Outcome 12 Delivery Agreement progress: Departmental briefing

Meeting report

Delivery Agreement progress on Outcome 12: “An efficient, effective and development oriented Public Service, and empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship: Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) briefing
The Chairperson, Ms J Moloi-Moropa (ANC) welcomed everyone, and noted an apology from the  Minister of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), who was still in Egypt.

Mr Kenny Govender, Acting Director-General, Department of Public Service and Administration, gave the Committee a progress report on the Delivery Agreement for Outcome 12. He noted that Outcome 12 aimed to achieve “an efficient, effective and development oriented Public Service and empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship”. There were seven outputs in this Outcome, being
social cohesion, citizens’ participation, the effective tackling of corruption, national identity and nation building, service delivery quality and access, human resource management and development and business process, systems, decision rights and accountability.

Mr Govender said that the Delivery Agreement had been signed on 14 October 2010 and that there were various delivery partners, including Ministers and Premiers. Eight Ministers had signed and four were yet to do so. Six Premiers had signed and three Premiers’ signatures were still outstanding.

Mr Govender noted that the Annual Performance Plan of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) was aligned with the Delivery Agreement, and the Delivery Agreement was also aligned to work emanating from the President’s meeting and task team of senior officials.

Mr Govender outlined that the public expectations and satisfaction with the work of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had declined, from 75% satisfaction in 2006 to 58% in 2008. Government services were still not equally accessible to all South Africans, especially those in rural areas. There were problems in implementing the legislation and frameworks and there was difficulty enforcing compliance across the public service. He highlighted the public service training model and the role of the Public Administration, Leadership Management Academy (Palama). He also noted that there were problems around disciplinary processes in the public service, particularly with delays, since half took more than 106 days to finalise matters, with costs amounting to R45.7 million between April 2009 and March 2010.

He then outlined the response that the DPSA had adopted to address these problems. Firstly, a user satisfaction survey had been conducted, to try to raise user satisfaction levels in the DPSA, Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) and Government Communication and Information Systems (GCIS). There were attempts to improve access to government services by reducing the distance between offices, so that people did not have to travel so far to access Department of Home Affairs, South African Social Service Agency and other services. There were attempts to improve recruitment, retention and career pathing, to fill the vacancies in the public service, and to improve skills with mandatory programmes. The disciplinary processes were to be tightened.

Mr Govender stated that draft methodology for user satisfaction surveys had been developed, and there was currently consultation with delivery partners including Stats SA, GCIS and the Premiers. Several departments were drafting access norms for government services. A draft document on Principles of Public Administration and Financial Delegations was also developed by the DPSA, and it was also developing a system to monitor compliance. Consultation on mandatory training programmes was taking place. DPSA was working on the development of an institutional performance system, which would address Heads of Department performance. HR CONNECT was being put in place in 44 departments, generic organisational structures were being developed for provincial departments of Health, in conjunction with National Treasury and the National Department of Health, and the PERSAL systems were being cleaned up.

Mr Govender then outlined the problem of a perception of corruption in the public service, which was exacerbated by the long time taken for departments to follow up on allegations, with officials being suspended on full pay for lengthy periods, because of lack of investigative capacity, with some of the issues never being concluded. Where sanctions were imposed, they were inconsistent. To address this, the DPSA had built its anti-corruption capacity by establishing a Special Anti-Corruption Unit. It was also instrumental in the Public Sector Anti-corruption Capacity Building Programme, and he noted that an inter-Ministerial task team had been set up. A Multi-Agency working group had been established to deal with fraud and corruption in the procurement process. Personnel skilled in anti-corruption were being appointed to DPSA. The Public Sector Integrity Management Framework had also been drafted, with further consultations due to be held on 25 November, and on the same date the special Anti-Corruption Unit, which had received input from the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), would be launched.  

Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) had started training programmes in July in Gauteng Province as well as Mpumalanga, and a Public Service Pledge was drafted. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) Human Resources (HR) models were designed, to include the capturing of financial disclosure, and to track disciplinary proceedings linked to corruption. A Phase 2 Report was approved by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery. An Action Plan was developed and was awaiting Cabinet approval. The first meeting of the Implementation Review Group had taken place in Vienna, and South Africa would have to undergo a review in 2012.

Mr Govender then moved on to discuss the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), its specific problems and the turnaround strategy. He noted that there were questions around the efficiency and effectiveness of SITA, its stability, poor procurement practices and governance, the execution of regulatory functions, and the high costs involved in acquiring Information and Communication Technology (ICT) services and products. A turnaround strategy had therefore been designed. It sought to re-establish SITA as the proficient lead agency in public sector IT, to establish effective and integrated public service supply chain management, competitive pricing and financial stability for SITA, and to improve its regulatory, governance and monitoring functions. This would involve the strengthening of the SITA governance structures and the Executive, a review of the pricing model of SITA as well as its procurement processes.

He noted that so far, the full Board of SITA had been constituted, and Executive Management appointments were in progress, with a Chief Operations Officer already appointed. The strategy was being implemented, including the Auditor-General’s requirements, the operating costs had been contained, and there was ongoing stakeholder relationship management. A costing and pricing policy had been developed to guide competitive pricing, there had been discussions with vendors to reduce costs, and management of current contracts was being implemented with suppliers.

Mr Govender finally touched on the progress concerning the draft Bill. He noted that internal consultation should be completed by January 2011, and that the approval from Cabinet would be sought in May or June, the State Law Advisors would certify the Bill in July and that it should be ready for introduction into Parliament in July 2011.

Discussion
Mr A Williams (ANC) noted the division of Sections A and B, and said that Section B had been driven by the Department of Arts and Culture, but that public participation was also listed under that Section B. He enquired why this was so.

Mr Williams also referred to the seven outputs in Section A. He noted that the first output reflected service delivery, quality and access. He enquired why nothing had been mentioned about the Thusong Service Centres.

Mr Govender said that public participation was listed in Part B of the “Outcome 12 Report”. He explained that this used an outcomes-based approach, through partnerships on a number of projects that were to be driven by various Departments. He noted that the agreements were defined by the Minister of Public Service and Administration. Public participation was very important to government. Public participation was also closely linked to social cohesion and the need to recognise a national identity. DPSA had recognised the diversity of South Africans, but also recognised that it was important to build a sense of national identity. This building of a national identity was driven by the Department of Arts and Culture. However, they were acting in concert with the Departments of Sport and Recreation and Department of Basic Education.

He then noted that Part A and Output 3 referred to systems. This was driven by National Treasury. Transparency was an important element in the agreements.

Mr Williams was still concerned that even though the DPSA was still involved in public participation, it would be separating itself from the community.

Ms F Bikani (ANC) thought that there were too many segmented clusters.

Mr Williams sought clarity on the mechanisms that the DPSA was putting into place, saying that he was concerned that some of those at grass roots level might not be fulfilling their responsibilities and duties.

Mr Govender said that DPSA was structured in such a way that the Delivery Agreement was assigned to the Minister. The DPSA had to report to the Governance and Administration (G&A) cluster committees. The G&A cluster committees would then report to the G&A Cabinet Committee and a consolidated report would be compiled.

Mr Govender assured Members that the DPSA was responsible, and that there was no way in which it would abdicate from its responsibilities to ensure that work was being done.

The Chairperson noted that public participation had to be looked at in relation to Parliament itself. She sought clarity on who was responsible for public service and administration training, and stressed that all civil servants had the responsibility of public service. It was important that the public must be aware of their rights.

The Chairperson also noted that there was no equivalent of the SITA in respect of Parliament’s needs.

Ms H Van Schalkwyk (DA) noted that the presentation had mentioned the ongoing lack of access to government services in the rural areas. She asked how that issue would be resolved and wondered whether the Thusong Service Centres were going to play a role in that regard.

Mr Govender noted that the Thusong Service Centres were linked to rural accessibility. The final and appropriate placement of the Thusong Service Centres was still being debated. GCIS was working in collaboration with the DPSA and local government to roll out these Thusong Service Centres. He added that the Committee Members would shortly receive an invitation to the opening of a Thusong Service Centre in an urban mall. In addition, the DPSA was looking into the introduction of Public Information Terminals (PITs) that had been established in many Post Offices thus far. He added that the DPSA was still using mobile units, and that the DPSA needed to determine the maximum distance that people needed to travel in order to access these services. There was a need to bear in mind all the available resources.

Mr Williams said that people on the ground were having problems in accessing government services, especially with the Thusong Service Centres.

Mr Govender noted that GCIS had conducted extensive research on the Thusong Service Centres, had identified a range of problems and had already put mechanisms into place to try to deal with them. In addition, DPSA had also signed a contract with SITA for the implementation of LANS and WANS for the Thusong Service Centres that were still without this access. Where no electricity and telephone lines were available, satellite services had been used.

Mr Govender agreed that the service delivery level at Thusong Service Centres must be improved, and that time-lines had to be determined by the legal framework.

Ms Van Schalkwyk sought clarity as to how many Thusong Service Centres were allocated to each municipality.

Mr Govender replied that currently there was one Thusong Service Centre for each municipality. There were over 150 in total. However, only 50% of the service centres were functioning as they should.

Ms A Dreyer (DA) sought clarity on the PITs. She suggested that PITs should be utilised in preference to the Thusong Service Centres, pointing out that the latter had to be separately staffed.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) pointed out that in many rural areas there were clearly insufficient staff at the Thusong Service Centres.

Ms F Bikani (ANC) suggested that the Community Development Workers (CDWs) could play a pivotal role with the operation of the Thusong Service Centres. However, these CDWs would then have to be attached to clearly defined departments.

Mr Govender said that the DPSA would prepare a comprehensive presentation for the Committee on the CDWs and the Thusong Service Centres, and would brief the Committee on the issues, together with other partnering departments, which would include the GCIS.

Mr E Nyekembe (ANC) was concerned about the anti-corruption measures. He acknowledged that the Minister of Public Service and Administration had briefed Parliament on the issues. He was also aware that DPSA was aware of, and was trying to shorten, the long times presently taken for disciplinary processes. He asked if the trade unions were also engaging in attempts to deal with these time lags and delays.

Mr Govender said that the issue of time frames had been derived through a collective agreement, and DPSA had an initiative to shorten the time frames. He noted that during the disciplinary proceedings, public servants were usually represented by fellow employees or a trade union representative. He highlighted that the disciplinary process was a management process, and the responsibility lay with government as a whole to ensure that this happened in a more timeous fashion, without wasting time and resources. One of the DPSA's time saving initiatives was to fast track the disciplinary process by going directly into arbitration as part of a pre-dismissal process. This was being done for senior management. It was a voluntary process for both parties. However, the Department of Labour did not agree with this process.

Mr A Williams (ANC) wanted to know what the relationship was between the DPSA and organised labour.

Ms Bikani sought clarity on labour relations, noting that more transparency was necessary in regard to labour relations in the public sector.

Mr Govender said that there had been excellent relationships between the employers and trade unions before and after strikes.

Committee members sought clarity on the relationship between PERSAL and the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).

Mr Govender said that the DPSA would give a comprehensive presentation to the Committee on these issues. However, he set out briefly that PERSAL was a personnel payment system. The IFMS was one of the legs within the whole system that would derive a payroll solution. Once the IFMS came fully into effect, the PERSAL, which was a legacy system, would be removed, along with other legacy systems. For this reason, there was no intention to upgrade it at this stage, although it was being “cleaned up”. This would allow for better and smoother migration of accurate data onto the new IFMS system.

Mr Williams was concerned about the R50 million that it would cost for the clean-up of the PERSAL system.

Mr Govender said that R50 million had been the projected budget at the time, but that DPSA was unsure whether it would need to spend the full amount on the clean-up. He pointed out that since DPSA would be working in collaboration with other departments, that was to be the overall cost. He highlighted the distinct advantages of migrating or transferring clean or accurate data onto the new IFMS.

Ms Dreyer sought clarity on the statement that the Bill was likely to be introduced into Parliament in July 2011, and enquired if the Bill would then be submitted to public hearings.

The Chairperson confirmed that this would happen.

Mr Nyekembe wanted to know if the DPSA checked with the unions regarding union strategies and tactics.

Ms Bikani commented that the overall report had been satisfactory, in the sense that the issues were slowly being integrated and implemented. She commended the anti-corruption measures, saying that she was pleased that the anti-corruption campaign was being launched and that anti-corruption systems \had been put into place. However, she thought that there should be continuous monitoring, on a quarterly basis, of anti-corruption measures, and suggested that perhaps a committee should be assigned to this. She stressed that this would be necessary, so that Parliament to be able to see the reduction of corruption in the practices of the public service.

Ms Bikani was not, however, satisfied with the training, nor with the performance of the Public Services Sector Education and Training Authority. There were many gaps in accountability, and she thought that more detail was needed on what had been achieved.

Ms Bikani asked whether Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) was involved with Palama. She highlighted the importance of having training centralised.

Ms Bikani then asked for an indication of the strategic and operational plans of the IFMS, including who was heading it, how human resource management was operating, and how the systems were to be aligned. She noted that management sectors were experiencing difficulties with Human Resource Management issues.

Ms Bikani then turned to the SITA presentation, and enquired what was behind the hot-line integration.

Ms Bikani noted that no reports had been submitted on the functions of the regions. She felt that the regional offices were not properly supervised, and she also sought more detail on SITA itself.

Ms Bikani commented that the public participation and outreach programmes from the DPSA should also become more visible, especially for the Thusong Service Centres and the constituency offices.

Ms Bikani wanted to know if there were standardized policies for performance management systems in government.

Mr Nyekembe wanted to know if the DPSA had discussed the merging of any of the Sector Education and Training Authorities, and asked if the DPSA had engaged with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) regarding the challenges experienced in the public sector.

Ms A Dreyer (DA) said that both SITA and Palama had been experiencing problems for years. She said that SITA's mission statement was to become the service provider of choice throughout the public service sector, but clearly it was not achieving that objective. SITA was not competitive when compared to other organisations that were providing a similar service. She thought that perhaps it would be useful to stop using SITA, and rather to use an outsourcing process, with the most competent contractors being appointed. The same could apply to Palama. Universities and training colleges were highly capable of providing a good service.

Mr Govender noted that many of these questions had been clustered, and a response would be provided to the questions and comments.

Other business: Adoption of Minutes
The Committee tabled and adopted the draft minutes for 15 September 2010 and 19 October 2010.

The meeting was adjourned.