Mr Chairman, the DA welcomes the new, more focused desire of government to deliver on its mandate, as well as its candid assessment that it must become more effective in its actions, and that it must expand access to services and improve the quality of services.
Government's candour in understanding and accepting why it has, in the past, not met its objectives in delivering quality services is also welcomed, albeit an indictment of itself.
The document acknowledges that the reasons include lack of political will, inadequate leadership, weak management, inappropriate institutional design, misaligned decision-making and, importantly, the absence of a strong performance culture with effective rewards and sanctions. The last point is important as a performance management system works only if there is a mechanism to hold responsible persons to account.
The Minister states upfront that the government's performance has to be guided by a few non-negotiable principles: leadership making tough decisions, co-operation across the three levels of government, a partnership between government and civil society, transparency which demands truthfulness, dealing with limited funding and resources, and a skilled and motivated workforce. We endorse these principles.
There has often been, however, a disjuncture between these guiding principles and government's past behaviour. First is the acknowledged need for co-operation across the three levels of government. Co-operation is not co-option.
In respect to the performance management system, government's role is to indicate the required outcome and framework, but government needs to respect provinces' ability to mould policy according to a province's political mandate to achieve the outcome. Here, mechanisms need to be developed to enhance co-operation.
In respect of accountability throughout the service chain, we welcome the shift to focus on outcome, but we must walk the talk. Eskom's agreed outcome, surely, is a sustainable supply of electricity, yet when the lights went out across South Africa, no one was suspended, sanctioned or fired - from the Minister downward.
In exercising accountability, we welcome the agreed need for increased measurement and management instruments internal and external to government. Enhanced external citizen oversight can only be achieved, as the model suggests, by increased publication of outcome data. Critical, also, is improved data architecture. We endorse the statement that the proposed management system can only function if there is credible, validated, timely information on outcomes and other elements of the results chain.
We endorse also the statement that there should be a free flow of data rather than the current situation in which data is not adequately shared. Ironically, this means that crime statistics, a key police department outcome, have to be credible, validated - and, importantly - released timeously.
Ironically, also, we are still waiting for the Presidency to release a report on the 2009 development indicators mid-term review - key data to enable us to measure government's performance in a number of important areas. Yet the report is long overdue, and questions submitted to the Presidency remain unanswered. In any change management, monitoring and evaluation presents challenges, none more so than achieving compliance with regard to people, leadership and a shift in Public Service management culture that must take place. Tough, principled leadership is required that walks the talk, that requires accountability and sanction. This is difficult, even more so when the current predominant culture is one of cadre deployment, cronyism and nepotism.
In one of the examples in the document illustrating how the system works, the Department of Basic Education is cited. One of the key activities to achieve an outcome is teachers in class, on time, for seven hours a day. Here's the rub: Will government challenge Sadtu on this and will inspectors be allowed once again to re-enter schools and do their monitoring work?
Finally, let me comment on the link with the intergovernmental budgeting agenda. We welcome the Minister of Finance's signalled need for a comprehensive expenditure review. The point made in this section is that strategic and long-term development plans create incentives for organs of state to create plans they may not be able to afford in their budget.
This is particularly apt at present when government is struggling to maintain fiscal prudence in the face of declining tax revenues and burgeoning expenditure pressures. Debates around topics like the national retirement fund and, more recently, the national health insurance are particularly apt at this point in time.
Monitoring and evaluation is about promoting excellence. The essential precepts to achieve this are set out in the Minister's document, but the Minister in government must realise that these precepts can't be treated like a smorgasbord. To be successful, there has to be a commitment to all the principles enunciated. Government has to walk the talk. Thank you. [Applause.]