the successes in our experience in the health sector.
With regard to education and skills, the number of learners matriculating each year has been increasing steadily, from 110 000 in 2009 to 136 000 in 2012. The percentage of Grade 1 learners who attended formal Grade R classes increased from 80% in 2009 to over 90% in 2013. There has been an improvement in Grade 3 literacy, which has risen from 48% of learners operating at a minimum literacy level in 2009 to 52% in 2012.
Due to increased standard setting, monitoring and support by the Department of Basic Education, the delivery of textbooks by the provincial education departments has improved remarkably over the last year. A total of 98% of textbooks that it had been planned to deliver had been delivered by the beginning of the 2013 school year.
The number of young people in learnerships and artisan programmes has increased, as has the number of learners in further education and training, FET, colleges. The FET college pass rate improved by about 10% on average between 2009 and 2012. The placement rate of FET college graduates has also improved, from 22% in 2009 to 41% in 2012.
With regard to crime, there has been a decrease in overall serious crime from 3 924 cases per 100 000 of the population in 2009 to 3 608 cases in 2012. There have also been reductions in the rates of contact crimes and trio crimes. In regard to combating corruption involving amounts of money larger than R5 million, 239 people were arrested and 32 people convicted between the years 2009 and 2012.
While the economy has been growing and creating more jobs, the number of people seeking work has also increased. This, coupled with the global economic downturn, has inhibited our ability to meet our targets for reducing unemployment. As I mentioned earlier, the government will remain focused on addressing this key issue.
As a department we play a particularly important role in "Outcome 12: an efficient, effective and development-oriented Public Service". We believe that by improving the quality of monitoring and evaluation within departments, we will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Public Service.
There are still a number of challenges to overcome in order to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation practices in government. Many of the plans for the programmes of departments are not yet sufficiently rigorous in regard to measuring baseline data and in clearly explaining how the programme will achieve its intended objectives. There is not yet enough measurement of outcomes and impacts, and some departments do not yet have the necessary information management systems in place to do this. We need to do more to build a culture of continuous improvement, as opposed to keeping on doing things in the same way because they have always been done that way.
In order to address these challenges, we are engaged in a range of monitoring and evaluation capacity-building initiatives, including managing national and provincial monitoring and evaluation forums, and monitoring and evaluation learning networks, developing guidelines and training courses for officials, and partnering with other countries to learn and share best practices. In order to build capacity for monitoring and evaluation, we have partnered with the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy, Palama, and the South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association, Samea.
The department is also contributing to Outcome 12 by monitoring a range of indicators of Public Service efficiency and effectiveness, by monitoring the quality of management practices in departments and municipalities, and by monitoring the quality of frontline service delivery to citizens, which the Deputy Minister will elaborate on in detail. Some of the indicators which we have been monitoring include the payment of suppliers within 30 days, the development and implementation of service delivery improvement plans, the time taken to fill vacancies and to finalise disciplinary cases, and the finalisation of anticorruption and Presidential Hotline cases.
With regard to the quality of frontline service delivery, there has been marked improvement in some departments. For example, the average number of days taken by the SA Security Service Agency, Sassa, to process a social grant application decreased from 30 days in 2009 to five days in 2012. This is a remarkable achievement. There has also been an improvement in the average time taken by the police to respond to calls for assistance.
In September 2012 President Zuma received the NDP on behalf of our nation from the National Planning Commission. The NDP has been adopted by Cabinet and will be implemented by this government. The NDP provides a roadmap for tackling the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment.
With its adoption we now have a shared long-term strategic framework within which more detailed planning can take place. The crucial challenge is to ensure that medium and short-term planning is situated within the context of the long-term agenda of the NDP. In order to achieve this, in collaboration with the National Planning Commission Secretariat we are currently in the process of transferring the NDP priorities into the 2014-2019 Medium-Term Strategic Framework, MTSF.
The MTSF will be positioned as the first five-year building block of the NDP and will inform the new five-year strategic plans of national and provincial departments. This will result in a clear line of sight between the actions and targets in the NDP and the actions and targets in the plans of individual departments, which in turn will ensure that the NDP is thoroughly and systematically implemented. It will also ensure that progress made with the key actions and targets in the NDP will be regularly reported on to Parliament, through the annual reporting process.
There is a high correlation between the priorities in the NDP and the current 12 priority outcomes. Many of the indicators and targets are consistent and overlap with the current delivery agreements. This correlation will enable us to maintain continuity in the planning, monitoring and evaluation processes of government. The draft MTSF will be submitted to the July Cabinet lekgotla for consideration and finalisation, and for submission to the new Cabinet for consideration after the 2014 national election.
Last year we indicated that we would work with other government departments and provinces to identify key projects, programmes, plans and policies to be evaluated. Seven evaluations started in the past financial year and will be completed in this current financial year, and improvement plans will be developed and monitored. We have begun with preparatory work for 16 evaluations to be carried out in the current financial year.
In the three years of its existence the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation has made good progress, in collaboration with our sister departments, in developing, piloting, and implementing and monitoring the evaluation systems in order to contribute to the building of a capable and developmental state.
Last year we reported that we had worked with other transversal departments and institutions, as well as the offices of the premiers, in developing and piloting an instrument to monitor management practices in national and provincial departments. This instrument, the Management Performance Assessment Tool, MPAT, draws on the monitoring work of other institutions, such as the Auditor-General and the Public Service Commission, PSC, but does not duplicate their work. It provides a single holistic picture of the state of management practices in departments.
Generally, audits focus on compliance only, whereas MPAT focuses on getting managers to work more smartly. This is important for improving government performance. For example, getting departments to procure more smartly results in better service delivery by suppliers and contractors, and in savings from reducing corruption and increasing value for money.
We also said last year that the MPAT assessments would be repeated annually so that improvements could be tracked. We are pleased to announce that in the past financial year 156 national and provincial departments participated in the assessments. This represents a substantial increase over the 103 departments which participated in the 2011-12 assessment cycle.
This increased level of participation can be attributed to the fact that many departments have indicated that they find the assessment process useful. The process of getting the top management of each department to assess themselves against a holistic set of good practice management standards, and to agree on required improvements, is the main value added to the MPAT assessment process. Management practices in departments are generally weak, because top management has not paid sufficient attention to improving them. By carrying out annual assessments, the Presidency and the offices of the premiers are sending out a clear message that improving administration is a priority of government.
The monitoring of management practices is starting to bear fruit in a number of areas. For example, the average time taken to fill funded vacant posts in national and provincial departments has improved from 9 months in 2010 to 4 months in 2012. The responsiveness of departments to cases referred to them from Chapter 9 Institutions and from the National Anticorruption Hotline has also improved. Compliance rates regarding important issues, such as finalising performance agreements for heads of departments, HODs, and the submission of financial disclosure forms by senior managers, have improved.
However, there is still much room for improvement in departments, particularly in administrative areas such as payment of suppliers within 30 days and the setting and monitoring of service delivery standards. We will be continuing to closely monitor these issues to ensure that they improve.
The diagnostics in the NDP point to a South African local government system that has inherent weaknesses in capacity and performance. These include ineffective service delivery due to poor planning, poor administrative and financial management practices, shortage of skills, and undue political influence in the recruitment of senior managers, amongst others. Last year we reported that we had started to develop an appropriate tool to assess the quality of management practices and basic service delivery in municipalities, in collaboration with the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the National Treasury.
This has been done, and during this year we will be piloting the implementation of the Municipal Assessment Tool, MAT, focusing on both the quality of generic management practices, such as planning, human resources, financial management, community engagement and governance, and the quality of basic service delivery. The pilot phase will comprise the assessment of 10 municipalities, which will inform the refinement of the assessment tool, so that assessments of municipalities can start taking place more widely from next year. We hope that, once this is embedded in the system of local government, it will go a long way towards laying a firm foundation for sustained improvement in the performance of municipalities.
One of the intentions of the MPAT and MAT assessments is to lead and drive a process of addressing issues raised by the Auditor-General, and we expect that these assessments will result in improved audit reports over time.
We are in the process of establishing an operational management support programme, in partnership with National Treasury and the private sector, with the aim of assisting departments and municipalities to address some of the operational weaknesses that we have identified through our assessment tools and Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring programmes.
The biggest challenge facing the department is to ensure that other departments and municipalities act on monitoring and evaluation information. In the past, members have proposed that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation should be given "teeth" to enable it to enforce its recommendations. However, I would like to advise members to consider this proposal very carefully. There is an existing legal system for accountability and consequences for poor performance, as described, for example, in the Public Service Act and Public Finance Management Act, PFMA. In line with the Constitution, this legal system emphasises the accountability of the executive authorities and accounting officers of departments to Parliament. If Parliament calls departments to account for how they are acting on monitoring and evaluation findings, it will help the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation to ensure that its findings are acted upon. We therefore look forward to receiving many more invitations to make presentations to portfolio committees.
The argument for giving the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation "teeth" has also been one of the arguments for enabling legislation for performance monitoring and evaluation. The department is continuing to explore this issue with other departments at the administrative centre of government, and will bring an initial policy document to the Standing Committee on Appropriations in the coming months.
In the last financial year we presented the first audited annual report for the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation. The Auditor-General of South Africa expressed an unqualified audit opinion. We are currently compiling our annual report for the financial year which ended 31 March 2013. We are confident that once again we will receive a favourable audit opinion.
Let me turn to the budget. The department has been allocated R192,7 million for the 2013-14 financial year. Of this, R109 million will be spent on compensation of employees, R75 million on goods and services, and R9 million on payments for capital assets.
The department has four budget programmes, which correspond with the four branches of the department, and the budget has been allocated to these programmes as follows: R57 million for administration, R61 million for outcomes monitoring and evaluation, R17 million on monitoring and evaluation systems co-ordination and support, and R57 million on public sector oversight.
In conclusion, as our approach to monitoring and evaluation matures, we increasingly recognise the need to strengthen the involvement of citizens in monitoring government service delivery. We are excited to announce that a citizen-based monitoring programme is now being piloted with the SA Police Service and the Departments of Health and Social Development to give practical expression to this commitment. The Deputy Minister will further elaborate on this exciting initiative.
I would like to thank the staff and management of the department, the portfolio committee, and Parliament for their collaboration and the work which we have been doing together with the departments which have been assisting us. Through you, Chair, I now commend the budget to the House. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr E M SOGONI
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY
Mr E M SOGONI: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, as well as Administration in the Presidency, other hon Ministers present, hon Deputy Minister, hon colleagues and especially members of the committee, director-general and other officials of the department, and ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
The 2009 Manifesto of the ANC directed that:
The developmental state will play a central and strategic role in the economy. We will ensure a more effective government, improve the coordination and planning efforts of the developmental state by means of a planning entity to ensure faster change. A review of the structure of government will be undertaken, to ensure effective service delivery.
In fact, the ANC had in earlier manifestos committed itself to ensuring better co-operation amongst the three spheres of government, with integrated planning, monitoring and evaluation, and a common system of public service. Therefore, the establishment of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, and the Planning Commission, was the culmination of a long process of planning within the ANC, giving effect to section 85(2)(c) of the Constitution. The Constitution enjoins the President of the Republic of South Africa to exercise his executive authority together with other executive members of the Cabinet to co-ordinate the functions of state departments.
This department is only three years old as a stand-alone department, as it became a department with effect from 1 April 2011.
The mandate of the department is to work towards continuous improvement in service delivery through performance monitoring and evaluation. The following are the issues that constitute the mandate of this department: to facilitate the development of plans or delivery agreements for the crosscutting priorities or outcomes of government; to monitor individual, national and provincial departments and municipalities; to monitor frontline service delivery; to manage the Presidential Hotline; to carry out evaluations; to promote good monitoring and evaluation practices in government; and to provide support to delivery institutions that address blockages in government.
Furthermore, the department has as its major focus for the 2013-14 financial year to ensure that there is mainstreaming of the National Development Plan in the government's work when drafting the Medium-Term Strategic Framework for the next government. Obviously, and I quote:
The department will work with the National Planning Commission to facilitate and monitor the implementation of the NDP.
As MPs, hon members, it means we must familiarise ourselves with the relevant chapters of the National Development Plan which relate to our respective portfolios. As the Portfolio Committee responsible for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, we will support this process. Hon Minister, you will know that sometimes we are a standing committee and at other times we are a portfolio committee, but we are here at the moment as a portfolio committee. It will require that the department ensures that it fast-tracks the process, as it may affect other processes like the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, which comes towards the end of the year, over which the Standing Committees on Appropriations and on Finance play an oversight role.
Whilst the ANC-led government recognises the progress that has been made in changing the socioeconomic realities of many South Africans, there is a need for targeted improvements in the government's service delivery approach in order to address the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment. The government is implementing a number of interventions, including the National Growth Path and the Industrial Policy Action Plan, and soon the National Development Plan will be in full swing.
A scholar in the field of monitoring and evaluation, Milton Friedman, once said, and I quote:
One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
That is why our government deemed it necessary to adopt the outcomes-based approach in 2009.
Government expenditure and programmes have increased over the years, but they have not always yielded the intended results and outcomes. The outcomes-based approach was adopted to ensure that there was a focused and co-ordinated effort to achieve real improvements in the lives of the poorest of the poor. This approach would result in harmonising intergovernmental planning and efficient resource allocation across government, both vertically and horizontally, and ensure alignment of government plans on all the 12 priority outcomes.
We in the ANC welcome the progress that the department has made in the short time of its existence. In 2012 the department facilitated the use of the Management Performance Assessment Tool and 103 national and provincial departments participated in that process. The department itself acknowledged that the process was not as rigorous as it had intended, as moderation was not done with all the departments. However, the results show that many departments were frank and honest in their self-assessment. The good thing about the process is that those departments will be able to come up with improvement plans.
The MPAT was developed in collaboration with the Department of Public Service and Administration, and the National Treasury, with additional inputs from the Office of the Auditor-General and the Public Service Commission. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation also works with transversal departments, including the offices of the premiers across the country. The MPAT is built around four key performance management areas, namely strategic management, governance and accountability, human resources and systems management, and financial management.
Parliament must also take an interest in the reports because these are some of the key performance areas that result in departments' failing to get unqualified audits. Some departments scored themselves quite high, and that contradicted the Auditor-General's reports and the PSC, which in some cases found that departments had spent their entire budgets, yet they were not able to align performance to the predetermined objectives.
The other report that was produced by the department and that was mentioned by the Minister was the Mid-Term Review Report. Again the committee was satisfied that the report covered all 12 outcomes and reflected a balanced view of what was happening in the departments. For now I will mention a few results, focusing on the five priorities of the government.
With regard to education, the report reveals that there are an increased number of children benefiting from the government's early childhood development programme, resulting in the doubling between 2003 and 2010 of the number of children in Grade R. Adult Basic Education and Training has also experienced an increase in adult enrolment, while colleges and artisan learners entering training exceeded the target that the department set itself for 2011. There were also the Annual National Assessment results, which allow government to benchmark levels of literacy and numeracy in South Africa and develop improvement plans. The last thing in the education report is that the Millennium Development Goals have almost been achieved in South Africa, because there has been greater access to education and a greater number of girls are attending school.
On health, the number of people living with HIV/Aids has stabilised. I can't make out what has been typed here, Sir! The number of people living with HIV/Aids has stabilised in the country. There has been a reduction in mother-to-child transmission from 8% in 2008 to 3,5% in 2011 – the government is protecting over 30 000 babies per annum from infection. Sir, 19,9 million people were tested for HIV from April 2010 to date.
With regard to crime, overall serious crime has decreased, although marginally, from 3 872 to 3 688 per 100 000. Murder, attempted murder, car hijackings and house robberies have also registered a decrease, however marginal that may be. Over 1 529 cases of corruption were investigated, and people involved arrested. There were 255 corruption-related convictions. Finally, 23 presidential proclamations were made, of investigations into corruption in the departments.
On employment creation, the government has established the Jobs Fund, which is managed by the Development Bank of Southern Africa. That is making progress in creating work. Advances in co-ordination in regard to growth strategies, the NGP and stakeholders are also being made. A business case has been prepared to expand community programmes per annum. Progress with promoting labour-absorbing growth and industrial development strategies in manufacturing, mineral products, procurement reform, and so forth, has been made.
On infrastructure, the creation of an independent system operator is under way. This will allow independent power producers to be able to participate in the production of alternative energy. There is also progress with regard to roads, rail and ports. Transnet is now moving freight via rail, and is expecting to move about 206 megatons per year, increasing to 250 megatons by 2014. Transnet has also acquired locomotives. The Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission has been established to monitor projects under the programme called Strategic Integrated Projects, Sips.
On rural development, the state's land acquisition and distribution programme entailed 823 000 ha to 20 290 beneficiaries between 2009 and 2011, whilst the restitution programme benefited 712 claimants. Overall, 607 million ha were transferred between 1994 and 2011. Of course, that constitutes only 27% of the 2014 target of 24,5 million ha. A successful programme has been the National Rural Youth Service Corps, which has trained over 5 340 youth. Efforts to build an effective and efficient Public Service are being made.
There has been significant progress in some departments in reducing waste, and in turnaround times. I'm sorry, I'm battling to make this out. [Interjections.] Turnaround times in departments have improved. For example, the Department of Home Affairs has improved the time it takes to issue identity documents and permits from 127 days to 45 days; the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, is now processing social grant applications in nine days instead of the 30 days that it used to take; and the SA Police Service response time for serious crime has also improved, from 50 minutes to 18 minutes.
While we acknowledge and welcome the Mid-Term Review Report, which indicates progress made since the beginning of the term, we will be the first to agree that there is a lot that still needs to be done to address the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment – and crime – facing our country.
Another key output for the department which reflects government's annual assessment of the country's performance in both qualitative and quantitative measures, is the report that the Minister also referred to. It is the Development Indicators 2011. This report has already been submitted to the committee. The development indicators track changes in indicators such as the gross domestic product, unemployment rate, life expectancy, social cohesion, poverty, inequality, and so forth.
Some of the key findings of the report suggest that life expectancy has actually increased to 57 years because HIV/Aids has stabilised. Also, there is a continuous decline in the child and infant mortality rate – it decreased from 52 per 1 000 births in 2009 to 34 in 2011. The population living below R422 a month as a poverty datum line has decreased from 50% in 1994 to 34% in 2009. So, we are on track as far as delivery to our people is concerned. These are just highlights which the Development Indicators 2011 report has articulated as findings for the period in question.
The department is making information available to hon members so that they can utilise this valuable information for purposes of oversight in their own portfolios.
The Annual Performance Plan for the 2013-14 financial year commits the department to continuing with the good work of focusing on co-ordinating service delivery in regard to the 12 government priority outcomes, and the assessment of quality management performance of national and provincial departments. Most important are the roll-outs and feedback on the visits to frontline service delivery and monitoring models; the implementation of the National Evaluation Policy Framework; and the implementation of the Municipal Performance Assessment Tool. These initiatives should contribute to increasing the availability of evidence ... [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
The ANC supports this Budget Vote. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr D T GEORGE
Mr E M SOGONI
Dr D T GEORGE: Chairperson, today the Presidential Review Committee on State-owned Entities released its report. It conceded that some state-owned entities may need to be privatised. The DA welcomes this development. Our position is that in order for real economic growth and job creation to take place, more entities need to enjoy the autonomy to operate without government interference, which has clearly compromised the effective operation of our economy. An economy cannot be centrally planned, no matter how much it is monitored and evaluated.
Last week Parliament held a snap debate on what has become known as Guptagate. There is no doubt that several systems failed spectacularly. A jet airliner entered our airspace and landed at the Waterkloof Air Force Base. Its guests were escorted under blue lights to Sun City for a wedding in the Gupta family who are closely connected to the President.
Although government has conceded that these events were irregular, not one single member of the executive has stepped forward to accept responsibility or be politically accountable for an incident that has exposed a rotten culture of favours for friends funded by the people. The collectively accountable Cabinet hasn't taken responsibility, and neither has the President.
R192 million is budgeted for 2013-14 to improve government service delivery through Performance Monitoring and Evaluation. Since its establishment in January 2010, the people have paid R314 million to fund it. The department's objectives, we would expect, are to hold those responsible for managing delivery of service to the people to account, to ensure that the people's money is effectively spent, and for the departments to learn from the information they receive.
The department's spending focus is to co-ordinate an integrated governmentwide performance monitoring and evaluation system, and its strategic plan sets out a wide range of activities in pursuit of this objective. The question that comes to mind is: What is this for? What is the point of spending all of this money to build elaborate systems for evaluation, when we know that no one will be held to account when service isn't delivered and the people's money is wasted, stolen or increasingly looted?
The process to hold the executive to account has already failed. At every hearing the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, exposes this failure. Ministers regularly fail to appear and don't send their deputies. Findings and recommendations from previous years are ignored in a culture of collective amnesia where no one knows anything or does anything as the people's money disappears down a drain into the trough from which bloated, politically connected cronies and tenderpreneurs feast, while everyone else gets left behind – without proper education, health care or employment prospects that an effective government would facilitate.
This wouldn't happen in an open opportunity society under a DA government. Where the DA governs, we govern well. We govern well because we know that a system cannot manage itself. We know that properly qualified people are needed to do a job. And we know that political affiliation or connectivity is irrelevant in the delivery of service to the people. We have demonstrated this in Midvaal and in the Western Cape.
Government departments can be well managed if they implement basic disciplines. Financial procedures need to be in place and properly managed. An internal audit function needs to monitor adherence to procedures and report to a competent audit committee that can advise management to make any necessary improvements. Quarterly financial statements should be prepared, so that any corrections can be made before the year end, and before they reach the Auditor-General, who now spends much time on restating incorrectly prepared financial statements.
An effective monitoring and evaluation system would ensure that fruitless, wasteful and irregular expenditure decreased over time and that the R30 billion that the Special Investigating Unit says leaks from the public financial system every year wouldn't increase.
The Minister himself has stated that he is not concerned with punitive measures. This permits failing Ministers and departments to remain dysfunctional, without any repercussions, and also permits legislative provisions regarding the criminal liability of grossly negligent accounting officers to be ignored.
The Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Public Audit Act were intended to ensure good governance, but are regarded by government as unnecessary guidelines. The Minister does not monitor adherence to these basic building blocks.
What is the point of monitoring departments in the name of good governance when no action is taken against perpetrators? We heard from the Minister of Public Works at a Scopa hearing that he had advised a poorly performing senior executive to resign, because the process for him to terminate her employment was too onerous!
Minister, our financial governance model is broken because there isn't any political will to keep it intact. No amount of performance monitoring and evaluation will fix this!
Departments already receive performance monitoring and evaluation from the findings of the Auditor-General. He also reports on service delivery objectives. His findings on municipalities, provinces and government departments do not inspire confidence. Sir, 56% of municipal audits were disclaimed or qualified last year, as were 23% of national and provincial audits. Does the Minister not agree with the Auditor-General that the pervasive root causes of poor audit outcomes are that key positions are vacant or key officials lack appropriate competencies; that there is a lack of consequences for poor performance and transgressions; and that there is a slow response by political leadership in addressing the root causes of poor performance outcomes?
If you already know this, Minister, why do you not focus on the lack of political will to act and improve support for the Auditor-General from government?
Several government departments, most notably the National Treasury, publicly differed with the Auditor-General on his findings. The quality of work submitted to the Auditor-General would improve if departments produced quarterly reports as required. In his response to my question, the Minister said that this was not his responsibility. Twelve departments did not participate in the Treasury's 2012 Financial Management Capability Maturity Model Assessments. Why would their co-operation with the Minister be any different unless he acted as a praise singer contradicting other sources of performance data?
The National Development Plan advocates a government that is accountable and transparent. The DA agrees. It is clear from their silence that the plan is not embraced by everyone in government. It is hypocritical that ANC MPs who endorse the National Development Plan are also the members of the Congress of South African Trade Unions who reject it. The Minister's job is to ensure that government implements the NDP, and he needs to explain why several departments ignore it. Does the Minister agree with hon Trevor Manuel that the state is incapable of implanting the NDP?
To test whether the allocation of the people's money to this department has been wisely spent, we need to ask whether service delivery is improving and whether the people are getting value for their money. Unfortunately, the answer is no.
Mr E M SOGONI: Chairperson, I stand on a point of order: I just want to indicate that I am not surprised that the hon member is misleading the House. [Interjections.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order!
Mr E M SOGONI: I am saying that the hon member is misleading the House in what he is saying now. I am not surprised that he is doing that because ... [Inaudible.]
Dr D T GEORGE: You will have an opportunity to respond.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order! Hon member, what is your point of order?
Mr E M SOGONI: My point of order is that he is saying the departments are ignoring the National Development Plan, but the Minister explained where that is going to happen. [Interjections.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Hon member, please take you seat. Hon members, order! Lets allow members to speak, even if you don't agree with what the member is saying. Leave the member to make the point. So, the member is not out of order. Continue, hon member.
Dr D T GEORGE: Thank you, Chairperson. To test whether the allocation of the people's money to this department has been wisely spent, we need to ask whether service delivery is improving and whether the people are getting value for their money. Unfortunately, the answer is no. Government cannot operate without consultants.
In its performance audit of the use of consultants at national departments, the Auditor-General noted his concern over duplicate costs incurred, value for money spent on consultancy, inefficient government systems, inadequate financial and performance management, inadequate planning, and high turnover of employees in key positions. He suggested that regular performance audits could become very handy in uprooting corruption, and that these should be mandatory and part of regular audits such as financial statements, financial management and accounts. The simple fact of excessive, inefficient and ineffective use of consultants tells us that government is failing the people. We don't need to spend another R192 million to tell us this fact.
Corruption isn't a one-way street. Consultants do exploit government incompetence, and they do this because they can get away with it. A properly managed Public Service would be able to properly manage its consultants when they were required in certain instances. The Department of Correctional Services appointed consultants to manage its consultants! The Minister might not know this, because he doesn't monitor this either.
Scopa itself has failed. The measurement of its success cannot be whether it meets, or whether it holds hearings, but rather be based on the outcome of its work over time. Audit outcomes are not improving. The over R30 billion per annum haemorrhage from the public financial system hasn't been stemmed. Ministers, with few exceptions, treat Scopa with disdain. The Minister doesn't monitor their attendance at Scopa. Scopa is indeed a sad shadow of its former self, much like the ANC, an internationally admired liberation movement that lost its way when it forgot that government doesn't have any money of its own, that it all belongs to the people, that government is its custodian, and that you shouldn't steal what isn't yours!
R300 million over budget, and five years late, the construction of the Zola-Jabulani Hospital in Soweto is an example of government's incompetence that is impossible to hide. Scopa was promised that 1 April would be the delivery date. It didn't happen, and still it hasn't happened today. The Gauteng provincial government disclaims accountability, as does the Department of Health. I have no doubt that the Minister does too.
Our analysis of the value added by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation points to a simple conclusion, that this department doesn't yet justify its existence.
The Zuma administration has failed to deliver in its term of office. The problems are clearly identified, but political will is missing. A fish rots from the head. The people can smell the rotting fish and will have an opportunity to tell us what they think of this stink next year when they choose who will govern them. The people won't wait forever. The irony of ANC-led protests against the DA-governed Midvaal, the best run municipality in Gauteng, isn't lost on them – they have seen you for what you are! Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr L RAMATLAKANE
Dr D T GEORGE
Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Chairperson, Minister, Deputy Minister and hon members, the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation was created in January 2010, with the intention of making a difference in governance.
Creating a transparent and effective oversight reporting tool to assist the President and Cabinet, its mandate is derived from section 85(2)(c) of the Constitution. This states that the President, together with members of the Cabinet, the executive, has the authority to secure and co-ordinate the functions of state departments and administrations.
Policy pronouncements, such as the 2011 state of the nation address and the Green Paper in regard to the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, as announced by Minister Chabane, outlined its mandate as being to further assist the President to put in place the following, and I want to mention few matters: performance agreements for Ministers, advice and support regarding Cabinet memorandums, and co-ordination and management of government's wide monitoring evaluation system. This is very noble! A compliment to government on its putting together a nice-to-have tool without teeth, a "super cop" without authority to arrest, redress or restore order!
The intention of this department is to aim at and reflect using a results-orientated approach to better governance across the three spheres of government and all state organs. What does this mean? Does it mean writing up a report using consultants at a cost of R10,7 million in 2012-13 and R15,8 million in the 2013-14 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework period, while the National Development Plan has pleaded for the creation of 11 million jobs? Something must be wrong with this approach and position. Let us take the Gupta manipulation, using the amicable weapon of name-dropping, to run their empire.
What effect is hon Minister Chabane's report on Performance Monitoring and Evaluation going to have on the Ministers and directors-general, DGs, and Ace Magashule of the Free State? The primary function of the department is to demonstrate government's commitment to securing its performance, and impacting meaningfully on the lives of the citizens.
This implies that the department will work closely with the National Planning Commission, using data generated as information to strengthen intergovernmental relations, planning and allocation. The question is: How successful and meaningful is this relationship, especially in monitoring and evaluating the performance of all other departments involved with the Department of Public Service and Administration?
Furthermore, what effective legal framework do they have in place to enforce compliance by the department? Think of it – each Minister has the power or right to report on success and failure, and of course there is always going to be an issue with another Minister's interference - the Robocop issue.
It is general knowledge that all the departments ... [Interjections.] I can hear you heckling! It is general knowledge that all departments offer an outcomes report to their directors-general. At the same time, is there current evidence that the escalation of these reports offers benefits to such departments and Ministers?
One can argue that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation was created for a purpose that the government and Cabinet are aware of. The department's 2013-14 Annual Performance Plan indicates that there has been no policy shift, and priorities remain the same. Of course, a worrying factor is that some performance indicators are not going to be measurable. Using the test level of efficiency, accountability and sound governance principles, as the Green Paper suggests, with the hope of improving quality outcomes is, perhaps, too much to suggest. Ministers do not allow anyone to enter their domain, so the value of the report has little meaning for quality of service and improvement.
Look at what the Auditor-General, Mr Terence Nombembe, said about the municipalities and their poor performance, or look at the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, fiasco.
Deon Madyo, who is facing allegations of corruption, was appointed, and he is serving under the provincial health MEC, Mxolisi Sokatsha. There are more than 5 000 sick teachers in the Eastern Cape who are receiving their monthly salaries without benefiting the children. There are mud schools in the Eastern Cape and, of course, there has been the textbook delivery fiasco in Limpopo. What is the "super cop" going to do about this? I raised some of these issues on the Presidential Hotline.
The political infighting on the executive of the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality prevents the new city manager from performing her duties and implementing financial management principles, and this is worrying. The municipal managers' hesitancy to follow the rules is also worrying. The filling of senior municipality management posts, which has taken up to 30 months so far, is also worrying. What is the "super cop" going to do about this?
Having given these examples, I would like to know what the hon Minister is going to do. Service delivery problems are growing daily. Some departments are administered poorly, for example, the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities.
People can see when things are falling apart, and the question must be asked: What recommendations are there to turn the situation around? The Minister is working very hard, but is very frustrated in regard to solutions and implementation. Furthermore, Minister, is it true that by using the evaluation report the President will be empowered to show poorly performing Ministers and directors-general the door? I don't think so.
The chaos in the country, from corruption to hiding behind name-dropping, tells a unique story of capacity, accountability and honour. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N SINGH
Mr L RAMATLAKANE
Mr N SINGH: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, in the view of the IFP, if nothing else this department and the establishment of the department have been a wake up call for all other departments. With the mandate assigned to it by the President of the country in Cabinet, one finds that other departments are now very, very careful about how they tread.
Performance monitoring and evaluation is supposed to be something that each department does on its own. However, that has not been done in the past. The establishment of this department, and the fact that the department "puts its nose", if I may use those words, into other departments and evaluates what they do, is a positive thing. We trust that this will lead to improvement in service delivery as we move forward.
Having said that, let me say that the IFP will support this Vote. We support this Vote because we believe the establishment of this department is positive.
However, I am a bit concerned, and I was glad to notice the Director-General in the Office of the Presidency, Dr Cassius Lubisi, is present here. We would have liked to see the amount that has been allocated to the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, ring-fenced and placed in Vote No 6. We are the committee responsible for oversight over the NYDA. The Minister responsible for the NYDA is the hon Minister on the right, sitting here. Yet this debate takes place in Vote No 1, the Vote of the President. I hope that the President and Cabinet will consider taking that the amount and putting it into Vote No 6 so that we can have a meaningful discussion and debate on the role of the NYDA.
I will probably not have an opportunity to speak in that debate, so I would like to say that NYDA is really coming of age. They are now being a responsible group of people, focused on the empowerment of the youth as we move forward. [Applause.]
This department is the custodian of the monitoring and evaluation function in government. One would like to see less reliance on the use of consultants within the department. We know that the department is underbudgeted – in real terms they got less money than they had before – and there are still many challenges that face the department and the government in general.
Among the reports that the department itself has published, one of the reports suggests the following. I will read it and I quote:
The Department (of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation) identified that many HoDs are not regularly assessed and key proposals in this regard include the Presidency and Office of the Premiers' (OTPs') intervening if Performance Agreements are not submitted timeously, ...
The fact that heads of departments are not being assessed is an indictment on us as government. Rot starts at the top, and if they don't set an example at the top, and if they don't perform in terms of the performance agreements that they signed with the responsible Ministers, or with the President, we do not expect people at the bottom to carry out their work effectively. I think this is a challenge that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation has to address at a global level.
Yes, focusing on the department in regard to what happens on the ground is necessary, but we still think that this department needs to empower all the other departments.
If you look at most of the reports that have been produced by this department, what are the issues that you see? There is non-payment within 30 days, the lack of service delivery in governments and at municipalities, and the lack of services being offered to people in the offices that they visit. These are all "people issues". There are things like the cleanliness of an office and rudeness in the office. These have been identified in the reports of this department. I don't think that in this day and age we should be accepting a lackadaisical attitude from any civil servant. If they can't shape up, they must ship out.
This brings me, hon Minister, to the fact that whilst we may have all these reports and whilst we may say what the shortcomings are, we need to ask: What follows? What follows is nothing! No action is taken against people who do not comply. Sometimes civil servants think that they are a law unto themselves, that they can sit in their ivory towers and that they can treat citizens like us as people they are doing a favour! We need to ensure that appropriate action is taken!
This should happen, not only at the lowest level, but also with the heads of department if they are not performing. Open any annual report where we can look at the financial statement and look at the column on performance bonuses. Even if a department has a terrible report from the Auditor-General and there are lots of matters that have been emphasised, you will see performance bonuses being awarded to these people. Why should that be the case? These are transversal issues that we would like the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation to look at.
Chairperson, I now turn to monitoring at the municipal level. The report of the Auditor-General in regard to how municipalities are performing and what we see is shocking to say the least. I think that if we have to say that more money should be given to this department, then we must agree that more money should be given to this department, so that there is more monitoring and enforcement at that particular level. That is the coalface of delivery, at the municipal level. All the service delivery protests and so on take place because municipalities are not performing! It is not because the national department hasn't fulfilled whatever its mandate was.
I think the shift of emphasis in what the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation does as we move forward is really going to help the citizens of this country, and help all of us in ensuring that there is value for money.
Chairperson, I see my bell is ringing. Thank you very much. We will support the Vote. [Applause.]
Mr G T SNELL
Mr N SINGH
Mr G T SNELL: Thank you, hon Chair, hon Minister and hon members. The portfolio committee has unanimously supported the committee's report for the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation. Hon George would not realise that because he does not sit on the committee. [Interjections.]
The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation has an oversight role to play in exercising its responsibility between the spheres of government and government departments, both vertically and horizontally. [Interjections.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order, members! Order!
Mr G T SNELL: It is the application of the various budgets that requires us as legislators to apply our minds to evaluating the optimal utilisation of state resources in achieving the developmental agenda of the state. Collectively, we need to drive a progressive transformation agenda towards a state that is developmental in character and form. We must not undermine the progress that this government has made in the last 19 years of democracy. Being the progressive government that we are, we must also provide meaningful responses to the glaring challenges that we face.
It is appropriate, therefore, to reflect on a number of areas that may inhibit the implementation of national policies across the spheres of government driven by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation.
Chapter 3 of the Constitution, dealing with "Co-operative government", states that:
... (the) national, provincial and local spheres ... are distinctive, interdependent and interrelated.
It requires the spheres to provide effective, transparent, accountable and coherent government for the Republic as a whole. It is clear from the intention of these provisions that the drafters of the Constitution envisaged that the various spheres would work together to achieve the national agenda, whilst recognising the distinct and separate roles of each sphere.
The Division of Revenue Act, which this Budget Vote ultimately forms part of, allocates revenue raised nationally among the three spheres of government. The provincial and local spheres are allocated their share of national revenue by virtue of transfers and grants.
The provinces' equitable share is crafted into a provincial budget in the form of an appropriation budget, and is subject to provincial legislative processes prior to being enacted.
There are a number of government co-ordinating structures, established at the national level, which facilitate the alignment of the national budget to achieve national priorities by all the spheres of government. These structures have the ability to influence the allocation of funds broadly in meeting national policy objectives. However, their influence is limited in respect of aligning specific allocations to specific objectives pertaining to national policies within a provincial budget or a local government budget.
The result of this is that it can transpire that departments established in the national sphere and those established provincially with concurrent competencies do not utilise the revenue raised nationally to effect policy implementation in an integrated, co-ordinated manner. So, hon George, maybe it is a structural problem rather than a corruption problem. [Interjections.]
The net result of this is that service delivery is compromised and the state does not extract from the fiscus the optimum utilisation of its resources. The department is therefore currently bound by agreements in reaching its objectives with and between departments and spheres.
The department's responsibility to establish systems to monitor and evaluate the implementation of budgets and policy objectives takes place currently in this context. Besides relying on the provisions of co-operative government, the national sphere of government has no power over provincial departments other than to persuade provincial government to ensure that the national policy is implemented at the provincial level, in effect creating a quasi-federal system within a unitary state.
Compounding the problems associated with implementing a seamless system of government between the national and provincial spheres, both horizontally and vertically within and between the spheres, is Chapter 5 of the Public Finance Management Act.
This chapter sets out the functions and responsibilities of accounting officers pertaining to their role within departments or constitutional institutions. These functions and responsibilities are contractually specific to the department or constitutional institution the accounting officer is employed by. In effect, this contract-specific employment of accounting officers creates a measure of autonomy and independence. This results in entrenching a silo-based approach to governance and leads to a fragmentation of service delivery.
No central administrative authority is currently empowered to co-ordinate any integrated action across and between the spheres of government. Government relies on accounting officers' embracing the letter and spirit of co-operative governance to implement government policies in a unified co-ordinated manner, leaving much to chance, and in effect hampering the department's ability to co-ordinate and manage its mandate.
To this extent the committee recommended that the department begin with exploring a legislative framework that will govern its operational and reporting requirements through all spheres and departments of the state.
The department is beginning to develop strategies to work with various organs of people's power, such as community police forums, ward committees, school governing bodies, hospital boards, and clinic committees. The committee recommended that the department continue to strengthen these relationships to place the citizens at the centre of policy application and the provision of services.
The department continues to develop an ever-increasing base of knowledge and applies that knowledge in defining its strategies to meet its obligations to both state and citizen. We are confident that the department will find solutions to the challenges within the superstructure of governance as legislated currently, and continue to deepen direct citizen participation. Strategic relationships in partnering with the organs of state responsible for public participation will furthermore assist in resourcing democracy and place the citizen at the centre of the developmental agenda of the state.
A system of democratic government which is accountable, responsive and open attests to the importance placed by the Constitution on government and legislatures' obligation to interact with the citizenry by creating a framework that promotes interaction and social partnership. The Constitution, while establishing the rights of the citizen, also expects the citizen, in return, to be subject to the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, in effect creating a partnership between state and citizen.
The democratic partnership is further concretised in the Preamble to the Constitution, which states, amongst others, that the people of South Africa through their freely elected representatives adopt the Constitution to establish a society based on democratic values, in which government is based on the will of the people. South Africa's constitutional framework establishes a complex network of institutions that are independent of one another, however, through their functioning, interrelated. The constitutional obligation on each ensures that the relevant checks and balances are put in place to safeguard democracy and promote the principles of transparent, accountable government, which is informed by and accountable to the citizenry.
Chapter 10 of the Constitution deals with "Public administration", setting out the "Basic values and principles governing public administration". These values and principles are re-enforced through the provision in section 195(1) that "Public administration must be governed by the democratic values and principles enshrined in the Constitution ..." These include the following, in the same section:
(c) Public administration which must be development-orientated.
(d) Services must be provided impartially, fairly, equitably and without bias.
(e) People's needs must be responded to, and the public must be encouraged to participate in policy-making.
(f) (Furthermore,) (p)ublic administration must be accountable.
Constitutional and policy prescripts pertaining to public participation and the expected role the citizen is to play in informing the state's developmental role, lays a foundation for a working partnership. This partnership introduced to the civil service a politico-administrative style of governing the provision of services. The department must play a central role in this regard and it is critical that it inculcates its culture throughout the civil service.
Public Service managers have to date been preoccupied with the analysis and implementation of policy with respect to its impact on institutional functioning. This has resulted in the structured implementation of policy in regard to service delivery being placed somewhat on the back burner. Managers have not been driving the social transformation aspects of policy in a sustained and measurable manner. Here, the department's involvement would be welcomed and encouraged.
The necessary management structures that would facilitate the setting of service standards and inform organisational design throughout the civil service need to be developed. It is critical for aspects of good governance and the morale of stakeholders that these are informed by and evaluated against performance indicators and deliverables that are crafted in consultation with them and informed by the service delivery needs of the citizen.
The department's evaluation of outcomes and its advisory role in improving other departmental outcomes, linked to their structural re-engineering in implementing improvement plans, will have a positive effect on the functioning of departments. Furthermore, the department, in analysing government departments' annual performance plans prior to their submission to Parliament, will greatly assist in aligning priorities and strengthening oversight.
Citizens have not been educated to any great depth regarding their expected roles, nor capacitated to play any measurable role so far, in the functioning of structures established to give voice to their needs. It is not implied here that the citizen has been excluded entirely to date. However, it could be argued that the depth to which they participate has been capped. To seek opinion from another and not capacitate the other to give an informed opinion is mutually detrimental and contrary to the envisaged mutually beneficial governance model that is taking shape.
A holistic approach to service delivery, which recognises the barriers to accessing services, such as social, cultural, physical and attitudinal, needs to be taken into account. Service delivery programmes should therefore specifically address the need to progressively re-address the disadvantages of all barriers to access in a continuous dialogue with stakeholders. Here, the department is to be commended on its initiative.
As the department rolls out its citizen-based monitoring of service delivery programme, it is encouraged to put in place the requisite resources to educate citizens about their rights, roles and functions in this programme. As access to resources results in access to power, the majority of citizens are currently access-dependent on the state to play their envisaged role effectively. The resources made available for participation are limited and the manner in which these are budgeted for does not place emphasis on resourcing democracy currently. The National Treasury should therefore, going forward, consider an incremental increase in the budget for this particular programme.
The ANC supports the Budget Vote of the department. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr B H HOLOMISA
Mr G T SNELL
Mr B H HOLOMISA: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, and hon members, the UDM supports Budget Vote No 6. [Applause.]
Today, we are debating the Budget Vote of one of the government's departments that have a broad mandate. Used properly, the department's broad mandate could allow it to meaningfully and positively affect the service delivery chain.
When this department was established, its leadership was in a fortunate position, in that, unlike other well-established departments, it did not inherit employees from previous administrations. It had a rare opportunity to recruit and appoint the right people. Time will tell whether or not the department used that opportunity well.
The wave of service delivery protests over the past few years is a clear indication that the public sector service delivery chain is full of bottlenecks and inefficiencies. The root cause of these problems could be poor co-ordination of government programmes.
In conclusion, it is my considered view that the National Planning Commission and the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation should be one department. Then the experienced Minister, Trevor Manuel, should be put in charge of the new department. This is because logic dictates that a person who develops a plan is better placed to monitor and evaluate its implementation. Furthermore, his National Development Plan impacts directly on the mandate of this department.
IsiXhosa:
Kumhlobo wam, uMphathiswa lo, uNxamalala angakunika elinye isebe kuba baninzi aBaphathiswa abayabula nje apha esithubeni bengazi nokuba kuyasa okanye kubhekwa ngaphi na. Ngoko ke, ungahamba uye kukhokela elinye laloo masebe. [Kwahlekwa.]
English:
On a serious note, ...
IsiXhosa:
... siyambulela umlawuli jikelele kunye neqela lakhe kuba ndisebenzisana nabo nqqo ukujongana nokusombulula ezi ngxaki imihla ngemihla. Bayaphendula, babhale, basixelele kwaye sizive neengxelo ezivela kwelo sebe lichaphazelekayo okanye kumasipala. Mabayeke ke mhlekazi ukuyabula. Tshintsha, ubajonge ngoku kuba bazula apha esithubeni besihla benyuka. Noba kukho uqhankqalazo ...
English:
... you are being chased by these councillors. You won't see an MEC, you won't see a National Minister ...
IsiXhosa:
... iyile kwezi ndawo zinika iingxaki. Khawube ngathi ufaka isabhokhwe nkosi, kungenjalo siza kukususa kweso sikhundla sakho sakho. Enkosi. [Kwahlekwa.] [Kwaqhwatywa.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY
Mr B H HOLOMISA
The DEPUTY MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, hon Minister Collins Chabane, Deputy Ministers present, chairperson and members of the Standing Committee on Appropriations, hon members, esteemed guests, comrades and friends, and ladies and gentlemen, I have flu, so I hope I will be able to get through this.
In 2009, in response to the call for a more responsive and interactive government, President Jacob Zuma established the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, DPME. Since then the department has been implementing a number of monitoring initiatives, and the Minister has already referred to some of those initiatives.
Amongst the initiatives was the Presidential Hotline. The Presidential Hotline provides a platform for citizens to voice their complaints about the quality of services they receive from government. The Presidential Hotline is now three and a half years old. In its short period of existence, it has proven to be a valuable monitoring tool for citizens and government.
From its inception in October 2009 to 31 March 2013 the Presidential Hotline received a total of 160 914 cases. The case resolution rate is now at 90%, and I think Gen Bantu Holomisa has just confirmed that. This is encouraging, given that the Presidential Hotline started with a case resolution rate of just 39% in November 2009. Over the last year we have been working intensively with targeted departments and provinces to improve their responsiveness as government to hotline cases. As a result, the case resolution rate of the provinces has also improved, from 50% to 71%.
Our work with provinces and national departments to improve their responsiveness to complaints will continue this year. The co-operation from both national departments and provinces has been encouraging, and it indicates that departments are beginning to understand the importance of being responsive to citizens. I agree with you, hon Holomisa, that the more we see fewer protests, the more it means government is functioning. We have to really work harder on that particular issue.
The visibility and profile of the Presidential Hotline is being improved. We are sending regular reports on case resolutions to the Forum of South African Directors-General, the Presidential Co-ordinating Council, and Cabinet to ensure that departments take responsibility for putting our people first – Batho Pele as we say.
In the context of the Presidential Hotline, "case resolution" means that a citizen has been contacted and has been given a response to his or her query or complaint. This does not always mean that the response we provide to a complaint will satisfy the caller. Some cases involve difficult and complex issues, and are difficult to resolve quickly. However, in such cases the least that we can do is to assure the citizen that he or she has been heard, and that we are working with the relevant departments to ensure that the issues are addressed.
The quality of complaints resolution is as important as the number of complaints resolved. We have started working with departments to ensure that, in addition to complaints being addressed quickly, citizens are also satisfied with the way in which their cases are resolved.
In this regard, since October 2012 we have been conducting interviews with citizens who logged cases on the hotline, in order to gauge their level of satisfaction with the hotline services. Between October and December 2012 we called 3 211 citizens, and asked them if they were satisfied or not satisfied with the services. Chair, 64% of the respondents that we called said they were very satisfied, whereas 34% rated the service they had received as poor. That is a concern that we will be dealing with. These surveys will now be ongoing and we will use the information to help us focus on those departments and municipalities which need assistance in improving the quality of their case resolution.
There are good stories to be told about the help that citizens receive through the intervention of the hotline. Let me mention just a few. Mr Vuyani Kholiwe from the Eastern Cape called to seek for assistance from the hotline after trying unsuccessfully to apply for a foster care grant for his nephew. The matter was referred by the hotline to the Office of the Premier in the Eastern Cape for investigation. Social workers made an assessment and assisted Mr Kholiwe. In January 2013 the grant was approved and the child is now attending a local preschool. [Applause.]
Another example is that of Mr George Mogale from the North West. Mr Mogale reported that he could not register his new marriage, since his divorce application had not been processed by the Rustenburg Magistrate's Court. Through the intervention of the Presidential Hotline his case was resolved on 21 January 2013, and Mr Mogale is now married again! [Laughter.]
Mr Anele Dyongman called to indicate that in 2010 and 2011 he had received financial aid from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, but in 2012 his fees were not paid, despite funding confirmation from NSFAS. With help from the Department of Higher Education and Training the student was able to be funded from the discretionary fund of the department to cover his registration fees, textbooks and accommodation for 2013, and the student is in school.
Ms Priscilla Mvuembe called the Presidential Hotline on 25 January 2013, reporting that she had applied for her child's unabridged birth certificate on 18 April 2012 but had still not received it. The births unit finalised the unabridged birth certificate on 28 January 2013.
There are quite a number of other examples that we could use to illustrate this and, if you ask the citizens about the services, they will say that they are satisfied. Then there will be a few obviously that say that they are not yet satisfied. However, we think we are on the right course.
Hon members, as mentioned in our Budget Speech of last year, we are continuing with our programme of on-site monitoring of frontline service delivery, which we are implementing jointly with all the nine offices of the premiers. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the offices of the premiers for the leadership that they have shown in their support for this important monitoring initiative.
I am pleased to announce that last year we monitored 215 frontline facilities, including 23 SA Security Service Agency, Sassa, facilities, 30 police stations, 37 schools, 51 health facilities, 19 courts, 14 driver's licence testing centres, 22 municipality customer care centres and 19 Home Affairs offices. As we said, the mandate is too broad and we can only go as far as we can, but we will continuously engage with this and ensure that we do it.
This brings the total of facilities we have monitored since the inception of the programme in June 2011 to 350. This type of hands-on monitoring at the coalface of service delivery is very important for government to gain insight into how citizens are experiencing service delivery in these cases. During these visits, a score card is produced and an improvement plan is agreed up on.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the departments responsible for these functions for the enthusiastic manner in which they have embraced the programme, and for taking the findings very, very seriously.
Government will use the information gathered through the Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring visits and follow-up visits to catalyse improvements in the quality of services our people receive in public facilities. This holds true particularly where simply improving the management and leadership at a facility can bring immediate improvements in the quality of services being rendered. From these visits we are beginning to see the positive impact of the efforts of government to improve service delivery.
I personally conducted a monitoring visit with the DPME team to the City of Johannesburg customer care centres in Midrand and Randburg. In the Midrand centre I found a well-functioning facility, with happy customers, but in the Randburg centre I found many frustrated citizens. I found their frustrations to be valid and they were happy to see us coming in. We were flooded with queries and complaints.
In meetings with the city of Johannesburg they promised that they would be looking at that particular issue, and I will be revisiting the city to see if they have really made any changes.
At Sassa in Mafikeng we observed a visible improvement in the speed of registration of grant applications. This was a second visit just to see whether what we had said had to happen had happened. Indeed, when we went back there was quite a lot of improvement.
In Montshiwa Clinic we found that all the improvements that we had suggested in the scorecard had happened, and so forth. Therefore, these visits are really helping in improving service delivery.
On the day we visited the Sassa offices in Gugulethu, our visit coincided with the re-registration of social grant beneficiaries. Many citizens were dissatisfied with the speed at which services were being delivered. They had been there since 4 o'clock in the morning and by 10 o'clock, when we arrived, the queues were very long – the people had just been waiting there. I think these are the things that our people experience daily. Therefore, these visits help in exposing these matters. They give attention to the departments and indicate to the Ministers that they need to do something.
In the Sassa office that we visited in Umzimkhulu we found that the management were very enthusiastic and they had acted on all our findings. We hope that this hands-on management style will be able to ensure that the services are accessible to citizens and that the creative problem-solving approach will inspire a good many to want to come to government for services. [Interjections.]
In spite of some of the complaints about the less than helpful attitudes of some staff at some of the facilities, we have often found exemplary management and leadership during these visits. We have seen managers who are committed to public service and who have developed excellent relationships with the communities they serve.
One of the objectives of our Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring Programme is to encourage all service delivery departments and municipalities to carry out this kind of monitoring themselves, on their own. We want to see Ministers, Deputy Ministers, mayors and MECs visiting their own service delivery sites regularly. They should identify the problems and deal with them there and then, and they must not wait for the DPME to do that.
The President has already set a good example in this regard with his recent visit to Eldorado Park, shortly after receiving a letter from a citizen in the area. The way in which the government has responded swiftly is the way that government ought to be functioning. As you have said, hon Holomisa, we need to see more of them on the ground where there are problems and dealing with those problems.
Through our Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring work we have found a gap in the manner in which we do monitoring: the absence of the voice of the citizens on whose behalf we are called upon to serve. In this regard, last year we promised to develop a citizen-based monitoring framework by 31 March this year. We have already done so, the Minister has announced it, and that is something we will begin to roll out now. In the coming two years we will definitely be piloting the process with the Departments of Police, of Health and of Social Development. Indeed, we will bring the report to Parliament.
The importance of the citizens' voice in monitoring performance cannot be overstated. We exist to serve the citizenry. To do this effectively, we need routine and systematic ways to measure government's performance from the citizens' perspective. As described in the National Development Plan, we need to increasingly establish a constructive dialogue between government and communities about their experience of service delivery. This will have two benefits. Firstly, it will assist us to improve our service delivery. Secondly, it will contribute to increasing the citizens' participation in governance and developing a more active citizenry.
Hon members, we have made sure that our monitoring and evaluation programmes are informed by international good practice, while being customised to suit our unique conditions. We have undertaken a number of study tours and some of the members have participated in some of them. We have established strong working relationships with international organisations with expertise in this area, such as the World Bank.
As a result, we are now starting to receive delegations from other African countries. They are coming to the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and they are interested in our work so that they can also model themselves on us, and benchmark themselves against us. This in itself is a vindication that the President's decision to establish a dedicated unit for performance monitoring and evaluation in the Presidency was valid and is important.
As I conclude, I would like to leave you with the following anonymous quote:
Take life as it is but don't leave it as it is. Change is inevitable and is necessary. Change should not be about benefiting the few but should be about improving the lives of the majority.
The introduction of monitoring and evaluation systems is one of those changes that were brought in by the government of the ANC, and we hope that this government will continue improving the quality of the services provided to our people.
As we celebrate our 20 years of democracy and freedom
next year, we will indeed be able to say ... [Time expired.] With those words I conclude. I wish to thank the Minister, Mr Collins Chabane, the DPME Director-General, Dr Sean Phillips, and all staff members in the department. I thank them very much.
Mrs M V MAFOLO
The DEPUTY MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY
Mrs M V MAFOLO: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades, friends, and ladies and gentlemen, I greet you.
One of the hallmarks of the current administration led by the ANC has been the transformation of the public sector into one that focuses on service delivery outcomes, as opposed to exclusively focusing on outputs and activities. To achieve this, Cabinet adopted a set of 12 priority outcomes, which were later linked to performance agreements and delivery agreements to provide a strategic focus for government. The primary focus of Programme 2 is to ensure a progressive realisation of this strategic focus by focusing on outcome monitoring and evaluation.
It is against this background that the ANC unanimously supports the budget. There is no doubt that this budget will go a long way in assisting the department to achieve its key priorities. In addition to the monitoring of the implementation of the delivery agreements for the 12 outcomes and producing quarterly reports, the key priorities of this programme include the following.
Firstly, in regard to producing a 20-year review and the Medium-Term Strategic Framework for 2014 to 2019, the department, in collaboration with the National Planning Commission, plans to produce a 20-year review of performance. The 20-year review will focus on assessing progress made since the inception of the democratic government in 1994 which is the ANC-led democratic government. The department will further translate the National Development Plan into the 2014-2019 Medium-Term Strategic Framework and delivery agreements by 2014.
These are indeed progressive initiatives. The ANC commends and continues to strongly support such initiatives because, as a developmental state premised on the solid National Development Plan, South Africa needs to progressively monitor and evaluate its performance, and inform the public about trends in key areas of development and the challenges lying ahead. This is what social accountability is all about.
Secondly, in regard to local government performance monitoring and capacity building, another key priority of Budget Vote 6 is to pilot the Municipal Assessment Tool in 10 municipalities. The assessment of the 10 municipalities will be carried out and completed in the 2013-14 financial year and submitted to the relevant municipalities by March 2014. In the medium term the department plans to complete 24 additional municipal assessments. The ANC applauds the department for this great initiative, because it will lead to improved delivery of local government services to South African citizens.
What is even nobler about this initiative is that the department plans to focus on weaker municipalities, be they rural or urban, which really need attention in regard to capacity building for the benefit of our citizens. It is important that local level structures be integrated in the Governmentwide Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Framework.
Thirdly, there will be improved capacity building for evaluations, where 300 government staff will complete at least one course commissioned by the evaluation unit of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation in order to improve staff capacity to undertake evaluations. [Interjections.] The ANC strongly supports this initiative because it has always been our view that government must increase its internal capacity in order to reduce reliance on consultants. As the Portfolio Committee responsible for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, we have gone further and recommended that the department should consider the sharing of services with other departments. There are cases where the services of consultants are necessary and cannot be avoided, but it cannot be the norm that anything we have to do goes to consultants, instead of our capacitating our people. [Applause.]
Fourthly, in regard to improved data quality for outcomes reporting, this budget will also be used to hold data forums with sector departments to improve the quality, credibility and reliability of data used to compile quarterly reports. Quality, credible and reliable data is central to the work of this department and government in general. We call upon all stakeholders, such as Statistics SA, to contribute in this area. It is also important for the alignment of data by government departments and its entities, where possible.
Great strides have already been made under this programme. The following strides made in 2012-13 – they were achievements and are worth mentioning: four quarterly monitoring reports per outcome to Cabinet were submitted; delivery agreements were reviewed and revised; 200 government staff members were trained on evaluations, excluding the 300 that will still be trained; eight evaluations were initiated and one final report was approved by the evaluation steering committee; four quarterly monitoring reports per outcome have already been submitted to Cabinet; and about four quarterly progress reports on core indicators were successfully completed and made available to the public.
While I have been talking about the achievements, I wish to note that there are also challenges. The main challenge will be achieving the mandate, priorities, targets and outcomes under this programme. This department will require strong support from every South African, as well as strong co-operation across government departments. The ANC will see to it that the strategic vision of a public sector geared to results and outcomes is realised. With this said, I wish to add this note to the department: It simply means that your success is my success and your failure is my failure. However, success is inevitable.
Do you know why I am saying this, hon George? I am saying this because in your own house there is infighting! [Laughter.] In yesterday's Cape Argus we read about Zille and De Lille's disagreement. However, you don't talk about that! You come here and criticise us! [Interjections.] That it is fair. The other issue is this. I know that you are on your way out. So, that was the kick of a dying horse. You will do anything to discredit us. [Interjections.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order, hon members! Order!
Mrs M V MAFOLO: Hence, I am saying that if we in the ANC have failed, it means that you in the DA have also failed.
There is another thing that I want to touch on. You claim that what is good is your work and blame the ANC for what is bad. That is not fair, because all the good and bad are happening, and we are all involved. What are you doing in the committees then? When you come here and criticise, it means that you are not working in the committees. You must be fired and get out of here! [Applause.] If you are not going to participate in your committee, and you come and criticise here, saying that this and that are wrong, it means you are not supposed to be in that committee.
When we come to government we need to make a difference. When you are in the political arena and members of the DA or other political parties are sitting there, it is fine. However, when we are here, all of us are Members of Parliament and all of us are responsible for this country. So, we must run it correctly instead of becoming actors, with your criticising us here and becoming anti-ANC. This government is led by the ANC and unfortunately you are stuck with us! You will do what we want us to do and you will follow. That is because all that we are doing, we are doing for our people outside. We are not doing it for any individual.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order! There is a point of order.
Mrs M V MAFOLO: Please, lady, sit down. I am talking.
Mrs S V KALYAN: Chairperson, it is not a point of order. I would like to know if the member will take a question. [Interjections.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Will the member take a question? [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Order!
Mrs M V MAFOLO: Chairperson, I will not take a question. Your duty is to listen. It is like you don't have listening skills! [Interjections.] Listen! It is a good skill. Listen, so that we can make good decisions. If people don't listen, it means they can't make good decisions. [Interjections.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order, hon members! Order!
Mrs M V MAFOLO: Thank you, Chair. We will only talk outside so that I can at least ndikurhabulise kancinane nje [teach you.].
Afrikaans:
Ek moet jou taal praat. Ek moet jou leer, sodat jy kan verstaan.
English:
That is what you need to do.
Afrikaans:
Op die oomblik vra ek dat julle net moet luister, asseblief. Dankie. Voordat jy sê dat die pot vuil is, moet jy onthou dat die deksel nie kan sê dat die pot vuil is nie. Hulle is altwee vuil.
English:
With those words, I thank you so much. [Applause.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr J D Thibedi): Order, hon members! Hon members, the level of noise is too high. Order! The saying of Lenin goes, "Better fewer, but better." We are few, and I think we can be better.
Rev K R J MESHOE
Mrs M V MAFOLO
Rev K R J MESHOE: House Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, when the Ministry of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation was launched, many of us expected that the executive and their departments would be held to account for their performance, and that there would be consequences for both nonperformance and underperformance. We expected the service delivery of government departments to improve. To our disappointment, service delivery in some departments has not improved, and some Ministers are still underperforming – with no consequences! The ACDP has therefore concluded that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation has not added much value in regard to the performance of underperforming Ministers, dysfunctional departments and poor service delivery.
Furthermore, when the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation was first introduced we were told by the Minister that, and I quote:
The green paper lays down some "non-negotiable principles" such as the need for principled leadership that does not shy away from taking hard decisions when necessary. Officials would also have to be held accountable for delivery.
This has never happened and, as the Minister seems to be evading hard decisions on underperformance, let me say that we definitely want to see value coming out of this department. Departments such as the Departments of Public Works, of Communications, of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, and of Basic Education are a few examples of departments that have underperformed with no known consequences.
By way of substantiation, I am now going to cite a few examples. South Africa's position on international education rankings exposes Minister Motshekga's failure to ensure quality education for our children. The fact that South Africa was placed 140th out of 144 countries on the quality of education by the World Economic Forum's Global Competiveness Report should have necessitated some form of drastic action from this department, which is mandated to monitor the performance of Ministers and their departments.
Furthermore, the Minister of Basic Education has failed to address school infrastructure problems as a result of underspending, and the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation has not done much about this. Also, the SA Democratic Teachers Union, Sadtu, has been calling for the resignation of Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga for months now, saying they have lost confidence in the leadership and that teacher morale and performance have been at a record low.
We still maintain that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation must have teeth so that appropriate action can be taken when recommendations are not implemented.
Last year a marine conservation organisation ... [Time expired.] Thank you.
Mr M SWART
Rev K R J MESHOE
Mr M SWART: Chair, hon Minister and hon Deputy Minister, the National Development Plan, NDP, accepted by government quite clearly states that citizens have the right to expect government to deliver certain basic services. The NDP calls for radically improved government performance by getting the basics right, implementing government programmes, finding innovative solutions to complex challenges and importantly, Mr Minister, holding people accountable for their actions. To achieve these goals, all government structures and the leaders and managers in all three spheres of government need to be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis to ensure compliance.
Although the NDP therefore welcomes the establishment of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, and sees the establishment of the department as a positive step in tightening the accountability chain, it calls for the performance agreements signed by management to be made public. Reports by the department should also be made available to the Standing Committee on Appropriations and not only to Cabinet, because we know that whenever anything controversial goes to Cabinet, it disappears, because it becomes a national key point! [Laughter.]
The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation has produced some good reports, and in this regard I especially wish to mention their report on payment to suppliers by government within 30 days. This report found, inter alia, that during 2012, 38 national government departments were responsible for late payments to suppliers equalling R3,7 billion! A total of R208,7 million in late payments was recorded in December 2012 alone. The worst offenders with late payments in 2012 were the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Public Works, with late payments to the value of R1,9 billion and R536 million respectively. Other poor performers included the Departments of Defence and Military Veterans, of Police, and of Correctional Services.
Unfortunately provinces are equally bad payers. Limpopo, North West and Gauteng consistently reported high monthly numbers of unpaid invoices. In the case of Limpopo, for instance, the average monthly value of invoices older than 30 days but not yet paid exceeded R250 million. In the DA-governed Western Cape, provincial departments managed to pay 92% of supplier invoices within the prescribed 30 days. No figures are included in respect of municipalities and parastatals, so the figures for nonpayment within 30 days by all government entities will be much worse than what the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation report currently indicates.
Delay in payments by government departments puts enormous financial strain on small businesses in particular, and leads to the demise and closure of businesses, in direct contradiction to the prescripts of the National Development Plan. Payments within 30 days will assist in the formation and continued sustainability of small businesses, and in the creation of the thousands of jobs so desperately needed to eliminate poverty and attain equality.
In the report on this matter, the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation comes to the conclusion that most of the problems experienced relate to weaknesses in internal administration. Some departments advance the same reasons every month for noncompliance with payment within 30 days, but these departments make little or no progress in addressing the underlying problems! Some cases have even come to the attention of the department where certain officials have allegedly deliberately held invoices for payment back until a bribe has been paid to expedite payment!
Payment of suppliers within 30 days is a requirement in terms of section (1)(f) of the Public Finance Management Act and Treasury Regulations, which stipulate quite clearly that accounts are to be settled within 30 days and that noncompliance with this requirement constitutes financial misconduct in terms of section 81 of the PFMA.
Unfortunately, Mr Minister, we have not seen any action taken against accounting officers and/or heads of departments transgressing this requirement. The Public Service Act places the responsibility on a head of department to ensure that disciplinary action is taken where warranted, and it further stipulates that the executive authority should take action against a head of department where he or she has failed to take the necessary action. What has happened? Nothing has happened to date!
When then, can we ask, are we likely to see an improvement in the situation? The answer unfortunately is never, if the executive fails to take the necessary action and if we continue with the appointment of incapable but politically well-connected officials. This serious state of affairs makes the introduction of the proposed Results Bill, which would give the Department of Performance Management and Evaluation teeth, hon Snell, to take action over all three spheres of government themselves, an absolute necessity.
Finally, to hon Mafolo, who has referred to the question of attendance at meetings, may I suggest to her that she tries to get the ANC people to attend their meetings on a more regular basis, so that we can have a quorum at all meetings. Thank you.
Ms R M MASHIGO
Mr M SWART
Ms R M MASHIGO: Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, Members of Parliament and distinguished guests, portfolio committees submit their recommendations on government departments to Parliament regarding service delivery and these are published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, ATCs. The Auditor-General and the Public Service Commission also submit reports on some departments.
However, something was still missing. The only thing to be done was for the President to create a department that would report directly to him on service delivery and the progress made. That department is here with us now, and it is the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation. I can say that we are happy to have that department.
This is an ANC-led government. The ANC has always stood for basic principles, which include a Constitution that guarantees human rights for all, and the right to a minimal standard of life, including the right to access to health facilities, education, security, food and water.
It is really disempowering and frustrating, and it makes people very angry, when they go to a public office and find that there is no official at the reception desk; when they stand in long queues for hours at government facilities, only to be told to come back the following day or month; when a person offers a service to a government department and has to wait for more than 30 days to receive the payment that will enable him to sustain his small enterprise or his co-operative; or when they call an emergency service, and it arrives only after a long time. The list goes on and on. We cannot continue with business as usual.
This Budget is about how public funds are spent, and whether the community receives value for money. It also addresses the 2009 ANC Election Manifesto. The 52nd ANC National Conference reminds us of the functions of the Budget when it declares that:
In the final analysis, the Budget is a potent lever in the hands of the state to direct, lead and guide the economy to address and improve the social conditions of the people and bring about economic progress for the poor.
We all know that this department was created for the purpose of addressing all these.
We have heard in the speeches of all the speakers that there is a change. Something is happening in South Africa that addresses exactly what I have said. This debate will focus on Programme 4: Public Sector Administration Oversight, which the Deputy Minister has elaborated on. It is a key element of the delivery agreement for Outcome 12, which refers to developing "an efficient, effective and development oriented public service".
The Budget for this programme is R52,3 million, increasing to R60 million in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF. People have already expressed how they feel about this Budget.
The programme has two subprogrammes which are being implemented in partnership with offices of the premier. One of the programmes is the Management Performance Assessment Tool, MPAT. Good, improved and efficient service delivery results from proper, efficient and effective management. To address the existing problem of maladministration and poor service delivery, the department has developed the tool to assess the management practices of national and provincial departments, and this was approved by Cabinet in 2011.
The MPAT was done in collaboration with the Department for Public Service and Administration, the National Treasury, the Auditor-General, the Public Service Commission and the offices of the premier. There is no duplication, as each and every department is doing its own job. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation is focusing on where there are no services. We have heard hon Singh and hon Gen Holomisa pinpointing exactly what this department is focusing on. The aim is to drive improvements and for the departments to share good practice.
It makes national and provincial HODs sign off their assessments. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation signs at the national level, and the provincial legislatures sign as well. The process is done in different phases. There is self-assessment, which was referred to by the chairperson of the committee. There is also moderation of the self-assessment, which is done by peers from other departments from both the national and provincial levels. These are then discussed. As time goes on we will see that all these discussions will then be discussed by the people who assessed themselves. Out of that they will draw up a plan of action that will lead on to improvements – we can't just stand here today and say that there is a department today and tomorrow we will see that everything is in order!
Since its implementation, self-assessment and moderation have been done in 156 departments. Oh, sorry, I have turned two pages of my speech over. [Interjections.] Yes, we are very transparent! I want to tell you the truth! [Laughter.] There will be ... [Inaudible.] reporting. There is also the Forum of South African Directors-General, which holds quarterly meetings. This will refer to what we have been saying. The DGs will be discussing what is wrong in their departments, because they will have knowledge of what is happening, what is lacking and where there is maladministration.
Through this forum we hope we will learn more, because this department is still new and we are all overwhelmed. Through all this wonderful information that is changing the face of public service delivery, we will know as we go on, what is actually being done with foresight, or why there are no improvements. This will happen when the DGs meet and discuss the HODs and what is happening in their departments.
There are good government policies that just need to be implemented in order to change people's lives. What is needed is quality, commitment, understanding and someone who is capable of doing the job. Noncompliance should carry consequences – we have all said that and no one can say that we don't see it. The Minister himself has also referred to it.
There is an author whose book we as members of the committee all have, except for the hon George who is not a member of that committee! [Laughter.] The book is written by De Bruyn and it talks about accountability and performance management. It reads:
Accountability is a form of communication and it requires the information that professional organisations have to be reduced and aggregated.
All these things need to be done, such as the aggregation. He further states that "performance measurements are a powerful tool". This is confirmed by what the department is doing. The department is practising this and we can see some success in what is happening. We have confidence in the department. This department is a godsend, and there is nothing like it.
There is another subgroup called Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring. This monitoring is done by the department in partnership with the offices of the premier. The programme monitors the quality of service delivery at a selected sites, and keeps in touch with grass-roots issues by conducting interviews with citizens and staff, as well as making its own observations at the sites. Findings are placed on scorecards and these are referred to the relevant departments. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation discusses all this with the provinces so that corrective measures that need to be taken can be taken.
Facilities that have already been monitored are Home Affairs, and we all know of the improvements at Home Affairs; the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, and we all know about the improvements there; the police stations, which have already been mentioned; at Health, where you know about the improvements; there have been improvements with driver's licences; and you also know what is happening at schools.
The schools can't just wake up from their past legacy of apartheid and immediately be the star performing department! We appreciate what is happening there. We as the Standing Committee on Appropriations went there and criticised what was happening at schools in the Eastern Cape. However, we appreciate the fact that it can't change overnight. Another institution that is being monitored is the courts.
Attention is specifically being paid to what the people say are the problems. Firstly, there are visibility and signage. People can't spend the whole day looking for a police station because there are no signs. Then, queue management has been referred to, and in this regard the dignity of the people. As we know, it is a human right of the people that they should be treated with dignity – it does not matter who you are. The facilities should also be clean, comfortable and safe.
There is also complaints and compliments management. Through the complaints the department knows what is happening and sends feedback to the relevant department concerning the complaints of the people. We appreciate compliments, but we focus more on complaints because we want to improve matters.
The Presidential Hotline has been referred to. Each and every one of us appreciates it. Thank you very much, hon General, because people appreciate this service. It is very popular and has led to better service delivery and faster responses. Our constituencies can testify to the efficiency of the hotline and they even advise one another to report inefficiencies to the President on the phone.
I think it is also happening in the Western Cape, because we saw telephone complaints coming from the Western Cape. Thank you very much, because the Western Cape recognises how the Presidential Hotline can attend to their province when the legislature and the DA-run municipalities do not attend to their problems. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
We paid an oversight visit to the hotlines and we saw the well-trained staff. We also answered calls ourselves. Even critics phone and get warm treatment from the efficient people on the other side of the line. We have also paid unannounced visits. The visits show us the real situation of the daily functioning of the facility. The results are also discussed in the offices of the premiers, and the offices of the premiers know that the national department will coming there. There will be unannounced visits. They know that they will be there and they do not do anything behind closed doors.
Citizen-based monitoring has already been referred to. The ANC will always mobilise people to actively take part in decision-making processes that affect their lives. This is seen in the achievements that there have been in the delivery of basic services; the number of houses that are being built; access to education; the increase in number of early childhood development centres; and access to the economy. We said we wanted an efficient economy.
Both the department and the National Planning Commission have indicated that education should start at early learning centres. The first 100 days of a child are very important. He should get nutrition, qualified teachers, and qualified nurturing from both parents so that when he goes to school there is support. Then we know we will produce efficient and well-qualified people who can run the economy and grow the production in our country.
This programme has done a lot of work. Capacity is needed to achieve the outcomes, and the impact should be felt. This is a small department and, according to the Estimates of National Expenditure, the number of funded posts in this programme will increase by only two in the MTEF. Only two!
This brings us to the issue of the use of consultants. This has been thoroughly discussed with the department by our committee. The question is this. What is more cost-effective – employing a permanent staff member, getting an expert with the necessary skills for a few months for a specific department, or having someone to stay there for the whole year and not be effective in evaluating a particular department? In general we as the Standing Committee on Appropriations agreed that consultants cannot be used randomly. However, we still have to deal with the question of a small department and the usage of consultants.
The ANC presents itself to the public through its policies.
Setswana:
Bagaetsho, ditokomane tsa pholisi ya ANC di buisiwa ke mongwe le mongwe, ditheo tsotlhe, e seng makala a rona fela. Mongwe le mongwe o itse gore ANC e dira eng.
English:
We have vibrant debates that are being analysed. Those criticisms enable the ANC to draw up policies and programmes of action to improve the lives of our people. We see change in South Africa. Discussions of these documents are a call for transparency. "Working together we can do more."
Setswana:
Gare na sephiri re le ANC. [As the ANC don't have secrets.]
English:
The ANC supports this Budget. The problem is just that if we are in the committee we will understand everything that we are doing. The input here really has been constructive. It's just a pity that the hon George does not consult with his colleagues before he starts talking. However, we can see that the hon George just wanted to use this opportunity to campaign. This is not a platform for campaigning; this is a platform to express where we were before we had the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, where we are now, and where we see we are going. We can all see that through this department ...
Setswana:
... go na le kwa re yang teng. E tsene ya lebelela gore a naare batho ba lela ka eng. Batho ba lela ka go tlhoka ditirelo fa tse dingwe di sa ba fitlhelele, mme lefapha leno le bontsha gore di a fitlha. Lona kwa Northam, buang ka bothata ba lona, mme le seka la akaretsa.
English:
The ANC supports the Budget. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND
EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY
Ms R M MASHIGO
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY: Hon Chairperson, let me thank members of the committee and members of the House for the attention they have given to the debate and the attention which the committee give to the work we are doing.
Listening to members here, I found it very clear who those were who follow the work of the department and who don't. But we can't blame people who aren't able to follow; there is a lot of work to be done in Parliament. There are a lot of issues to be dealt with and we appreciate that.
I would like to assure the hon Holomisa, in response to the comments he made with regard to staffing, that we will try our best to maintain and retain a good staff complement. But, obviously, given the amount of work and the type of work we are doing, there is a lot of interest in and poaching of the professionals that we have. This is because they do a lot of work and there is a lot of innovation going on there. We should anticipate that international institutions, universities and other research institutions are likely to be sitting on our necks trying to get our personnel. However, we will try to make sure that even when we replace those who leave we get relevant people.
Let me comment on the issue of the use of consultants. For us it's unavoidable because most of the work we do is work which must be validated by independent experts. If we want to do research work to evaluate a particular department, it doesn't help for us to do it ourselves. We need to get external people who will focus on it, be independent and give us a report. However, we should have the capacity ourselves to interrogate the report in order to ensure that we are able to implement what is supposed to be implemented. To that extent we will minimise such use, but to some extent we still have to rely on them.
I was still in Limpopo in 2000 when we had the floods there. I was standing on the bank of the river with Lt-Col Lotter. A gentleman dropped his shoes into the river by mistake. We were busy trying to build a temporary pedestrian bridge and the river was still in flood. When we explained to him that we couldn't risk soldiers to get in and look for his shoes in the river, he said this government was not delivering and it was not interested in helping people! [Laughter.]
There was another incident. In the run-up to the 2010 World Cup I was the MEC for Economic Development in Limpopo. We were preaching the gospel that people and small businesses were going to benefit in 2010 and so on. In one meeting an undertaker said to me – however, before that time I didn't know he was an undertaker – that government was not doing anything to make sure that they benefited from the 2010 World Cup. He ended up with a question, "I am an undertaker; how are you going to help me benefit from the 2010 World Cup?" [Laughter.]
Hon George, not everything we see as being something that must be done, must be done. Otherwise we would lose focus. We are not building a department of prophets or fortune-tellers. We are building a department that is focused on scientific investigation and is looking for scientific solutions. We are building a department that will be determined to work together with partners – those in Parliament, stakeholders outside there and everybody else – to make sure that we make an improvement.
The President said to us as part of his mandate that our work knows no political party. There is no pothole of the DA and pothole of the ANC. A pothole is a pothole, finish and "klaar"[finish]. [Interjections.]
People want services. We are working with the Western Cape. A comment was made by a member of the DA here that no action was being taken. There are also departments in the Western Cape that have not been able to pay, and nobody has been arrested in terms of that section. This is what is important to us. We are not worried about that; our main worry is that we have to service all government institutions regardless of who is in power at that particular time, provide relevant information and data required for people to make decisions, and make improvements.
Thank you very much for the contributions which you have made and the support which we receive from committee members. We also thank them for the support that they give by way of getting to the details of the work of the department. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The Committee rose at 16:24.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents