Improved production in the public service & National Development Plan: Ministerial briefing

Meeting report

Opening remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, Minister of Public Service and Administration, and said that she was particularly appreciative of her presence as it was recognised that meetings of this Committee often clashed with Cabinet business. She noted the apology from the Deputy Minister, who was busy with other government business.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had recently attended a Strategic Planning workshop, along with other entities from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), and a commitment had been made that problems around the over-arching oversight of the Committee would be addressed by the Department and the Public Service Commission (PSC).

The Chairperson noted that she would have to leave the meeting early and apologised for this.

Key programmes identified to transform the Public Service to a high-productivity machinery capable of fast-tracking the implementation of the National Development Plan (NDP): Minister of Public Service’s address
Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, Minister for Public Services and Administration, quipped that there were more members of her team than Committee Members at the meeting, but said that this was indicative of her commitment to account to Parliament. She said that she had prepared more of an informal and informative address, rather than a formal presentation.

She noted that the Director General of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) was currently in Limpopo, pioneering the Office of Standards and Compliance (OSC); and the implementation of section 100. An Acting Director General had been appointed to ensure the smooth day-to-day running of the Department.

Ms Sisulu agreed that it was often difficult for her to attend this Committee’s meetings because one of her duties as DPSA Minister was to introduce new Directors-General and Deputy Directors-General to Cabinet, since the DPSA ensured that they meet all the requirements. She stated emphatically that the turn-over of senior officials in government was unacceptability high.  

Ms Sisulu then noted that her address would cover the key interventions that the DPSA was undertaking to transform the public service to high productivity in line with the National Development Plan (NDP). The National Development Commission (NDC) had diagnosed several problems with the State’s policies. It had, in particular, highlighted the unevenness of state capacity and the unevenness of state performance in delivering services. It was suggested that the Department revisit Chapter J, re-assess its failures and strengths.

One of the remedies suggested in the National Development Plan (NDP) was the need for establishment of a professional public service. She noted that it was necessary to create an Administrative Head of the Public Service and to remove any risk of political intrusion into the recruitment process. This should also address the high turnover. It was also suggested that the role of the Public Service Commission (PSC) be revisited and strengthened. Overall, recruitment practices had to be improved.
 
It was also suggested that the Directors General in the public service should be dealing with matters of human resources. The Minister noted that there was a shortage of skilled personnel in the public service, as borne out in the uproar after the Auditor-General revealed that the State spent millions on outside consultants. The State had been “bleeding money”. It was recognised that it was hard to retain talented and skilled personnel in the Public Service. There was a need to improve intergovernmental relations to ensure efficiency.

Another major finding of the NDC was that corruption continued to be a threat to effective service delivery. The Minister was emphatic that corruption was still a clear and present threat to the moral fibre of the country, and the functioning and image of the whole Public Service. She mentioned that she had recently been on a working visit to Ethiopia, with the President for the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). Several instructive experiences were seen of the way that Tanzania was fighting corruption. That country’s lesson was that, no matter what economic system pertained, be it socialism or a free-market economy, corruption continued to be a problem, and it seemed that corruption was endemic to all developmental states. The Tanzanian solution was to set up an Anti-Corruption Bureau. The President was keen on this idea. Such a bureau could encompass a database of offenders and individuals’ interests in various entities, and the conducting of and lifestyle audits of all public servants. It also provided the necessary infrastructure, technology to deal effectively with corruption. These three strands together provided a buffer against corruption.

The Public Service Act (PSA) was being amended to make provision for such a Bureau. It would be necessary for the Bureau to work together with other law enforcement agencies. There was a confluence of factors to deal with the backlog of cases that were not resolved. Details of this would be revealed in the next meeting, and the amendments would be brought to the Committee. 

The Minister conceded that to date, the DPSA had been weak in enforcing norms and standards, with inadequate attention to compliance. This was highlighted by the report of the Auditor-General (AG) for 2011/2012. As a result, the Office of Standards and Compliance (OSC) was set up, which was a long-overdue intervention. The State frequently discovered, quite late, that there were problems in the Provinces, and this was often too late to stem the tide, but it was hoped that this OSC would lead to early detection of problems. An intervention team would be ready to deal with problems, from the start, in terms of Section 100. The Director General was busy with such an initiative in Limpopo, and the Minister assured Members that his seniority would give him the necessary boost to ensure things were done. This would also deal with the often long-drawn out interpretations of what section 100 meant and entailed. 

When the Department started this programme, it had had to deal with a negotiated settlement. A day after the Minister had been appointed, a dispute was declared by the unions, and the matter had been taken to the PSC. The Department had sat down with the unions to find common ground. One of the ideas that came out of the NDC was that the adversarial relationship between the state and unions must be transformed. There had been drawn-out consultations between the parties, resulting in the Public Service Charter. This would be distributed to Members in due course. It would form the basis for greater co-operation. It was hoped that it would be signed on 20 May 2013, although she commented that it had been intended to be signed on the 20^th day of each month, for a number of months but had been delayed. This time, it had to be signed, given the pending budget vote.

The Public Service Charter drew on the strength of labour to drive the public service to do good. One of the agreements was that entrants to the public service should forgo a pay progression. This would contribute to the professionalisation programme. This was being implemented.

Another issue that emerged from the negotiated settlement was the uneven salary structure in the public service – especially for nurses and teachers. Teachers, in particular, felt aggrieved. Therefore, the DPSA had prioritised this sector, in order not to jeopardise teaching any further. The President bought into the idea of the Remuneration Commission and he had already addressed it in his State of the Nation address. She noted that the role of the Remuneration Commission was not to raise salaries but to evaluate pay, benefits, conditions, and to assess whether the state was getting its worth and value for money from employees. The nature of the Remuneration Commission was such that ordinary people would have input on whether public servants were performing satisfactorily. It may be that the Commission might find that some people in the public service were actually overpaid, or that some sectors were underpaid, but, whatever was eventually found, the Commission and DPSA would communicate with the public.

DPSA, having been able to ascertain that one of the biggest problems was the need to create a professional service, had then realised that there was not a culture and ethos of professionalism and excellence. The Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) was re-assessed. It had originally been introduced, in 1996, after a Presidential commission had concluded that there were sufficient institutions and resources to provide training for the public service. The Department had since realised that in fact the original model of PALAMA was not what it needed, but instead it had to have an institution that would instil a culture of a committed, hard-working, dedicated public service, whose first priority was service to citizens. The idea was to have its own School of Government. A Cabinet memorandum now mandated the Minister to put together a task team. This had been done, comprising eminent scholars from all spheres of society. Some MPs had already taken some of the compulsory courses and this had benefited them greatly.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Minister for her presentation, commenting that she had energy and showed good vision. There was great synergy already in the DPSA and many issues had already been clarified. The Committee would monitor progress eagerly. The progress on anti-corruption was also noted. It was important not to just lament corruption, but to do something about it.

The Committee was happy to hear about the OSC, which had been dealt with in the strategic planning sessions. She reminded Members that this session had also covered the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) process and PALAMA. The question remained as to how all of this would be integrated into the work of the Department. The Committee wanted to be kept apprised of all the progress, and to know the plans to take matters further. The Committee also wanted to know exactly how these programmes would fit into outcome 12.

The Minister responded that the NDP had identified that one of the first problems was that there was a high rate of policy-change in government, with each new Minister introducing new policies and ways of doing things, which had devastating effects on continuity and service delivery. The DPSA was trying to ensure that it was implementing changes that were necessary. She confirmed that although DPSA’s responses and duties were in line with Outcome 12, it was found that the dual aspects of that outcome did not necessarily speak to each other. In relation to responsible citizenry, the Minister of Home Affairs headed up this aspect in the Cabinet Cluster. Outcome 9, dealing with local government, was also taken into account.

Mr S Marais (DA) said he must compliment the Minister on the energy she brought to the task. He agreed with Minister Trevor Manuel that it was vital to have a capable state in order to grow the economy, GDP, and create jobs. Everyone was excited about the PSC, but he wanted more details on what its role would be in ensuring that the correct and properly-qualified people were put into place. He also enquired whether it would have a role in relation to the School of Government and tertiary institutions, and, if so, how the three institutions would link and work.

The Minister responded that in relation to the qualifications and training in the public service, she noted that the PSC would be responsible for qualifications, and would vet those entering the public service. It would also be responsible for RPL, and it would work with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA).

She confirmed that there was, however, collaboration between the DPSA and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). 20 000 interns were planned for the current year. The School of Government had a good relationship with DHET.

Mr Marais, noting that there were many young unemployed graduates still, including young engineers, asked what would be done to source scarce skills from all demographic groups.

Mr Marais said that cadre deployment was often identified as a problem.

Mr Marais hailed the anti-corruption bureau as “a fantastic idea”, on which DPSA must be complimented. However, he was concerned about the implementation. He wanted to know who would be employed in the Bureau, and how objective it would be.

Mr D du Toit (DA) appreciated the reference to the model that Tanzania provided, and asked if any other countries had been investigated.

Mr du Toit asked if any assessments had been done about the high turnover of Directors General.

The Minister commented on high turnover of Directors General and said that part of this was attributable to the nature of relationships, as it was impossible to legislate for personal chemistry. The
DPSA would not interfere if a relationship broke down due to disciplinary issues, but only if it was due to personality clashes. She noted that the NDP had suggested the creation of a single entity to appoint people to the public service but in interactions with British counterparts, it was established that Britain was actually moving away from this system, because ministers wanted to appoint people whom they knew, and with whom they could work. She noted that only two of the Directors General who had started in 1994 remained, whilst the rest had moved to the private sector.

Mr du Toit could not imagine that anybody would happy take a drop in salary and he wondered how this would be dealt with during the review of salary structures. There was an expectation that people would be better off.

The Minister responded that the Deputy Directors General had solutions for dealing with overpaid servants, without necessarily dropping their salaries. The post was being graded, not the individual.

Mr du Toit said that the “elephant in the room” – namely the single public service – still had to be addressed. He wondered who would pay public servants at municipal level, whether this would come from the ratepayers, or the national fiscus. If public servants at this level did not carry out lawful council decisions, he wondered how that council would deal with it.

The Minister asked Members to step back and “erase the idea” of a single public service. She explained that what had been envisaged was actually uniformity of standards and norms in the public service, and already there was more uniformity in the work of the clusters as a result. The Department was still trying to get an enabling law, in line with the Constitution.

Mr Khumbula Ndaba, Acting-Director-General, DPSA, said the Department would come and brief the Committee on the work of the cluster at the appropriate time.

The Chairperson said the Committee was happy with the clusters as there was synergy and collaboration.

Mr A Williams (ANC) asked about the OSC, which to him sounded like an inspectorate. He wondered if it would be reactionary or pro-active, and whether there was a mechanism to check on compliance in the public service. He asked if there would be any means to protect whistleblowers.

The Minister then responded to questions around the OSC and said that there was a budget for it, and work was still being done to give it legal resonance. She agreed that it would be akin to an inspectorate, and therefore it would need to be a stand-alone body with the necessary independence and authority to do its work. It would report to the Minister. The Minister would go to each province to introduce the idea and the team. She noted that the idea for this was based on the AG report.

Mr Ndaba added that this had been included in the budget, which would be discussed later. The National Treasury would be approached, if necessary. The Department had made its own preparations.

Mr Nyekemba asked if the School of Government would be implementing Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). He also asked if the graduate recruitment scheme would continue beyond 2014.

Mr du Toit presumed that the School of Government would look at technical skills, but asked where would money for that be sourced. He was not sure that public service could replace tertiary institutions’ academic staff, in training public servants, and therefore asked how PALAMA and the School of Government would integrate existing knowledge.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) said that if the comment was made that corruption levels were too high, she wanted to know against what that was compared, and if it was a standard set by South Africa. She wondered also if the high number of corruption cases uncovered simply meant that government had good systems in place to detect corruption.

Ms Sisulu turned to questions around corruption and said that the comments did not seek to compare corruption in South Africa to any other countries, but it was rather being viewed in the context of the morality of the people of the country. South Africa as it existed today had been formed after a long struggle of people determined to ensure rights of all, and it was a beacon to the rest of Africa in terms of providing values and services, so any corruption was completely unacceptable.  The challenge was to get the public service to focus on a core mandate. She said that South Africa was a country of miracles, so achieving zero corruption was possible.

DPSA would work with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, because it was recognised that it would need to be highly dependent on the available skills in the system. The Tanzanian model was the best benchmark. They had been through similar a trajectory.

The Minister was emphatic that the corruptor had to be punished as well, not just corrupt officials. Multi-nationals often got away with corrupting. It was necessary to prosecute the private sector even more harshly, perhaps.

Mr E Nyekemba (ANC) asked about the reaction of labour to the Public Service Charter, at the Bargaining Council, and whether labour was ready, in practical terms, to implement it.

Ms Sisulu noted that labour had been receptive to the Chapter, but had not yet signed.

Mr Marais enquired when the Public Administration Management Bill (PAMB) would be implemented, as it would make the public service more credible. He also enquired how that Bill would work with different levels of government.

Ms Sisulu noted that PAMB aimed to demarcate civil servants and politicians, and a civil servant would need to give notification if s/he had political ambitions, and then vacate their post by the time the candidature was confirmed by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). There was no finality on what would happen if that person was not elected.

Minister Sisulu said she hoped the Committee would support the budget vote.

The meeting was adjourned.