Yes, it is good to have executive oversight; however, it is bad to have an executive having oversight over itself. Our Parliament has adopted an oversight model covering the entire executive, but it has struggled to allocate a committee to this function.
Chairperson, at the outset let me say that Cope supports the monitoring and evaluation of government programmes. However, we want to see value for money across the board. It is imperative that progress should be measured and that the required quality is attained. It is our collective task to measure the allocated budget against the expected timelines established. It entails evaluation to be done so that we know where changes should be made and priorities set.
Our Constitution should help us locate this Budget Vote No 6 debate appropriately. Sections 195 and 196 provide mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the work in areas of government, especially section 196(4)(b), where it deals with the Public Service Commission. It confirms that its "powers and functions ... are", and I quote:
to investigate, monitor and evaluate the organisation and administration, and the personnel practices, of the public service;
Act 65 of 1998 is instructive in a similar direction.
It is very clear that the function of the Public Service Commission and that of this Ministry are the same. We are concerned about the duplication of functions and budget. Moreover, we are concerned that monitoring and evaluation seems to be personnel-driven rather than system-driven.
As we speak, the departments are still battling to define clearly measurable objectives, thereby making evaluation a difficult task. As we debate this budget, personnel in the Public Service are still lagging behind with compliance. Whether we look at the issue of the director- general and the nonsigning of a performance agreement, or whether we look at the Ministers, who have to enforce compliance, we still see noncompliance.
The Auditor-General's report, which has been tabled, makes provision for monitoring and evaluation to achieve optimal value for money.
When you look closely at whether the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, as well as Administration in the Presidency has the power to enforce compliance, the answer is no. Instead, the department will refer its assessments and findings to other agencies.
We are very worried that what may seem to be a system driven by processes may just become a top-heavy, personnel and human-driven system, which is bloated and increases current expenditure with its high costs. We can't help asking this question: Where is the origin of this model? We are aware that there are no clear guidelines and that norms and standards are yet to be developed.
We are worried that the Ministry is not vocal when service delivery in education falls apart, and that when the education department in the Eastern Cape drops thousands of learners without transport, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation is silent. We have yet to hear what has happened about the thousands of call centre complaints that have been submitted.
The country's data system remains a challenge at local, provincial and national level. Statistics are not up to date and not accurate. This causes confusion.
The possibility of conflicting results from the Public Service Commission and Performance Monitoring and Evaluation is clear. If this happened in Parliament, Members of Parliament would be left horrified.
To end off, let me say that we must make a call for government to reconsider whether money will be well spent by expansion or whether money would be best deployed towards service delivery. If this is not seriously considered, our people will continue to stamp their feet demanding quality of services.
Cope supports monitoring and a value-for-money programme. However, we do not support lauding the Public Service for no better result, no improvement in the services and the lives of our people. Thank you.