PERSAL Clean-up strategy: Deputy Minister briefing; Placement of Public Service Commission & Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy 2011/12 Budgets

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson said he looked forward to a briefing on the Personnel Salary System (PERSAL), as it had been a headache for Government, and almost all provincial governments. He recalled a ‘ghost-busting exercise’ in Limpopo some years previously, when the province discovered that it did not have as many civil servants as had been thought previously. In the Eastern Cape, a similar exercise had been done. A number of cases were currently being investigated by law enforcement agencies where civil servants had logged themselves in for social security benefits.

The Co-Chairperson indicated that the joint meeting was part of the consolidation of both committees work in collaborating in areas of common interest. It was also a follow-up meeting. She reminded delegates to introduce themselves.

PERSAL clean-up strategy: Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) briefing
Hon. Dr Roy Padayachie, Deputy Minister, DPSA, assured Members that he was attending to very serious business. He was not present merely as a substitute for the Minister, but was attending as leader of his own delegation. It was an opportune moment for the Committees to meet jointly, and to hear what the staff of the Department was working on to clean-up data in the PERSAL  (computerized Human Resources system for government). There were two fundamental questions with which the Department had had to grapple before designing the project. The first was to define what was broken in the system. If one did not know what had to be fixed, it was difficult to know how to fix it. The second question was, if it was so broken, why one should want to fix it, and not replace it. The presentation would seek to explain why the existing system was being repaired and retained, as an interim measure, and what the Department hoped to replace it with in a couple of years from now.

The Chairperson reassured the Deputy Minister that Members appreciated the importance of the Deputy Minister’s work, and that his presence in any circumstances could never be a matter of regret.

Dr Ellen Kornegay, Deputy Director General, Governance, DPSA, introduced the delegation. She noted that the Department was dealing with a system that required fixing. However, it was necessary to place the PERSAL system within a more strategic framework. The Department was trying to make that system functional within a developmental state.

Ms Ledule Bosch, Chief Director, Monitoring and Evaluation, DPSA, outlined the presentation, giving the purpose, rationale and context of the strategy to improve the quality of information in the Integrated Human Resource, Personnel and Salary System, better known as  PERSAL – the clean-up strategy.

The PERSAL system was used by all the national and provincial governmental departments. The system had been originally specified by the Office of the Public Service Commission as a personnel and salary system. It had been implemented by National Treasury, which owned the system. The expenditure on the maintenance of the system was provided in the National Treasury’s budget. The system had been in a production environment since 1990. After 1994 PERSAL had incorporated 20 former salary systems into one system.

Shortcomings in the accuracy and availability of human resources information had been identified and would be addressed by the strategy. The strategy would further seek to enhance management of information and the use thereof as these were critical for departmental decision-making processes internally and across the entire Government, since the outcome based performance approach had highlighted the need for accurate and reliable information.

Key problems had been identified. There were a number of departments and institutions at the centre of Government which were responsible for leading the process of improving the quality of human resource Information on PERSAL. These included DPSA, the National Treasury, the Premier’s offices and all Government departments. Initiatives, which these departments and institutions at the centre of Government had taken to date, had not been as successful as would have been desired in producing quality of information for planning and decision making. This situation had led to inconsistent reporting by provincial and national departments to oversight bodies such as Parliament;

PERSAL did not always accurately reflect the actual situation within the Public Service, but this did not mean that all information on PERSAL was unreliable. The major cause of inaccurate information could be ascribed to lack of effective and efficient management of the system and data by both national and provincial departments. The major focus had been only on the financial module whilst other critical variables in the system had not been captured and updated. This was because PERSAL had been largely used as a pay-roll system rather than a human resources (HR) information management system. 

Treasury Notice 7 of 2006 had informed departments of the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). It noted that human resource (HR) systems such as PERSAL specifically would be replaced with a centrally provided integrated application Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) system. Successful implementation of this system required that information on PERSAL be up-to-date and accurate before it was transferred into the new system. The project would therefore be implemented within an environment where PERSAL was earmarked for replacement by the IFMS HR and Payroll Solution.

The argument for replacement versus clean-up was indicated. It was not cost effective or feasible to invest more into PERSAL functionality, considering the imminent replacement of the PERSAL system. In light of the replacement of the HR functionality within PERSAL with the IFMS HR System, the aim was to facilitate the transfer of clean data to the IFMS.

In parallel to the development and implementation of the HR system, the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) had commenced with the development of a new payroll system that would eventually replace PERSAL. Once completed, the payroll system would be closely integrated with the HR system.

In looking ahead to the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and in the light of the replacement of the HR functionality within PERSAL with the IFMS HR System, the aim was to facilitate the transfer of clean data to the IFMS. The objectives of implementing the IFMS HR system were: improving the capacity of the public service to manage its human capital; harmonising and aligning the implementation of public Service HR management policies and processes; supporting monitoring and evaluation; improving HR service delivery by automating and standardising processes; improving the quality of, and access to, HR management information which should lead to better planning and decision-making; and, finally, integrating with the broader IFMS programme and contributing to the achievement of the relevant IFMS objectives such as enhancing the integrity and effectiveness of expenditure management and performance reporting in order to ensure effective service delivery across Government institutions.

The implementation of the Integrated Financial Management System HR would have the potential to solve some of the data quality issues. The automation of the HR processes such as leave applications will eliminate the need for manual capturing which should prevent the data capturing errors. Users and managers would have direct access to the system (and their own data and the data of their components).  This would assist in identifying and correcting data errors. More fields would be made mandatory and it would not be possible to continue with processes if fields were not completed

The transitional phase of Cleaning Up PERSAL would continue until such time that all departments had successfully transferred the cleaned up data to the IFMS. It was envisaged that the joint implementation of the HR and payroll systems in the rest of the public service would commence in April 2012.  It was projected that the roll out to the entire public service would take place over a three to five year period. The execution of the project started in April 2009. It was planned that the DPSA would go live with the HR system in November 2010.  The Free State Department of Education (DoE FS) would follow in the second half of 2011. It was projected that the payroll system would go live in the DPSA in December 2011 and in April 2012 in Department of Education in the Free State.  It was envisaged that the joint implementation of the HR and payroll systems in the rest of the Public Service would commence April 2012.  It was projected that the roll out to the entire Public Service would take place over a three to five year period.

A Change Management Approach would seek to ensure that change management aspects of the strategy addressed changes in business processes, systems, decision rights and accountability management;
improve the culture of information management and utilisation for planning and decision making in the public service; create awareness of the project and the benefits associated thereof; and endorse a culture of doing things differently.

The objective of the Clean-Up Strategy was to enhance the management of systems, the cleaning of PERSAL information, and maintenance of the information to ensure continuous quality and use of the information in management decisions. The target was national and provincial departments.  The scope of the strategy was cleanup projects, maintenance of system and data, and the effective usage of information in decision making.

The technical focus of the strategy was the identification of crucial and strategic information. Crucial and strategic information had been identified in the National Minimum Information Requirements; this would form the basis of the information to be cleaned as phase 1 of the strategy.  The information included essential biographical information for all employees, current rank and salary information for all employees, education, training and development information for all employees, career incidents within the public service, disciplinary matters, leave, organisational and geographical information, and all posts on the fixed establishment.

The technical focus would further include the analysis of data quality, and assurance on data quality. Collection, collation, verification and analysis would be performed in partnership with Stats SA with a set of recommendations on improvements; as well as dissemination of the quality assessment to national and provincial cabinet and departments, and development of the data management/cleanup methodologies and tools.

The following guides and methodologies would be developed: PERSAL cleanup methodology; PERSAL management and implementation guide; and guide on the use of management information. Clean-up projects in preparation for the implementation of the IFMS included the Western Cape Provincial  Department of the Premier and Treasury, which had undertaken a joint project to verify the accuracy of all data on PERSAL in phases. Phase 1 was to deal with newly appointed employee. Departments were required to complete 75 compulsory fields on PERSAL for newly appointed employees (including contract renewals of staff who were re-appointed) with immediate effect. Phase 2 was the development of a Verification Tool (HRDVS). The Centre for e-Innovation together with Treasury and the CD: HRM had developed a verification tool to facilitate the updating of information of current employees. As preparation, employees would be required to complete the compulsory fields as found on the HRDVS. The system would go live in August/September 2010 and employees would be able to access the system to update/amend and capture their information; departments were to ensure that all current employees collected information and relevant documents to facilitate the process before the system was live. Once all data had been captured, updated/amended, all relevant documents would be submitted to the HR Components for verification; the verification process would ensure that the captured, updated/amended information on the system was correctly matched with the relevant documentation. It was envisaged that all clean-up projects would follow the same methodology

As to dissemination and use of the information, the MS Excel-based summarised departmental report would be distributed to top management based on the analysis of PERSAL information. There would be provision of exception reports and progress based on data quality assessment.

With a view to the development of skills, the following training material would be developed with a focus on management within departments: a guide to the management and maintenance of PERSAL; and a guide to the utilisation of management information. Training would be focussed on the following groups: PERSAL users and administrators; PERSAL Managers; and users of PERSAL information.

As to the methodology of implementation, the PERSAL Clean-Up Strategy consisted of five Key Pillars namely: technical focus; the Campaign (including the Communication and Advocacy Process); the Implementation Approach; Accountability and Monitoring; and Implementation Support to Departments.

The strategy sought to provide both technical and administrative assistance to departments in the implementation of the project. A guide to the management of the system and use of management information was being completed, and tools would be provided to assist Data Clean-up

As to campaign phases and timelines, there would be a programme of communication and advocacy between August and October 2010. The project was championed by the Deputy Minister for the Department of Public Service and Administration. A high level Implementation Plan would be rolled out to all Premiers’ offices and departments as part of the initial awareness raising campaign. Senior and executive management of departments would be targeted for the first presentation of the project for buy-in and support. All stakeholders would be identified and collaboration would be required. A collective agreement with stakeholders in taking the project forward would be entered into. This project aimed at ensuring a principle of participation by all relevant stakeholders to the greatest extent possible. Introductory Letters to Premier’s offices and departments calling for support needed to be prepared as a matter of urgency, as well as a project brief to serve as background document.

Governance structures were described. A Steering Committee with set timelines and schedule of meetings would be established, as would a National Forum on PERSAL. There would be collaboration with the G&A Implementation Forum on output 2: Human Resources. The Steering Committee would consist representatives including the DPSA as the policy owner, PALAMA, which was concerned with the development of capacity in the public service, the National Treasury as the owner of the system, the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) as the owner of the infrastructure, Stats SA as the experts on data, provincial human resources committees under the leadership of Premier’s Offices, and the Presidency.
 
In order to monitor implementation of the project, a six monthly analysis would be performed to determine the change in the quality of the information; departmental progress against plans and data quality assessment would be assessed by the Steering Committee; six monthly changes in the status of exception reports would be monitored on a six monthly basis; progress reports would be distributed to identified structures; there would be site visits to poor and  well performing departments; the reports of the Auditor General and the Public Service Commission would be utilised for verification; the annual data verification process would be institutionalised; and the reports of the Steering Committee and the National Project Forum would be discussed and disseminated for follow-up and intervention.

Compliance would be enforced through the following: reporting to oversight bodies on a regular basis; notification of non-compliance to the executive authority concerned; and provisioning of compliance ratings to the Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry within the Presidency

The following mechanisms would be explored towards strengthening accountability: integration of data quality into the performance agreement of directors-general; integration of data quality into the executive authority’s delivery agreements; reporting of data quality analysis to Cabinet, national and provincial, and to Parliament, and to request the Accountant General to perform audits on data quality of selected fields.

It was recommended that the Standing Committee on Finance and the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration note the contents of the strategy, the campaign phase and timelines, the technical focus, implementation methodology, and accountability and monitoring approach.  

Discussion
The Chairperson asked if National Treasury had anything to present on the subject.

Mr Lesetja Kganyago, Director-General, National Treasury, responded that National Treasury was present in a supportive role.

Dr D George (DA) referred to the strategy to improve the quality of information on PERSAL, page 13. He asked if Statistics South Africa would assess the performance of the data quality on a six monthly basis in the future. Was there currently no quality assessment of this system?  If so, that would be of major concern. Noting that National Treasury was the business owner for the payroll function within PERSAL, he asked how National Treasury ensured that the payroll data was valid and reliable (Strategy to Improve the Quality of Information on PERSAL, page 14). If not, why not? Would there be a status report on what would have been accomplished by December 2010.

Ms A Dreyer (DA) described the presentation as a statement of aspiration. However, she said that she was slightly cynical. One had heard these things for four years or more. For this she was not blaming the current Acting Chief Financial Officer. It was possible to have the most sophisticated system anywhere in the world, but it would fail unless implemented properly. The presentation had included the words monitoring, organisational culture, discipline, sick leave, and accountability; these four words – monitoring, culture, discipline, and accountability – were crucial and demanded concentration if implementation of this very technical product was to be successful. It was essential to ensure that data that was reliable and of high quality was captured on the system. In the past, had there been any consequences for people who had not done their jobs properly? How would the recurrence of past problems be prevented when the new system was implemented?

Ms H van Schalkwyk (DA) asked the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) if a tender for the procurement section of Government for the IFMS been awarded by SITA. If so, which firm was the successful bidder for the procurement contract? Secondly, was a test of due diligence undertaken to ascertain whether the successful bidder had the capacity to deliver on the scale of the IFMS contract? Lastly, she asked the value of the IFMS contract.  

Ms F Bikane (ANC) commented that the plan was a good strategy. However, more was needed on the time frame. A great many promises had been made. She asked about the apparently lengthy time frames for implementation. She asked why, if the PERSAL system was to be replaced in due course, it was necessary to make excuses for it rather than simply to replace it. What coordinated work had been done with relevant stakeholders? She asked when the Committee could meet the Steering Committee.

Mr A Williams (ANC) asked National Treasury, if the employees concerned were to have the relevant documentation for the start-up in September 2010, why the existing information should not simply be loaded into the new system.  How much would the whole process cost? Could National Treasury explain why it did not think that this whole exercise was fruitless and wasteful expenditure? He also asked about the cost of training, and questioned the need for training on a system that was about to be phased out. Would this not confuse everyone when the new system was implemented, and everybody would have to be retrained on the new system? He asked lastly if the new system had been tested anywhere else. He hoped that it would not be necessary to have a clean-up strategy for the new system five years hence.

In her response, Ms Bosch said that some of the departments were very good in ensuring that their data was clean. There was obviously an assessment of data quality. The Department’s responsibility was to collect, collate, and verify information. The information disseminated was the information that came from PERSAL and had been analysed.

Ms Bosch replied that the Department felt that it would be successful in this regard. There would be regular reporting on the quality of data. The executive and senior management of departments needed to take responsibility for the quality and reliability of the data produced by their departments. Therefore one of the recommendations was to make sure that the quality of data became part of the performance agreements of the directors-general. This applied especially to the information for which the department concerned had particular and critical responsibility. Until now, the data capturers had been concentrating on the financial side of the system. This was understandable given the history of the system, which was a system designed for financial records. 

Mr Kganyago explained why National Treasury was referred to as the owner of the system. National Treasury was also responsible for the financial management policy in regard to the system.  SITA on the other hand was responsible for the hosting and the maintenance of the main frame computer. The Department of Public Service and Administration was responsible for policy development.

Mr Kganyago said that the second issue was how systems interacted in reality. From National Treasury’s perspective, PERSAL, and its successor, was not to be seen as an end in itself. It required competent people who needed to be guided by processes as to how they interacted with the system. This would give an idea of how the relationship existed. Although National Treasury believed that there were problems with the applications – he acknowledged that PERSAL was outdated and traced its history to the 1980s – it was still a functional application. It was still capable of doing what it was called upon to do. National Treasury’s support for the project on the table was that, unless one started immediately to make sure that the data was clean and well-maintained henceforth, it would not make a very good business case to migrate the information into the new application in its current form. He emphasised the dire need to ensure that all data was clean and accurate before being put into the new system. It was also necessary to appreciate in the process that, given the design of the IFMS, there were two sides – the payroll side and the human resources side. The human resources model would be run by the Department of Public Service and Administration; however, for that to be effective, the payroll module needed also to be fully effective. This might explain why time lines were varied. Therefore the roll-out strategy for the human resources module had to be closely interlinked with the roll-out of the payroll module itself. Therefore the time-lines needed to be synchronised to ensure that human resources did not run too far behind. This was why some of the time-lines were as they currently stood. At the moment, what one had was the human resources module being currently prepared for roll-out and Mr Cornel Uys, Chief Director, IFMS, would perhaps give more details. Obviously, once the payroll application was in place, it would obviously be rolled out to the rest of Government. Again, it needed to be emphasised that the success of that roll-out would be highly dependent on the quality and accuracy of data in the current application. This was necessary to avoid repeating the challenges that were inherent in the existing application. 

Mr Kganyago said that the challenge was not necessarily the application itself, but the challenge lay elsewhere. From the experience of National Treasury, the challenge lay in the type of people who captured the data. This is why National Treasury supported the idea that the accounting officer of the department needed to be held responsible and accountable to ensure that the kind of people appointed were all of such a nature that they could do this kind of work competently.

The Co-Chairperson said that she would continue to take questions from Members who had already raised their hands, but noted that Dr Kornegay had indicted that she had something to add.

Dr Kornegay said that Ms Van Schalkwyk’s question had previously been submitted in writing to the Minister of Public Service and Administration. The Minister of Finance was currently compiling a response to that question.

Ms Bosch said that the last question had been about the time-frame. The Department was reviewing the clean-up process in the medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) period.

Ms Bosch said that the Steering Committee had been established and the Department hoped soon to report on progress. 

Mr Williams felt that National Treasury had not really answered his question. He had asked how much this whole process would cost. He wanted an explanation why this was not fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
Fundamentally, one would take new data and instead of putting it straight into the new system, one would put it into the PERSAL system. What not cut that system out, and start with the new system immediately?

Dr George agreed with Mr Williams. Dr George had not asked about the future; he had asked about the present. He understood from the Strategy to Improve the Quality of Information on PERSAL that National Treasury was the business owner of the payroll function. So are we saying that the National Treasury does not know whether the data in the system that it owned and had oversight over, whether that data was valid and reliable? And if that was the case, then it was very disturbing. He understood what National Treasury was saying about the future that needed to be clean. But if National Treasury was responsible for something now and did not know that this data was sound, Dr George wanted to know why.

Mr L Ramatlakane (COPE) asked what the source on which the strategy had been based was. There should be some studies elsewhere which had informed the strategy. Why should Members believe that this system would work tomorrow? According to the Strategy to Improve the Quality of Information on PERSAL there were 75 fields that must be completed. What then happened to the existing data which was under discussion? What would happen with the old data now that one was requiring the completion of 75 fields? What would be the cost, including the human cost, involved?

Mr Ramatlakane was curious about the executive authority performance agreement. Did this mean that there was really a crisis? It was remarkable that the matter of data collection had to be elevated to the level of director-general, rather than kept at a more appropriate level of responsibility.

Mr Ramatlakane asked how many minutes it took for one individual to complete the 75 fields, and how much this cost in financial terms. He asked for National Treasury’s view. 

Dr Z Luyenge (ANC) wanted to emphasise the role of the DPSA in relation to the reliability of the current data. This was a national crisis. After 16 years of democracy, one could not say that the information in the system was reliable. It was not apparent that the Department was sure that it was cost effective to improve or replace the system. The implementation of the PERSAL system in the beginning was partial, when there were these fragmented other systems; and one was now introducing IFMS. More clarity was needed. Members of Parliament needed to interpret the implications in their provinces and constituencies.  It was to be noted that the provinces had been reluctant to agree to the implementation of PERSAL, since people were channelling Government money by means of ghost employees and ghost institutions. Now at national level it was being said that one was not sure about the reliability of information and that there was a need to improve it. IFMS was not a new system, administratively or otherwise. Those concerned were doing what they should have done in the beginning. Where did one locate PERSAL in the IFMS? He noted that some Members were fundis in this field. 

Mr D van Rooyen (ANC) said that this question had been posed twice so far. He would just add a rider to it. He asked if the application had been tested elsewhere and what had been learned from such experience. It had to be asked how one could remedy these implications.

Mr Van Rooyen said that another question had been posed previously: the cost of the exercise.

Mr Van Rooyen said that there was a common attitude of not experiencing the co-operation of other departments. It was clear that the role to be played by other departments was crucial. He missed an indication that there was capability to ensure proper compliance. One could not wait six months only to be told that this or the other department was not cooperating. This kind of thing was common.

The Co-Chairperson noted that the Auditor-General remarked the audit reports on the PERSAL system, as a critical element that Members of Parliament used for information in their oversight. There had been a presentation by the Government Employees’ Pension Fund (GEPF), in which there was still an issue to which a response was awaited.

The Co-Chairperson noted that Members of Parliament also used annual reports as a monitoring tool. The statistics in these was based on PERSAL. Currently the status quo as it had been presented was most unclear, as was apparent from Members’ questions. Not much had been said about the IFMS. National Treasury had supported the presentation, but had not got into the core of it. 

The Co-Chairperson noted that she was sure that there was a need for a thorough consultation amongst the structures concerned prior to coming to Parliament to present. Such entities such as Statistics South Africa should have been involved. It was apparent that this consultation was lacking.

The Co-Chairperson was concerned also about matters of timeframes. 

The Deputy Minister said that it was necessary to clarify a couple of matters which under-laid some of the Members’ comments. The first was to do with the question of the reliability or unreliability of the data and whether the DPSA took responsibility. His feeling was that everyone was a victim of South Africa’s decentralised system of administration.  The responsibility for the human resources modules in Government was taken by the respective departments. The DPSA did not function as an over-arching body. Instead, it had the responsibility for the formulation of policy. ‘We think this is one of the weaknesses.’ It had the responsibility to formulate policy, but might not have the power to enforce compliance. That was a particular weakness in the system at the present time that one was trying to address. Although the presentation touched upon it, most likely one had not focused upon it. One thought that the element of training and education in the management of the system was a very critical component in remedying these difficulties. National Treasury still held the view that the applications in the system must be relevant in that one would be obtain the information from the new human resources modules, but what tended to corrupt the information was the incorrect inputting of data into the system. Therefore a major portion of the difficulties with the system was that the people who manned the system were not doing their jobs properly. The responsibility for that still resided with each department. Thus PALAMA was a critical stakeholder in the DPSA’s endeavour to correct this problem. PALAMA had been mandated to examine the training and development side. So side by side with cleaning up the data, the operators of the system would be trained. Thus hopefully the current problems experienced would be reduced. 

The Deputy Minister thought that the presentation had covered the subject of time frames. It was a clean-up project. Ideally one would have a situation in which one could say that one was beginning immediately. The difficulty with putting a fixed time was that it was not possible, from the perspective of the DPSA, to determine when the new system would be up and running. This brought one to the current conundrum – that the National Treasury owned the system, while the DPSA bore a certain responsibility, and others bore other responsibilities. It was really the call of National Treasury to bring greater clarity to the Committee on the IFMS system. Hence the value of the joint meeting, since the Finance Committee must drive the implementation of the IFMS system, so that all in Government would be much clearer on when this new system was gong to commence. The DPSA acknowledged that a great deal of work done and that it would be appropriate to obtain ‘that report’ at some stage on the development of the IFMS system. The DPSA was examining how to interface with that new system when it came into operation. The clean-up project was to prepare, from the human resources side, to have the relevant and correct information to feed into that new system. The DPSA would have hoped for a better round of consultative discussions with the Treasury committee. There had been two consultations, but the DPSA would have wished for more, so that when it next met the Committee, it could bring a better sense of the IFMS system and how one could fit the timelines that the Committee required. If the DPSA delegation had given the impression that the clean-up project had been in progress for some time, that was not so. The DPSA today was presenting the conceptual framework of the project. Some of the work had begun in respect of the project in the Western Cape, and so on. However, the clean-up project had not fully started, but it was estimated that it would take three years.

The Deputy Minister wanted to concur with the Member who had said that quality of data collection was a critical and core element of the project. He also wanted to tighten the time lines after a much clearer presentation from the National Treasury. 

The Deputy Minister could only say to Ms Dreyer, who had been hearing this tune for a long time, four years previously – ‘new hits are always old tunes with new fingers. He assured Ms Dreyer that the DPSA was gong to provide her with a new hit. ‘This is what we are determined to do’. He said that Mr Williams was still expecting the National Treasury to respond to his matters.           

Mr Kganyago, Director-General, National Treasury, replied that the training had two components. One was to enable people to become human resources practitioners in departments. The second part was the training on the system to become better practitioners in the environment of the new system. Therefore, the National Treasury did not consider the training to be wasteful expenditure. It was an investment for the future.

Mr Williams interrupted to say that his question was not on the cost of training on PERSAL alone, but the entire cost, and the wasteful expenditure of the entire process, not just the training.

Mr Kganyago said that he could respond only on the issues of PERSAL. The current expenditure on PERSAL was around R50 million; this included the training. It must be borne in mind that the National Treasury bore the cost of training all national and provincial departments. 
National Treasury ran some 200 training courses in a year, and trained approximately 4 000 people on PERSAL per annum. 

SITA mentioned that it had not been aware that it would have to discuss IFMS in this meeting, only PERSAL. It would be quite happy to do an update.

The Co-Chairperson said that the Committee had indicated that there must be an integrated approach between DPSA and National Treasury in terms of the presentation. She did not think that Members’ questions would be answered to their satisfaction, given the gaps in the presentation.  It was important that when a department was given an assignment, it was taken seriously, and came fully prepared to meet a committee.

The Deputy Minister said that the Co-Chairperson’s last comment was incorrect. There had been several engagements between the DPSA and National Treasury. The Director-General had been quite correct; the limitation was that in the agenda for the meeting, it should have been made much clearer that the Committee also wanted an update on the IFMS project. ‘Perhaps that is what we need to remedy now.’ So many questions had dealt with migration to the new system. 

The Chairperson forecast that Mr Williams would be covered by what Dr Luyenge was going to say.

Dr Luyenge said that the Co-Chairperson had correctly said that there were gaps in the presentation. It was clear that there was no collaboration amongst the stakeholders. He could not allow a situation where the Co-Chairperson was told that she was incorrect. Who was the sponsor of this clean-up? Was it the executive responsibility, or was it a departmental approach? The Department must return and consult with other stakeholders, including the provinces.

Ms F Bikane (ANC) said that Members were still left with the question of why there should not be a direct migration to the new system, if the PERSAL was going to be a waste. If the Committee had been given information on the IFMS, it would have been able to challenge the clean-up strategy more effectively. Perhaps one might have to examine the idea of renaming the project.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) said that it seemed like a wasteful expenditure to devote time to cleaning up the data in PERSAL, when there was going to be a new system.

Mr L Suka (ANC) was confused by the sequence of events in the project, as described in the documentation. There were contradictions. Moreover, the reality on the ground did not match what had been said.

Mr Ramatlakane was not hopeful that all his questions could be answered. It was assumed that the IFMS was one solution to the issue of data quality. The assumption that it must be integrated was correct. In the discussion of the problem and the solution there had to be integration. Progress could not be expected in this discussion, until Members were fully informed about IFMS. He suggested an adjournment with a view to reconvening with a more integrated approach and solution.
A Member asked about skills development. She raised the question because she had been in the public service for very long. She asked if there was going to be training of the same people who were known to have corrupted the system.

The Chairperson asked the Deputy Minister for suggestions on how to move forward.

The Deputy Minister could only concur that there must be a presentation on the IFMS system. The observation was incisive, and the DPSA must note it, but did not yet have the answer. However, certainly, training was a very strong element in the planning to overcome the difficulties. This the DPSA was leaving to PALAMA because the matter was in the field of expertise of the Academy. The observation made by the Member was quite accurate. It was true that it was the current operators who had corrupted the system. 

SITA said that it would prepare a presentation on the IFMS. SITA normally did this ‘in the other Committee’. The fact that it was a new system did not mean that one stopped operating the current system. He gave the example of replacing a car. One had to keep maintaining the car that was due to be replaced, otherwise it would stop. He defended the need to clean the data, before migration. In the end the system was only as good as the people operating it. Many systems failed because the management of change had been handled badly. This was why training was at the heart of the project. It would be necessary to train the people that were already in post. ‘I am not sure if all of them are corrupt.’ There were many honest ones. It had to be stated that one could never ‘throw a good system at your problem.’ The system simply enabled people to perform better. On the other hand the system could simply assist one to make the same mistakes faster. IFMS was about procurement, asset management, and inventory control. It was about an integrated data management system.  

The Co-Chairperson said that PERSAL had many discrepancies, and had hampered many of the other programmes that Parliament was working on. It was problematic, and something had to be done. The two Committees had not been able to move forward from this input. Integration of the system, and discussion around it, was of critical importance. Unfortunately, the presentation had left Members with ‘a bitter taste’.
Members had expected more.

The Chairperson advised the delegates, as practitioners, not to assume knowledge on a particular technical subject on the part of Members. He knew that amongst the delegates there had been much interaction and that they had done much work, but they had simply told Members about what already existed and work in progress.  What was missing in the presentation was information about the transitional measures. He noted that he himself had spoken to the National Treasury and the idea of such a meeting as this had been welcomed. It would have been much better if the presentation had incorporated information on work in progress on the IFMS. He agreed that in the migration to the new system it would be wrong to carry over corrupted information. It was essential to clean data to ensure that the new system was credible, but that should not be merely implied in the presentation; it should be made explicit. It was agreed that a comprehensive, joint presentation was required. 

Placement of Public Service Commission (PSC) and Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) Budget for 2011/12: National Treasury update
The Co-Chairperson said that in the current year there had been a collapse of the budget vote for the Public Service Commission, which had always been a standalone institution, into the budget vote of the Department of Public Service and Administration, and the Committee would receive a response from National Treasury on this matter.  She noted that National Treasury had indicated that it would respond orally

Mr Kganyago confirmed the he would respond orally, and that there would be no presentation document.  National Treasury had moved from the rationale that institutions funded from one ministry should be part of one vote, especially where the budgets of the institutions were not big enough to justify a separate vote. National Treasury had learned from the Justice vote that the Human Rights Commission vote was carried on the vote of the Department of Justice, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) was carried on the vote of the Department of Justice, and it was the same with the Independent Electoral Commission, which although an independent entity, was carried on the vote of the Department of Home Affairs. National Treasury noted an anomaly in the Ministry due to the broad definition of Public Service and Administration, where historically there had been three votes. In the fiscal year that had just ended, the Department was putting PALAMA and the PSC on the same budget vote: the total budget vote was R682 million. National Treasury thought that there was a need to consolidate these into one vote; it had left PALAMA as covered by the DPSA’s Programme Five (Vote 11: Public Service and Administration); the Public Service Commission was funded under Programme Six (the same vote - Vote 11: Public Service and Administration). Experience from the other two votes being Justice and Home Affairs, National Treasury did not think that the independence of an institution such as the PSC would be compromised, since the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) would continue to be applied.  The policy remained in the hands of the Minister of Public Service and Administration.

Discussion
Ms Dreyer could accept National Treasury’s argument in the case of PALAMA, which was an entity of the Department of Public Service and Administration, and reported directly to the Minister, who was PALAMA’s political head. However, the difference between PALAMA and the Public Service Commission was vital and a huge difference in principle. The Public Service Commissioners was not appointed by the Minister and did not report to the Minister. They were appointed by Parliament and reported to Parliament. Although the Public Service Commission was not a Chapter 9 Institution – it was a Chapter 10 Institution, it still had the same constitutional guarantees. Ms Dreyer reminded Members that he who paid the piper called the tune. In effect, the Public Service Commission could be swallowed or short-circuited if it did not get sufficient funds. It already struggled to do what was expected of it with the small budget that it received. It was most important that the Public Service Commission retained its independence and must be seen to retain its independence.  If there was to be change it should be in the direction of retaining and increasing its independence. A budget should be allocated to the Public Service Commission alone, in respect of which the Public Service Commission should be entirely responsible for its spending – not to Parliament or to the Minister – in order to strengthen its independent role.

Mr Williams concurred with Ms Dreyer that the Public Service Commission’s independence would be jeopardised by the change in the arrangements for its budget. The Public Service Commission could not be a referee if it was paid by one of the players. This would be unusual, and it would be wrong.

Dr Luyenge said that he had been covered by Ms Dreyer and Mr Williams. His question was on the obligations of the Public Service Commission, and the consequences if the Public Service Commission had to account to ‘one of its customers’. It was a question of its integrity. Maybe the Public Service Commission had itself debated this issue? What was the view of the Department?

The Co-Chairperson said that the Public Service Commission was an independent body and a Chapter 10 institution. She read ‘Clause 196 of the Public Service Commission’: ‘Other organs of the state through legislative or other measures, must assist and protect the Commission to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the Commission; no person or organ of state may interfere in the function of the Commission.’ She asked National Treasury to note that in its response, and bear in mind that the Commission was an independent body which did not account to the Department.  

Mr Kganyago said that, after hearing the Co-Chairperson read that clause, he took ‘even more comfort’; he acknowledged that the Commission was protected in the Constitution. There was nothing that the National Treasury could do to change the independent status of the Public Service Commission. The Appropriations Act specifically and exclusively allocated money to votes and programmes. Once that money was allocated, the Department of Public Service and Administration could not cut the budget of the Public Service Commission, since the money would have been allocated by National Treasury and specifically appropriated for those particular institutions. With regard to consistency, as mentioned in connection with the Human Rights Commission and the Independent Electoral Commission, there were no other anomalies: all such Chapter 9 and Chapter 10 institutions were carried on the budget vote of a particular ministry which had oversight responsibility. However, Mr Kganyago noted Members’ concerns about the independence of such bodies. He said, however, that there were sufficient checks and balances both in the Constitution and in the Appropriations Act to protect them.    

Ms Bikane said that an argument was not required, rather a way forward: a review of the whole process, between the Department and the National Treasury was required. If, as Mr Kganyago had said, similar organs of state had not been included, then it had to be asked why an exception had been made for the Public Service Commission, the exception that National Treasury now sought to change. This called for question after question, despite hearing from the National Treasury that the Commission would still be protected.  That the budget of the Commission was now to be included in the same vote as the Department would surely challenge the Commission’s independence. She wanted the situation corrected. 

Mr Ramatlakane said that he did not think that it was necessarily the budget for the Commission which Members were debating. The issue was the principle of standing alone. The process on which Members should embark was how to achieve this objective. That the budget was small was not in itself a criterion for merging its budget with that of the Department.

The Co-Chairperson noted that the budget of the Commission, as a stand-alone budget, had not been a good example, as it had always been presented to Parliament by the Minister. The current situation, in which the budget was to be ‘collapsed’ into that of the Department, was nevertheless not a good situation. As a matter of principle, the process which had been initiated by the Presiding Officer of reviewing the independent institutions was the one that would take Members forward. She suggested leaving the matter at that level.

The meeting was adjourned.