DPWI/PMTE Q4 2025/26 Performance; with Minister

Video The Portfolio Committee reviewed the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure’s (DPWI’s) fourth quarter performance and financial report for 2025/26, and expressed its general dissatisfaction. Members questioned why targets were consistently missed across multiple quarters, with some indicators falling below 50%, and challenged the Department on why budget increases were not translating into better results. They pressed for concrete corrective action plans, rather than explanations of mitigating factors. Concerns were raised about the Department's technological shortcomings, high vacancy rates, and the absence of a clear workforce planning strategy. Questions were asked about recruitment pipelines, succession planning, and whether the organisational structure was fit for purpose under the current administration. Members requested an update on when the operational turnaround strategy would be finalised and formally submitted, noting that its absence had been raised in previous quarterly meetings. They challenged the Department on the absence of completed infrastructure projects during the quarter, slow project design processes, and delays in contractor and consultant appointments. Questions were raised about which regions and departments were experiencing procurement delays, and what was being done to unblock stalled projects. Concern was expressed about inconsistent disciplinary outcomes, including instances where significant irregular expenditure had resulted in only minor sanctions, with a request for access to human resource reports to better understand accountability failures. A debate arose around the appropriate locus of accountability -- whether it rested primarily with the Minister, the Director-General, or individual officials -- and how Parliament should exercise oversight in that context. Members pressed for a clear, publicly available asset disposal strategy, noting that 31 properties identified for disposal had still not been processed after approximately 18 months. Questions were raised about the costs of the failed tender process, including legal fees and ongoing holding costs, and who bore responsibility for that failure. They questioned when the asset register would be finalised, noting that it had been a longstanding concern raised across multiple Committee cycles. They challenged the continued reliance on external service providers for physical verification, and asked about the timeline for completing digitisation. Members raised ongoing problems with expired leases and costly month-to-month arrangements, asking where the failure in the lease management process lay, and what impact it was having on departments such as Social Development, which required stable accommodation to deliver services. They questioned whether the DPWI could afford to continue missing employment programme targets, given the country's unemployment rate. Concerns were also raised about political patronage in Expanded Public Works (EPWP) recruitment, and the need for stronger monitoring systems focused on the quality, not just the quantity, of work opportunities created. Members asked for clarity on the status of the Construction Industry Development Board Amendment Bill, recommending that its framing in departmental reports be corrected to accurately reflect that it had not yet been introduced in Parliament. Questions were also raised about the delayed Infrastructure Development Amendment Bill, and when legislative processes would advance. Members expressed frustration at the slow progress on small harbour projects, particularly citing earlier commitments that had not materialised, and asked for explanations of the delays and an estimated timeframe for resolution. They asked the CFO about interventions to address late and unpaid invoices, and questioned the sustainability of the Department's recovery model, where payments were made without guaranteed reimbursement from client departments. The Committee debated whether the quarterly performance report was of sufficient quality to be adopted, with one Member proposing it be returned for revision. The Committee ultimately agreed to retain the report as presented, and use it as an oversight benchmark going forward.