Public Service & Administration Portfolio Committee Report on Strategic Planning Workshop 2009

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that now that they were familiar with the reports, the Committee had to work hard to ensure that their programmes made sense when working with the PSC. She stressed that in moving forward it was essential to work in conjunction with the Department and the PSC. The Committee needed to start informing the PSC about areas of participation instead of only responding to their reports and the areas they focused on. The Chairperson acknowledged the importance of reports but said the Committee needed to recommend areas which needed attention and then work together. However, more planning was needed and at every sitting something concrete had to materialise that would be beneficial, and make an impact on the Department. The Chairperson emphasised that progress and integration would require strategic planning.

Committee Report on Strategic Planning Workshop:
Ms A Dreyer (DA) disagreed with the addition of the phrase ‘the manifesto of the ruling party’, wanted it deleted and a full stop to be put after ‘the State of the Nation Address’. She reiterated that shehad  raised the point during the strategic planning workshop and that the Democratic Party (DA) equally held the Government to account. She questioned the findings that there was little organisation between Public Services Sector Education Training Authority (PSETA) and Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) since they had confirmed that they had no problems with overlapping and were clear about who did what. PALAMA did the training and PSETA the accreditation, and PSETA was relevant in a way of overseeing PALAMA.

The Chairperson agreed that the phrase should be deleted. She disagreed with Ms Dreyer about PSETA and responded that as a unit it dealt with quality assurance. PALAMA and PSETA had some overlap in that both had an e-learning unit. The PSETA could assist, but there was no communication between the two organisations even though, with e-learning, the PSETA’s technologies were utilised. Synergy and integration was needed in technology, and e-learning had to be accredited and overseen, but not by themselves. It could be the Committee.

The Chairperson emphasised the need to engage with the Department to create a plan, which had to be clear, and to implement issues that the Committee had recommended. Concern was raised about the clustering of SETAs because of the need for PSETA as an oversight body and for training in public service and administration. Clustering should happen with understanding, all areas of overlap should be cleared and there should be a unified form of working.

She continued that it was incorrect that Government was mandated by legislation to use the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) services. The majority of government departments do not make use of SITA and the understanding was that government departments could use a provider of choice, and use SITA if they wished to. Therefore it was incorrect that SITA had a monopolistic role in the provision of ICT services to government and they had to compete with other ICT companies.

The Chairperson commented that the Committee had to examine mandate by referring to the legislation and get feedback as it bound PSETA and PALAMA to work with the Department. The Committee also had to inspect the development of legislation. The Department had to command compliance and where it was cross cutting, people had to comply. The PSC was also not using its authority to ensure that the Department complied with the rules, and did what it had to. The issue of synergising and integrating had to be taken seriously by all members because people had noticed that the systems of government are not really compatible. Things were taking place in silos and it had really been difficult for government functions and service delivery. “We need to ask why it is not working for all, if we have Batho Pele”. An integrated approach was needed and since the Committee was central, most things should be driven from this point. The SITA was a big issue and when “we met with them we realised that many things were not right”. The Department still had to give feedback and when a meeting was held with them, the Committee should inform them of what was required rather than have them coming and fumbling. The Department should be asked how they would deal with issues and then present a model to the Committee for evaluation. Practicality was needed now instead of many meetings, and action needed to take place.

Mr E Sulliman (ANC) asked when the draft on e-planning had to be finalised and whether a meeting would be held the following week to finalise matters before handing in the draft for discussion.

The Chairperson replied that when submitting the draft it had to include the strategic intervention the Committee wanted to implement and oversee. As a Committee the approach regarding Batho Pele had to be discussed and the final date for doing so was the 28^th. Planned Batho Pele visits should not be done alone since it could trap people, and the Committee needed people to do things willingly.

Mr E Rasool (ANC) referred to each entity establishing its own administration and said that this was costly to implement. Instead it was possible for the Committee to transform areas of concern tabulated on pages seven and eight into areas of work so that concerns became areas of work. A possible action was to examine whether it was constitutionally possible or desirable and administratively feasible. This in a sense would lead the Committee to discover what could be shared services, and if it would be desirable that an independent entity shared administration with the Department.

Mr Rasool said it would be interesting to do a survey on who purchased IT services from SITA, and who did not. The percentage of compliance could then be examined and some departments or provinces that do not use the services of SITA could be called to find out why they do not, and what there experiences were. For those using SITA it could be investigated what they wanted improved in their procurement of IT services through SITA, which would become an area of work.

Mr Rasool said the overlap mentioned in the Committee Report needed a structured discussion just to examine whether the overlap was there and whether the overlap was necessary because it may be that the focus was on the public service as mid and lower level service provision. It may be found that the overlap was desirable with service delivery and management level staff and others. However, we may need a communication and the presentation given by the Department and entities, did not really assist the Committee in its objectives. He stressed the need to sharpen the understanding of the Committees work, the meaning of accountability per entity, and what the Committees plan of action would be.

Mr Rasool recommended that the request for greater synergy become an action starting with the Chairperson convening an ‘all in’ meeting of chairpersons and standing committees that dealt with the Auditor General (AG), appropriations and public service, since they dealt with the performance of the state. Out of the action, together the Committee could do an appraisal of the performance of the state as well as the state of readiness for delivery by the state, so that entities such as PSETA and PALAMA, which were held accountable by the Committee, could be directed a lot more by the Auditor General.

Mr Rasool said that it might be found that what was passed as corruption could often be a lack of skills in contract management. He had experienced that many procurement departments who had a legal advisor had rings run around them by companies who hired the best attorneys and advocates to advise them how the contract could be circumvented and what to omit in them. The result was that when companies were questioned about incomplete projects they simply pointed out the fine print. There was an inability to manage contracts and to write contracts in a way that also held the private sector accountable. The Committee needed an action session on these areas of concern including a schedule of interventions.

The Chairperson said that sometimes organisations in Parliament worked in silos and a different approach amongst those who dealt with service delivery was needed. They needed to move together when addressing specific issues. The AG had also raised the issue of cooperating together, which was an integrated approach. She supported a facilitation session where they could address issues in a broader manner, particularly a coordinated integrated approach, with the other eleven committees that dealt with service delivery. She favoured a coordinated cluster approach and proposed a meeting with the chairpersons of the other clusters and said the Committee should identify what had to be achieved from the meeting.

Mr Rasool responded that accountability had to be integrated and that this would better facilitate integration. He recommended that it would be useful for the Chairperson to invite the chairpersons to discuss their committee experiences first and to examine the questions that were being asked - since they could have part of the answers. A better understanding of what was going wrong in the state was needed, and how this could be corrected.

The Chairperson requested that the members peruse the Committee Report and send recommendations – they should forward as many suggestions as possible.  Afterwards members could identify key areas together since it would be difficult to develop in a short space of time. The programme could guide the Committee and going into the oversight period would help and be a starting point, regarding the various aspects and oversight that were referred to. She requested that members prepare a draft, and later pick out the best ideas and align them and reinforce certain areas. There would be a one-year plan and a five-year plan of action, which would be reviewed annually, and priority would be given to the most relevant issues. If it was an integrated clustered approach it would work better.
 
Ms Dreyer wanted clarity on the agenda and asked whether the Chairperson would motivate or simply speak to the report or if there would be a debate in the House.

The Chairperson responded that she had received a letter allocating 10 minutes for speaking in the House but did not know whether only one person spoke about the matter during this time. She wanted to check, and that sharing the time was fine.

Consideration and Adoption of Minutes
The Committee adopted the four sets of the minutes with amendments.

Ms Dreyer requested that they received the minutes at least twenty-four hours in advance. 

The Chairperson emphasised that now that the schedule of committees had been issued she wanted meetings with concrete plans and the rest of the time they would deal with the implementation of the plan. She proposed that the Committee could facilitate the process of the plan in one meeting. The Committee would then come together and have a look at what had been proposed. From now on the other meetings would focus on the implementation of the plan of work, to try and bring a change in the work of Committee.

The Chairperson suggested that it would be best if they had a management committee. This was needed to run through issues that did not require all Committee members and to avoid the monopoly of the Chairperson taking decisions. Committee members could choose a management committee of four members, it had to be multi partied and the Chairperson had to be a part of it.

Ms R January (Committee Secretary) explained that the management committee was there to assist with guidance, planning, and checking everything was running accordingly. It smooth out the procedures and processes and to make sure that the administrative side was adhering to what the Committee wanted.

Mr Rasool asked whether by definition that was the work of the Chairperson, the Whip, and perhaps the secretary who should meet from time to time. He suggested that until the management committee was decided, the Committee should get the Chairperson, the Whip and the secretary to act as the organisers of this Committee.

Meeting adjourned.