PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you, hon Speaker. In response to the first part of the question, the matter of inadequate content for the strategic plan was noted. In order to correct and remedy this inadequacy, plans were developed and approved in October 2009 using the same process that was adopted for the 2010-13 period.
In response to part (a) of the second part of the question, the strategic plan for 2009-12 was not signed off. A letter which was sent to Parliament, by the accounting officer, informed Parliament that there were no changes made to the strategic plan for 2008-09 to 2011-12. The letter further informed the House that a new plan would be submitted after the revised Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, of the Presidency which incorporates the new electoral mandate.
With regard to part three of the question, no steps were taken. The accounting officer is no longer in the employ of government. Secondly, with regard to the weaknesses which we have observed within the administration, processes are under way to build the capacity of our human resources to ensure that we are able to deal with the issues that we are supposed to deal with.
With regard to part four of the question, yes, steps have been taken to remedy the noted defects. Firstly, the Presidency has tabled a strategic plan for 2010-13, in Parliament, in compliance with Treasury Regulation 5(1)(1). The current strategic plan for 2010 to 2013 contains measurable objectives, expected outcomes, programme outputs, indicators and performance targets for the organisation in compliance with Treasury Regulation 5(2)(3)(d). Thank you.
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Minister, the Presidency's core responsibility is the implementation of government's strategic agenda through planning, co-ordination, oversight and support. It is deeply ironic that the body tasked with driving government's strategic objectives has failed, as per the Auditor-General, to develop a coherent strategic plan of its own. Your explanation of a strategic plan straddling one year to the next displays a serious paucity of ideas about what you need to do. It also exposes fundamental deficiencies in government's most powerful department, and highlights a need for greater oversight of the Presidency.
The Presidency should be setting an example for the rest of government. However, despite the Presidency's alleged numerous initiatives to improve accountability and oversight of government, it has not applied the same measures to itself.
My question to you, hon Minister, is this: What steps are being taken to ensure that the Presidency is held to account and is subject to the same degree of oversight as all the other government departments? How far has the proposal tabled by the DA to establish a Presidency portfolio oversight committee progressed?
PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATION: As we said, we are in the process of improving governance, and not only in the Presidency, in order to fulfil the responsibility to provide support to government administration, and we are doing that. As for progress with regard to the proposal by the DA to establish an oversight committee, that cannot be an issue of the Presidency; it is an issue of Parliament. I think that question should be posed to the Speaker.
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Is government annually issuing an updated checklist of the Public Finance Management Act requirements, Treasury Regulations and Public Service Regulations to ensure that those who sign off on the strategic plans, and other similar documents, acknowledge, in writing, that all the essential requirements listed on the checklist were fully complied with and ticked off accordingly? This would mean, therefore, that the person who signs off could be held personally liable if the Auditor-General found otherwise. Alternatively, are government annual review issues updated per PFMA requirements, Treasury Regulations and Public Service Regulations?
What systems are being followed to ensure that those who sign or sign off on strategic plans and other similar documents comply fully with these laws and are accordingly held personally liable if found out by any audit being undertaken by the Auditor-General? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATION: Hon Botha, as a former director-general yourself, I think you are quite aware of the challenges that the administration is facing. I am sure that even you, when you were still a director-general, might have contravened that area. Nevertheless, as you would see in the audit reports of various institutions in government, there are challenges with regard to compliance with the various regulations and laws which we are supposed to comply with in the work that we do.
We are working closely with the Auditor-General and other institutions to improve the systems in government. We have indicated that, after the performance delivery agreements have been agreed upon and signed off, our next task is to team up with institutions that are relevant to provide support to government to ensure that we improve government systems and service delivery outputs as quickly as we can.
That process has commenced and, it is hoped, we should be able to begin to implement it, if everything goes well, by the beginning of the next financial year. Obviously, it is going to take a bit of time, but we hope that we will be able to make an impact in the shortest possible time. Thank you.
Position regarding mechanism to measure impact made by municipal infrastructure grant spending 223. Mr A J Williams (ANC) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
1) Whether his department has any mechanism to measure the impact made by the municipal infrastructure grant (MIG) spending; if not, why not; if so, (a) what mechanism and (b) what is the form of this impact;
(2) (a) how much money has not been spent by municipalities who received MIG funds and (b) what is his department doing to ensure that this does not occur in the 2011-12 financial year?