The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure has come under fire for allegedly serving Parliament a “cut-and-paste” performance report, with MPs accusing the department of recycling the same excuses for missed targets instead of showing what has been done to fix them.

The department’s first-quarter performance report for the 2026/27 financial year was rejected by the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure on Wednesday after members found that it largely repeated explanations contained in its previous quarterly report.

What particularly angered committee members was the lack of convincing evidence that the department had acted on its previous failures.

Instead of demonstrating measurable progress, officials allegedly showed up before Parliament with what members described as a report that offered the same explanations, the same shortcomings and, in some instances, the same unanswered questions.

The meeting quickly descended into a sharp criticism of the department’s approach to parliamentary oversight, with members describing the presentation as little more than a “tick-box exercise” that failed to provide Parliament with the information needed to hold the department accountable.

The committee warned that it could not continue receiving reports that effectively recycle past failures while departmental targets remain unmet.

Chairperson Carol Phiri said the department’s approach was no longer acceptable.

“It is a fruitless exercise to receive reports that repeat the same problems while targets set by the department remain unmet,” said Phiri.

The committee resolved to tighten its oversight and use its powers under Rule 167(f) of the National Assembly Rules to strengthen its scrutiny of the department.

The department has now been ordered to return with its first- and second-quarter reports together, giving MPs an opportunity to place the two reports side by side and determine whether the department has actually corrected the problems identified in the first quarter.

Members want the department to account for every missed target and provide more than explanations. They also said reports must show what was done, who was responsible, what changed and what evidence exists to prove progress.

The committee also raised the alarm over the number of acting officials who formed part of the department’s delegation, saying this appeared to point to a high vacancy rate in senior management.