Hon Chairperson, I would like to convey the DA's deepest condolences to the Sisulu family on the loss of Mama Albertina Sisulu. I will do that formally and more appropriately tomorrow afternoon.
Hon Minister, improved service delivery is key to addressing the legacy of the past, where certain communities were forgotten and had to endure a miserable existence of disadvantage and neglect. This is precisely why it is the responsibility of this government to prioritise delivery above politics. A responsible postapartheid government is one that delivers and that is accountable to all the people of our nation.
We recognise and respect this enormous responsibility. This is why we support any feasible initiative that seeks to promote proper service delivery through monitoring and evaluation.
Ek moet ongelukkig s in di geval is die doeltreffendheid van hierdie departement en die ministerie gelykstaande aan 'n olifant wat 'n muis gebaar het. [Unfortunately I have to say that in this case the effectiveness of this department and the Ministry is equivalent to an elephant giving birth to a mouse.]
Never before has so much fanfare and hype around the creation of a new department - first "mothballed" in the Presidency, and then given semi- standalone status since April 2011 - delivered so little.
Monitoring and evaluation, and the success thereof, are based on authentic oversight, and identification and measurement of deficiencies, whereafter proactive steps are taken to address the challenges that constrain the desired outcomes.
Until 1 June 2011 this portfolio did not once receive oversight, nor was it held to account, despite its promulgation in January 2010. The last-minute referral of the department's strategic plans to the appropriation committee on 23 May 2011, with a request for conferral with the Portfolio Committees on Public Service and Administration and on Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, is a blight on the sincerity and commitment of this Parliament to proper oversight and accountability.
Let me define how important oversight and accountability are in a constitutional democracy. I will make use of important historical definitions from some developed democracies, as well as important domestic opinions in this regard.
John Stuart Mill, a British utilitarian philosopher, insisted that oversight was the key feature of a meaningful representative body, and I quote:
The proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government.
As a young scholar, the future United States President, Woodrow Wilson, equated oversight with lawmaking, which was usually seen as the supreme function of a legislature, and I quote again:
Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration.
James Madison, regarded as the father of the American constitution, described the system as establishing -
... subordinate distribution of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner that each may be a check on the other.
In case these examples seem somewhat esoteric, let me use two local definitions, and I quote: Parliament's priority constitutional function is to legislate. Yes, but legislation is not worth the paper it is written on unless Parliament also exercises its constitutional function and scrutinizes the implementation of our laws and the actions of the executive in bringing the law to life in the communities.
This was said by hon Joan Fubbs, ANC Member of Parliament, in a parliamentary debate in June 2008 entitled, "Oversight is an instrument of accountability that underpins policy implementation and provision of services in a people's democracy".
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Deputy President of South Africa, hon Kgalema Motlanthe, had this to say about oversight and accountability at the annual Association of Public Accounts Committees conference in September 2009, and I quote:
There is a global trend towards greater openness in governments' financial management, and around the world there are calls to strengthen public accountability and to re-examine how transparency and good governance can best be achieved.
He went further to say, and I quote:
Research shows that societies in which accountability is an integral way of life will experience higher levels of confidence on the part of the electorate, business, organised labour and investors in its system of government.
This illustrates that there is unanimity that effective oversight and accountability enhance service delivery and promote transparency and trust.
Minister, why has this department flattered only to deceive? Why should the President be moved to say on 15 May 2011, just four days before the local government elections and more than two years after his election as President, that his door-to-door electioneering in some of the poorest communities over the past three months had exposed an ugly side of South Africa that government officials did not mention in their service delivery reports to him? He also said that he now understood why communities were protesting.
Is it simply a case of none so blind, or is it because your Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation is not doing its job properly?
The fact that the performance agreements of Ministers with one outcome, such as Health and Education, and those with multiple outcomes with relevant agreed high-level outputs and measurable metrics for these outcomes are not made public and that there was such a delay in signing them, without any discernable punitive measures for noncompliance, serve only to emasculate the President. It can be used as a metaphor for this department's poor performance as a whole. Poor delivery, secrecy and lack of accountability have become the hallmarks of this administration and your department. They contrive to undermine the state's ability to deliver appropriate, effective, economic and efficient services.
Why are there no performance agreements with Deputy Ministers, premiers, MECs, Mayors and executive councillors? Are these positions the preserve of cadres that are offered free-loader status on the gravy train, without any measurable outcomes responsibility? I would suggest that this is one of the main reasons for service delivery failure in our country.
What role does the Public Finance Management Act and the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act play in the responsibility and accountability chain in your department's role of monitoring and evaluation? Are the prescripts of noncompliance ever applied when responsible authorities are found wanting with regard to the so-called outcomes-orientated assessment methodology of your so-called department?
You will detect more than a hint of derision in my contribution up until now, but this is built on the frustration that your department and that of the Presidency have to date escaped any kind of meaningful oversight and thus have a questionable accountability track record, which infiltrates the rest of government. This was monumentally reinforced last week by what can at best be described as an oversight charade, where notice of a meeting to consider your department's strategic plan came at the last minute, and this was exacerbated by a lack of accompanying documents. The chairperson of that committee stands here today and tries to justify the fact that one meeting, which started late, considered the strategic plan of your department in an hour or so!
Yindlalo le iqhubeka apha. [What is happening here is ludicrous.]
You cannot have oversight over a proper department in just over an hour!
Your departmental task under your leadership is to conduct oversight, monitoring and evaluation of national line function departments and the other two spheres of government. Your mandate is somewhat simplified by the fact that the monitoring and evaluation function is reduced to 12 priority delivery areas. However, even this refined area of monitoring and evaluation is compromised by the fact that all the responsible people over whom you conduct oversight and monitoring do not have performance agreements. Simply put, you can't monitor and manage if you can't measure performance against a public commitment.
How can this department ask that Parliament and the people of our country take its work seriously, when it presided over the National Youth Development Agency's hosting of a state-sponsored totalitarian youth festival? This entity reports directly to you, and to date you have yet to express yourself on this calamitous youth festival. You have ducked all questions about this embarrassing jamboree by hiding behind the fact that Cabinet is yet to consider and express itself on the outcomes of this festival. Why should Cabinet express itself on the outcomes of a festival held by the National Youth Development Agency that you are responsible for?
Ubaleka ntoni? [What are you avoiding?]
Why should Cabinet express an opinion about something that you are directly responsible for? Why should Cabinet express an opinion about the spending of R100 million? Why did the Lotteries Board fall over itself to fund this farcical conference when other important community service organisations that are truly outcomes-focused have to wait years for a response, let alone funding?
How does this administration intend to convince us that it is committed to improving delivery and preventing the conflation of party and state when the President has yet to sign the Local Government: Municipal Systems Amendment Bill? The President is yet to sign that Bill because they want to first appoint municipal managers after this election and then sign the Bill after those municipal managers have been appointed.
Your department strikes me as nothing more than a duplication of what line- function departments, the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General's office, the Presidency and the Offices of the Premiers are supposed to do. This is not to mention independent nongovernmental organisations that assess service delivery and governance issues, such as the Public Service Accountability Monitor and others.
Your department's budget has seen a year-on-year increase of 53%, your staff complement is set to reach 200 warm bodies, and yet we are experiencing an escalation of service delivery protests. The question that must be asked is: Why are service delivery protests escalating if your department is improving delivery?
You say that your department won't set up its own or duplicate evaluation systems and that you intend working with existing agencies to monitor and evaluate performance outcomes versus outputs. Commitment, compliance and co- operation from these agencies are very important variables that will determine your success in this regard.
Provinces and department heads will also have to show an appetite to have their own provinces and departments assessed. Lack of delivery, coupled with corruption, are inhibiting factors and could be counterintuitive, with the worst kind of unintended consequences. Provinces like the one I come from will most certainly not willingly expose their delivery shortcomings at the cost of public exposure.
Abasoze babhentsise, eMpuma Koloni; abasoze! [They will never expose shortcomings in the Eastern Cape, never!]
An example of how difficult your task will be in this regard is the Internal Complaints Directorate of the South African Police Service. The Internal Complaints Directorate occupies the most hated status in the Police Force and it has been the genesis of Hollywood movies over years, in that evaluating your own is the most difficult thing to do. If you have no proper appetite for it, it will yield no results.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that our President himself has shown an intense aversion to the glare of public scrutiny. The manner in which the intended secrecy legislation, in the guise of the Protection of Information Bill, has been railroaded through Parliament, despite the fact that it flies in the face of the prescripts of its predecessor legislation, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, is a salutary reminder that the ANC regime says one thing, but means something entirely different.
The classification of crucial documentation that would enable proper monitoring and evaluation will be the unintended consequence of this draconian legislation. What's more, you will come up against corrupt cadres that will not want you sniffing around their middens, their corruption middens, people like Nceba Faku, who exhorted ANC supporters to, "Tshisa i- Herald, tshisa!" ["Burn The Herald, burn!" Or are they going to say "Tshisa, u-Chabane, tshisa!" or "Tshisa i-DPME, tshisa!"? ["Burn Chabane, burn!" or "Burn DPME, burn!"
Ngoba abazi kufuna ukubhentsisa aba bantu. [Because they will not want to expose these people.]
The DPME must also be honest with itself and the public, and when it encounters good service delivery, according to your prescripts, it should be given the necessary recognition.