E-Government and National Anti Corruption Forum: Briefing

PUBLIC SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
30 August 2006
E-GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL ANTI CORRUPTION FORUM BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr R Baloyi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
National Anti-Corruption Forum Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Public Services and Administration
DPSA E-Government Update

SUMMARY
The Department of Public Service and Administration gave the Committee an update of the developments related to the E-Government programme which aimed to facilitate a single public service. While most members were excited about the E-Government programme many had reservations related to the Department’s ability to implement it. Concerns were also raised around whether the communication infrastructure and technology would be accessible to people in rural areas and those who were illiterate.

Following the Department’s briefing the different sectors involved in the National Anti Corruption Forum (public sector, business sector and civil society) briefed the Committee on its successes and the challenges it faced. Members were particularly concerned about the need for the three sectors’ to work together effectively. Concerns were also raised about the apparent irregularities in the punishments and penalties meted out to those involved in corruption. Ms Fraser Molekti, Minister of Public Service and Administration was concerned that the media failed to present the successes the forum had had.

Minutes
Deputy General’s opening remarks
Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) Director General, Prof Richard Levin, said that his office had on several occasion addressed the Committee on matters related to e-government i.e. the access strategy and the single public service. They had emphasised that information technology was a key enabler for service delivery. If one wanted to improve service delivery one needed to find ways in which one could use information technology (IT) in a manner that would allow for integrated services, provide a more efficient and effective system of service delivery to citizens. The presentation to be made that day would provide information on the context in which e-government was taking place in South Africa. It would detail the DPSA’s conceptual view of e-government and specific challenges to delivering it in an appropriate manner. It would also look at some the specific issues, which they believed could lead the way in generating buy-in from Government, from citizens as well as from broad sectors of society including business sector. They would then take a look at the proposals and discussions around the governance of the programme. He said that Government was the largest enterprise in South Africa and its machinery was huge. Considering the different spheres of Government (National, provincial and local) it was obvious that integration was critical if one were to optimise the value that e-government and information technology could add to service delivery improvement. Consultation would be an important part of taking the programme further.

E-Government Presentation
Mr Romie Barjaktarevic DPSA Chief Information Officer briefed the Committee briefed the Committee on the conceptual view and framework of the programme as well as its strategic challenges. The two primary catalytic projects were the track and trace application which would allow citizens to use cellular SMS technology to enquire about services from certain citizen facing departments, and the E Health application which was aimed at improving public access to health care. Other projects included the elmbizo Customer Relationship Portal and the SMS enabled Batho Pele Gateway. The presentation also included an overview of the consultative processes that had been taken, the anticipated schedule for the completion of the programme and the outcomes achieved so far.

Discussion
Mr Baloyi agreed that the creation a single public service was a very important matter. South Africa had not yet achieved this but was on its way towards it. The process would be particularly relevant to the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) as well.

Mr I Julies (DA) understood that e government was aimed at achieving service delivery and that the DPSA decided to embark upon this programme because they were serious about service delivery. He was very excited about what would happen once the programme was in place. He thanked the DPSA for the work it had done. South Africans would be pleasantly surprised by how service delivery would be improved once the programme was in place.

Ms M Matsomela (ANC) agreed that the developments were very exciting. She sought clarity on what measures the DPSA had taken to ensure that information would be reliable, accurate and received timeously.

Ms Matsomela reminded everyone that service delivery happened at a local level yet the presentation only made mention of extending e government to the national and provincial levels. She wondered when it would be rolled out at a local level.

Ms Matsomela felt that the e-health application was a very exciting development especially as far as improving the delivery of health services to rural areas. She wondered what the DPSA would do to ensure that the necessary communication infrastructure would be in place to ensure the effective roll out of the programme.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) was also very excited but had reservations about the possible abuse and shortcomings of e-health. He commented that more should be done to guard against abuse. He was particularly worried about the misdiagnosis of disease which could lead to death for which doctors would be held liable. He warned that although it was an accepted practice it should be used with great care.

Mr Barjaktarevic said that security was an ongoing issue. As apart of the architectural design work the DPSA would ensure that information was not freely available but would be secure and available only to those who needed it. The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) had a very strong mandate to guarantee information security and would be partnering with the DPSA to ensure that Government systems and data would be secure.

Mr Baryaktarevic pointed out that e-governance was largely about people. Similar to abuse in Government, e-Governance would also be a possible target for abuse. He assured the members that from an engineering point of view DPSA would do their best to design systems that would be safe and designed in such a way that information would be secure and made available only to those that needed to access it in order preserve its integrity and to safeguard the interest of citizens. The DPSA would partner with accountable partners (such as NIA) within Government to ensure that system designs and the selected projects were acceptable.

Mr Khumalo said that the Committee would appreciate if the DPSA could provide it with clear timeframes for the implementation and completion of the programme.

Prof Levin responded that the general observation that could be made about IT and the IT industry was that it “promised heaven on earth and often struggled to deliver half of what it promised”. The fundamental question related to actual timeframes. Once the DPSA could only commit itself to actual timeframes once it had actual substantive proposals. He admitted that the DPSA was probably moving to slowly in relation to when e-governance first came onto the agenda. The DPSA took note of the concern and needed to respond to it quite decisively as the programme moved forward.

Mr Barjaktarevic explained that it was very difficult to present the Committee with a detailed timeline. Each phase represented hundreds of individual projects that would be completed within their own unique time zone. He had tried to broadly illustrate the completion of substantial efforts within each phase. Each project would have defined starting and completion dates and the DPSA would track any slippages in terms of project management practices. These were sometimes unavoidable and one simply needed to understand the reason for them. It was very important there was a link between the end user of an ICT application and those who deliver the application. In his own experience problems often arose when ICT was left to its own devices to deliver solutions that did not always talk to the needs of the business. If there was a big gap between the business and ICT one invariably ran into difficulties. This could be avoided by using the governance mechanism as illustrated in the presentation. Application project clusters would be headed up by business. The DPSA believed that the ownership should at the moment exist in the data project clusters and the department would like the Department of Home Affairs to be its leading agent since it had the most interest in securing effective, safe and integrated data.
The application project cluster and the access channel project cluster should be headed by DPSA because it was fundamentally a transversal ministry bearing responsibility for the whole public service. It was ideally positioned to head that cluster. Substantial ICT skills and efforts would be applied at lower levels but the business would have the accountability to ensure that all projects that were committed to, signed off and approved would be delivered.

An official wondered what risks were involved in the programme and asked whether they had been included in the challenges that were mentioned in the presentation.

Mr Barjaktarevic said that risk management was a very important matter, particularly in the light of the very many disasters around the world when large scale ICT system implementation was involved. He warned that risks stemmed from under funding, unskilled and unavailable personnel, lack of executive support etc. The governance framework would largely be responsible for identifying and managing such risks. In an effort to contain and mitigate risk a risk schedule would be drawn up to fit the overall programme as well as each individual project level. There was no doubt that, as with any large undertaking, this was a risky effort. Risk management would have to form part of ongoing project management.

He explained that it all boiled down to the proper engineering of solutions. The governance framework had a clear line of accountability from the programmer at the State Information and Technology Agency (SITA) to Cabinet. If things went wrong there ought to be a mechanism in place to ensure that those errors were captured and addressed before they became crises.

An official wondered how the Multi-Purpose Community Centres (MPC) would be incorporate within the programme so as to make sure that e-governance would enable service delivery acceleration. She was particularly concerned about the many challenges that already surrounded the MPCs.

Prof Levin believed that the public service had to be engineered through other elements of the single public service project. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) was an enabler that assisted and supported the single public service initiative. ICT was a crucial enabler allowing the single public service to improve and integrate service delivery so as to provide a single view of Government to the citizens. It provided technologies which enhanced the process of integration. ICT would enable and support integrated service delivery. It would facilitate it but could not generate it on its own. Alignment with MPCCs was absolutely fundamental. These centres had general service counters where operators used the Batho Pele Gateway Portal. There already existed an alignment with phase one of the e-governance programme but as the programme proceeded into the transactional phases a lot of possibilities opened up for these MPCCs, which would be rebranded as Batho Pele or Tusong community centres. IT gave infinity of possibilities but the key challenge remained to deliver tangibles.

Mr R Skekana (ANC) sought clarity on what was meant by “one single public service”.

An official asked whether a mechanism to access the effectiveness of e-governance had been provided.

Mr Barjaktarevic explained that if one reflected on the governance framework one would see that it in itself provided monitoring and evaluation due to the upward flow of accountability. The e-Governance programme executive steering committee would from time to time request updates on programmes from the programme management office. They would of course be examined, monitored and evaluated for effectiveness. The DPSA had to bring all Government activities that dealt with ICT under one roof because some of the problems resulted from fragmented initiatives. Substantial work happened in all three spheres, yet one did not have the opportunity to see that work and evaluate it under one government mechanism. He was of the opinion that this programme would be the start of such an effort. It would allow one to ensure that those departments that made commitments would be held to account before matters reached to high a level of escalation. The ICT work could be managed across all spheres, not in a centralised way, but in a manner that would allow for accountability. Departments would still contribute much effort to their unique needs but would remain consistent with the policies and strategies of e-governance.

Ms L Maloney (ANC) reminded everyone that there were 12 million people who could not read and write. They were still using outdated means of communication such as telegrams yet the DPSA spoke of e governance being enabled by amongst others, cell phones. Many people would not be able to access all the “fancy hardware” associated with the technology that would be used. She too raised concerns about whether information would be secure when using cell phone technology.

Prof Levin agreed that mobile technology would be one of the crucial issues in terms of access. Vast numbers of people, be they in urban or rural areas, they would not have the kind of access that would make e-governance the ideal solution to much of South Africa’s problems. Mobile technology would be a catalyst. The question the member had raised was interesting and the DPSA would have to respond to it. The concerns around e-health, patient confidentiality and its protection, were valid and needed to be responded to.

Mr Barjaktarevic responded that literacy was very important and would not likely to be sold with technology but rather with education and also intermediation. DPSA recognised that intermediaries such as community workers were needed in some instances. They would utilise the various channels of information and then translate them to the citizens that required that element of interface due to illiteracy, disablement or poverty etc. The DPSA hoped that this intervention would to a degree address the needs of those who were poor or disabled.

He agreed that in the rural areas there was a dearth of infrastructure and the DPSA would like the Department of Communication to be the head of the infrastructure project cluster to help facilitate the availability of communication infrastructure.

Ms Maloney wondered what the DPSA would do to ensure that other departments bought into the programme at an early enough stage so that all possible pitfalls could be provided for.

Prof Levin concurred that getting the buy in of other departments was one of the key challenges in much of the work that was being done. The DPSA may have the best frameworks and ideas but if the public service as a whole did not buy into them the DPSA would face a major challenge. Currently there were about 139 departments and more than 1 million public servants and their support and involvement was absolutely necessary. It would also be necessary to talk to the different spheres of the administration of the executive arms of Government including the legislative and judicial branches and explain how e-governance could support them. The issue of buy in was a fundamental issue which also related to change management which spoke to the culture changes that were required inside and outside of government in order for the vision of e-governance to be actualised.

Mr Baloyi agreed that the technology was a tool to facilitate communication towards service delivery. The agents of service delivery would still be the people involved and they could determine success or failure. The principles of Batho Pele as a policy of service delivery would need to be internalized. He felt that attitude played an important role and wondered to what extent people were ready to soil their hands so as to have things happening the way they ought to happen. If one considered the presentation and viewed it against the public protector’s finding and reports on the investigation into issues related to communication between government departments as well as between the people and government it was clear that there were challenges and that e-governance might be a possible intervention. He reiterated that people drove systems and positive attitudes needed to be built and obligations internalised.

Mr Baloyi agreed that the communication between the citizens and Government needed to be improved but pointed out that improved communication between government departments themselves was vital. He wondered how one could ensure collective responsibility for the buy in of other departments.

While members were excited about the theory of the programme they held concerns around its practical implementation. Members of Parliament would remain part of the structure to ensure implementation. The DPSA should not view their excitement as a willingness to sign “a blank cheque”. The programme was a work in progress.

Ms Maloney wondered what role SITA would play since only the private sector was mentioned as a role player as far as communication infrastructure was concerned.

Mr Baryaktarevic said that SITA was represented throughout the governance model. Its chief executive officer would sit at the executive steering committee level. It would be represented at the various subsidiary levels for programme and project managers. Importantly its officials would be in total control as the implementers i.e. as the IT managers of Government. SITA thus had a very strong position in terms of its contribution to e-governance. He added that they would of course partner with industry. Many partnerships would be developed in order to assist SITA with developing reliable and effective technology solutions under the leadership and ultimate coordination of Government. In the past some observers had noted that SITA tended to not always align itself with the interest of Government. These measures would ensure that this alignment would happen.

Ms Matsomela sought clarity on how the DPSA visualised the uniformity they wanted to create between different departments who, at present, had different websites.

Mr Baryaktarevic explained that at a very fundamental level the DPSA envisioned that every department and every municipality that had a website should have a link to the Batho Pele Gateway Portal. They should have a “common look and feel”. The DPSA would consult with Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) who were the business owners of the Batho Pele portal in order to devise a look and feel that related to Batho Pele and would engender support and trust from citizens. This in itself would represent a more uniform interface to Government. He assured members that it would not be a drastic redesign at all. Much local content could be localized to the communities. The DPSA was not seeking to control how department and municipal websites looked in terms of content but when it came to legislated and regulated services information needed to be accurate and the DPSA saw the Batho Pele Gateway Portal as a reference portal for reliable information about services. Duplication on other portals would not be such a big concern but citizens should at least have the assurance that if they went to the Batho Pele Gateway Portal they would obtain truly accurate and valid information.

Mr Baloyi wondered how sensitivity around e-Governance would affect the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). He was concerned about the security of information moving across boundaries.

Prof Levine clarified that there had been a number of dilemmas with the development of the APRM’s programme of action. The government programme of action was reported on to Cabinet on a bi-monthly basis and this report was pasted on the Government website. He said that one wanted to avoid duplicating projects from the government plan of action in the APRM programme of action and to put e-governance into the APRM programme of action would represent duplication. The DPSA would need to seek the cooperation and participation of other sectors and put the necessary elements into the APRM programme of action.

Mr Baryaktarevic added that so far the information in the Batho Pele portal was freely available to the citizens and could freely flow over borders. This was not really a concern. In the subsequent phases of the programme the DPSA would begin to transact with citizen-related information and data and one would then need to be very cautious. There would be a need to implement secure transaction processes using proper identification and authentication mechanisms which had already been piloted. There was, for instance a concept called public key infrastructure (PKI) and the notion of a smart card token with biometric verification information that would ensure that whoever was transacting was the authorised person. Together these two were internationally recognised as reliable mechanisms. In South Africa much work had been done in this regard in and further developments could be leveraged off these. NIA would have an important role to play in terms of devising encryption algorisms that would provide ultimate safety to data.

Minister’s opening remarks
Minister of Public Service and Administration Ms Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi led the DPSA’s presentation on the National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF). She explained that the presenters would present on the progress as far as the initiatives it was engaged with. It would be an opportunity for the Committee to directly engage with the respective contributors in order to reflect whether as a forum the sectors were making progress and inputs within their sectors and whether the national impact of the work of the forum was being felt.

She thought it necessary to indicate that the Committee should particularly consider whether progress had been made on the national anti corruption programme that was adopted in June 2005. It was drafted after the Anti Corruption Summit that was held in March of that year.

Some of the key issues to be highlighted in the presentation included the implementation of the sectoral anti corruption programmes, the provision of platforms of national, provincial and local engagement on issues related to the fighting of corruption, the promotion of ethical practices and activities, advocacy on the rights, obligations, sanctions and protection offered by anti corruption legislation and the implementation thereof as well as how the NACF was being utilised as a vehicle to establish a national anti corruption consensus and to provide leadership in this regard.

She concluded by saying that both internationally and in the Africa region there was much focus on the current composition and model of the forum itself as well as on its achievements and challenges particularly because it was quite different in composition. She said that it could be argued that much could be done to improve the forum’s functioning. Parliament needed to ensure that the mode was jealously guarded and that it actually performed its function. She urged members to in terms of their oversight role put pressure on the functioning of the forum.

The forum was set up before there was a peer review process. Peer review meant that one did an assessment of the work in the country as a whole, looking at all sectors of society including Government. If there were lessons that the peer review mechanism had to consider it could turn to the forum and consider how it could avoid some of its challenges and build on some of its successes.

Department of Public Service and Administration Presentation
Prof Richard Levine, Director General of the Department of Public Service and Administration gave the Committee a brief overview of the NACF which was established in 2001 and comprised of equal representation from business, civil society and public sectors. He briefed the Committee on the second national anti-corruption summit and the resolutions made there. He then proceeded to talk to the national anti-corruption programme’s strategic objectives and funding and detailed the institutional arrangements of and the public sector’s involvement in the NACF.

Business Unity South Africa Presentation
Jacques Manevick of Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), briefed the Committee on the business sector’s role in the NACF. He detailed the common dangers that threatened the business sector as well as its anti corruption programme which was aimed at amongst others designing programmes that would reduce the incidence of and the harm caused by corruption. The business sector had also been quite effective in the establishment of commercial court centres that would efficiently convict those guilty of fraud and corruption. Between 1999 and 2005 the business sector had managed to through interventions reduce commercial crimes by 50%.

Civil Society Network Against Corruption Presentation
Alison Tilley convener of the Civil Society Network Against Corruption (CSNAC) briefly described the different civil society organisations that formed part of CSNAC and detailed each organisation’s involvement in the network. The organisations included the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC), the Public Information and Monitoring Services (PIMS) and the Institute for Security Studies (ISS). She explained that the civil society sector was challenged by the bleeding of leadership skills, the diversion of donor resources and varying specific areas of concern.

Discussion
Mr Khumalo noted that Business Against Crime (BAC) appeared to be inactive in a number of provinces notably the Northern Cape. The Northern Cape was a semi-rural province and he felt that such areas were being left behind. In such areas corruption was never exposed because the focus was on urban areas. He wondered how the organisation was structured at a local level.

Mr Khumalo wondered how projects were assessed.

Ms Maloney said that she appreciated the “holy marriage” that had been sealed between the DPSA, civil society and business. She asked whether Government, business and civil society were represented in all the NACF’s structures.

Mr Baloyi commented that Ms Maloney’s question was at the heart of the matter. He wondered whether one could now speak of a forum that could project itself as an entity and not as a fragmentation of structures operating in an unrelated manner. He assured the presenters that the forum would not be under any threat of it spoke honestly about its shortcomings and was honest about whether all sectors were able to work together as a team.

The Minister referred the Committee to the NACF’s institutional arrangements. The implementation committee of the NACF comprised the Deputy General of DPSA, the CEO of BAC and the convener of the civil society network. Each sector has specific tasks and they worked separately but there efforts needed to be collaborated. They dealt with the implementation of various programmes initiated by sectors and their implementation necessitated collaborative work even though it was not always seen that way. Civil society was involved in work that may monitor how Government was responding or in specific training initiatives. She agreed that in order to be successful the sectors needed to work together.

Mr Skesana said that the forum was launched in the 1990’s which was a long time ago. It was beginning to bear fruit since at that time it did not include the key organ of corruption i.e. civil society. It always bothered him when corruption was referred to as being rooted in Government only. Government officials came from civil society too. Most of the elements of corruption were entrenched in civil society yet this aspect was never focused on. He was pleased that the civil society was represented in the discussion and hoped that something would come from their involvement.

The Minister quoted from a speech President Thabo Mbeki had made on 14 April 1999 while he was still Deputy President:
“Sometime during the 1960’s and English judge sat in his court to decide the complex question whether it was possible to corrupt a corrupt person. The hearing was occasioned by the fact uncontested that a vendor of pornographic material had sold literature to a young man who had not yet reached the legally defined age of maturity. The law having defined pornographic material as corrupt, it further prescribed that it was illegal to sell this material to minors because it would result in corrupting the young. The shopkeeper argued that it was clear to him that by the time the young man visited his shop he was already familiar with pornography and was therefore, in the meaning of the law, already corrupt. Hence the question is can you corrupt a corrupt person. The judge found the vendor guilty; nevertheless because of the complexity of the question, he ruled his own finding should be reviewed by a superior court. He had found the law was broken but was uncertain as to whether the social morality of the English generation of the 1960’s had been violated. If we follow the English judge’s ruling…we too should make the determination that the issue of corruption, about which we have convened, is about two distinct matters: one being the matter of the law and the other being the matter of social morality. Between these two clearly what must come first is the matter of social morality. This would suggest that we who are gathered here are faced with the challenge to draw up a moral schedule of rights and wrongs”.

The Minister felt that much progress had been made on the mater since the President’s speech. The progress report very clearly indicated that they were no longer merely confronted with the question of whether one could corrupt an already corrupt person. Since that time the Prevention of Corruption Act had also been passed.

She thought that the interfaith sector should probably engage and determine whether the matter of social morality had been adequately dealt with. At this particular time the forum could, without fear of contradiction, say that significant progress has been made on the anti corruption agenda. She said that there was a tendency in the media and elsewhere to underplay this fact. The media only focussed on aspects that were of a sensational nature. She lamented that in many instances the forum’s achievements were almost seen as our Achilles heel.

A study that was done jointly with the United Nations drugs and crime structure said that more than 60% of the cases that were exposed and had been acted upon were as a result of their exposure through the various agencies within Government. It also pointed out that only 8% of cases exposed were as a result of investigative journalism. At that time it was felt that there was probably a need to strengthen investigative journalism.
 
Ms Tilley added that she knew that though civil society projected a holier than thou image there was also corruption within its ranks. This had to be taken seriously and had to be dealt with. There were a number of initiatives around this reality. Civil society took the matter as seriously within their own sector as it did within the sectors of business and government.

Ms Matsomela said that the presentation created the impression that the forum was still at its very early stages with much development still occurring. She sought clarity on the level of operation that has already been achieved.

Mr Isaacs was concerned about whether the forum could suggest any punishment for those that committed crimes related to corruption. Recent reports indicated that many people were stealing money. He noted that some people were simply allowed to pay back what they had taken unlawfully while others were punished with long term jail sentences. He asked what role the forum played as far as suggesting punishment.

Mr Baloyi said that some questions might be better posed to the National Prosecuting Authority who would still make a presentation to the Committee. They would address the practical aspects of the investigation of cases related to corruption.

The Minister explained that the forum was not structured in such a way that it would advise courts in terms of sentences. Such advice was not part of its mandate. She cautioned against such a practice since it would contravene the rues that governed the separation of powers that existed in South Africa. There was a clear separation of powers and the DPSA respected that.
She added however that “If the DA so wished to change things around the separation of powers, inform us in this committee, and we would definitely …engage in a debate around this matter”.

She added that the NPA, the South African police Service (SAPS), the Scorpions and other such organisations had a role to play as far as advice on punishment was concerned. The interdepartmental structure brought the various agencies and departments together to collaborate on issues. She reiterated that the NACF played an advisory and information sharing role as far as punishment, etc. was concerned.

Mr Manevick pointed out that in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act it would be illegal to keep cases involving R100 000 or more out of the system. These cases had to be reported to the police and companies could exercise no discretion. The company he worked for had a policy that whenever there was an indication of criminal activity it was reported to the police and it was left to the prosecuting authorities to decide on a way forward. The company certainly did not accept repayment of the money stolen as a bargaining tool. The repayment was non negotiable – the money had to be returned and the guilty party still faced prosecution. The appropriate punishment was left to the prosecutor. There was no interference from the company. Most parties he interacted with shared that approach.

Prof Levine explained that the general practice within the public service w was to deal with fraud in a twin track process. This would involve administrative processes (implementing the disciplinary codes) as well as reporting the case to the SAPS. This sometimes led to particular problems in terms the duplication of the roles and functions of internal disciplinary process investigations and investigations by the crime prevention agencies. The DPSA preferred to automatically implement disciplinary procedures and deal with such cases decisively through that mechanism. Often people were dismissed from the public service while having to face criminal charges as well.

A BAC representative explained that BAC was actively present and had offices in six provinces. BAC’s nine major projects were implemented a national level however. In the Northern Cape the organisation had an implementation committee and not an office. In the Free State they worked with the Department of Education and the Department of Community Safety even though they did not have an office in the province. In the North West the big business and mining companies invited them and helped them to establish an office in the province.

In some of the provinces such as the Western Cape and Limpopo there were provincial anti corruption fora and the public sector was working on a project to get all of these coordinated and then doing a presentation to the NACF.

Ms Maloney asked whether there were any programmes for receiving those criminals because they often return to civil society after their prison terms. She wondered whether they could not perhaps be used as role models.

Ms Tilley said that the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO) dealt with the rehabilitation of prisoners. In many ways civil society’s focus on corruption and issues around it tended to be positive. They focussed on the benefits of having a good system around corruption rather than engaging in naming and shaming type strategies. Business, Government and civil society could gain much by putting good strong management systems around transparency and whistle blowing in place.

Ms Maloney saw that the commercial sectors were being dealt with drastically. She wondered whether those offenders who had settled outside of court had been included in the statistics.

Mr Julies wondered who decided whether a person who had taken part in corrupt activity repaid the money or faced charges.

Minister’s closing remarks
The Minister thanked the Committee for the opportunity to deliver the presentation. It reflected that yet another milestone had been reached. The NACF welcomed the opportunity to come before the portfolio committee because it gave the opportunity for the voice of the forum to be heard differently through Parliament. It was important for consistent briefings to take place especially in the light of oversight and evaluating whether the progress was as it should be. It also created an opportunity for a voice that reached the citizens through Parliament itself. The NACF would like to ensure that this happened on an ongoing basis. She said that the NACF had had opportunity to do presentations before some provincial legislatures. It would like however to ensure that the House where it had had its first conference was one that remained in touch so that it got a real sense of whether the kinds of synergies that were required were in place.

She added that during the previous week the business working group had met with the President and during that meeting there was the launch of a joint campaign against crime and she wanted to inform the Committee that the anti corruption thrust also formed part of that campaign. This reflected the seriousness with which corruption was viewed irrespective of where the corruption took place. It was very important that no money was extorted and used for personal gain when it could be used for public good, contribute to economic growth or reach direct beneficiaries in communities.

The Minister concluded by thanking all members of the NACF for all the work they had done, civil society for their insistence to take matters forward and organised business for the ongoing work they were involved in.

She suggested that at some point the Committee should consider the grand corruption report which she thought was quite an important document. Government was looking at aspects of the report that needed to be considered and taken forward.

The meeting was adjourned.