Public Service Commission & National Planning Secretariat on their 2014 Strategic Plans Committee Report on Public Service and Administration, with Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 2014 Budget

Meeting report

Briefing by Public Service Commission (PSC)
Prof Richard Levin, Director General: Office of the Public Service Commission, took the Committee through presentation, which focussed on the legislative mandate, organisational set up, strategic outcome-oriented goals, the Public Service Commission (PCS) outputs, programme structure, performance for 2013/14, deliverables for 2014/14, and budget for 2014/15 to 2016/17.

He said that the PCS was one of the Chapter 10 institutions.  It derived its mandate from sections 195 and 196 of the Constitution, which set out values and principles governing public administration. The PSC was vested with custodial power oversight responsibilities for the public service and monitors, evaluates and investigates public administration practices. Moreover, it was established to strengthen the oversight role of Parliament, and the legislature over the executive and administrative branches of the state, to facilitate transparent and effective policy formulation and implementation.

In terms of organisational set up, it had a chairperson, deputy chairperson, nine commissioners (nominated by the premiers of each province) and five commissioners (recommended by the National Assembly).

Prof Levin said that the PSC developed the strategic outcome-oriented goals, which are geared towards the promotion of good governance for a successful developmental state and improved performance of government in equitable service delivery. Thus, he highlighted those strategic goals to be achieved, as stated in the 2013/14 Annual Performance Plan (APP).  These were good governance in developmental public administration, improved service delivery, and institutional development of the PSC.

The PSC received a clean audit for the 2012/2013 financial year and was awaiting the outcome of the 2013/14 audit. The total expenditure for the 2012/13 financial year was 99.9% of the R163 177 million budget allocation. For the 2013/14 financial year, a R201 140 million budget had been allocated. It had received additional funding of R29 million from National Treasury through Policy Options, for the creation of an additional 38 posts at the national office and provincial offices. The money was spent on administration, leadership and management practice, monitoring and evaluation, integrity and anti-corruption programmes.

Prof Levin presented to the Committee deliverables for APP 2014/15 and the budget for 2014/15 to 2016/17. The total budgets for the financial years of 2014/15, 2015/16, and 2016/17 were R226 031 million, R211 031 million and R224 413 million respectively. Further breakdowns of the budget were spelt out.

Prof Levin expressed concern about the budget shortfall of R15 million and stated that the shortfall would impact negatively on the functions and operation of the PSC. However, National Treasury had been advised of the shortfall.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Prof Levin for a good presentation and remarked that it looked like he was responsible for managing a huge section. She expressed concern that the PSC might not have the human and financial capacity to meet its mandate and strategic goals. With reference to the hotline, she sought clarification on how the NPC dealt with the telephonic reporting on corruption, especially where a whistle-blower called more than once to report the same matter. She further sought clarification on how the PSC defined the term corruption and how it was dealing with the 200 cases of corruption mentioned in the presentation.

The Chairperson sought clarification on the progress of the Bill amending the PSC Act, tabled by the PSC, and on whether the dream of South Africa becoming a developed country would turn into reality in her generation’s lifetime.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC), with reference to deliverable and measurable mechanisms, sought clarification on how the achievement would be measured in respect of the PSC’s vision and mission, read together with the strategic outcome goal three (institutional development of the PSC).

She sought further clarity on the additional funding of R29 million from the National Treasury.

With reference to the Financial Disclosure Framework (FDF) forms received, she said that the PSC had not done enough to take senior managers into account, given the fact that the PSC received 84% of the FDF forms from senior managers, and 16% of these forms were still outstanding.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana stated that various factors indicated that the PSC would not be able to do enough to meet its mandate, considering the decrease of the budget allocation for the 2015/16 financial year and the 52% of the FDF forms received from Kwazulu-Natal.  She was worried about the huge budget that had been allocated for compensation of personnel, and asked how the PSC had arrived at that budget. 

Mr A van der Westhuisen (DA) said that the PSC should lead by example when it came to driving efficiency and effectiveness, and commented that most of the PSC initiatives looked as if they were, in design, ad hoc initiatives. He asked whether the PSC had capacity, in terms of human resources, to achieve its mandate and goals,and whether the PSC could exert power over non-compliant entities.

Mr M Ntombela (ANC), referring to the leadership and management practice programme, said that of 785 cases of grievances registered, 33% had not been finalised within the 2013/14 financial year and that that percentage was troubling. He sought clarity on factors that might be acting as a bar to studying and resolving all cases.

With reference to the integrity and anti-corruption programme, he asked why the PSC conducted surprise visits only in ten provincial departments in the North West, Limpopo and Mpumalanga, and not in all provinces. With reference to the FDF machinery, he asked what measurable tools were used to determine whether the entities or provincial departments met optimum performance standards. 

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) sought clarity on the proposed budget of R211 031 million for the 2015/16 financial year, which declined compared to the budget of R226 031 million for 2013/14 financial year. The decrease was suggesting that the PSC had completed its work and the PSC needed to be closed down. She sought clarification on whether the report of the PSC was featured in, or informed, the State of the Nation Address (SONA).

With reference to the integrity and anti-corruption programme, she sought clarity on the recommendations that had been offered by the PSC and on the response of the PSC, in the circumstances where the entities or provincial departments were not complying with the recommendations.

Mr J McGluwa (DA) sought more clarity on the organisational set-up and on the response to the cases of grievances registered. He did not appreciate the introduction of the Public Service Barometer Dashboard (PSBD) which was used by Portfolio Committees and provincial legislatures to hold departments accountable, and asked clarification on the responses received by the PSC in that respect.

He asked the PSC to elaborate on how the PSC went about scrutinising 73% of the 9 187 forms the PSC had received in the 2012/13 financial year to assess actual and potential conflicts of interest, and whether such conflicts of interest were scrutinised in terms of service delivery. 

He asked which municipalities had received surprise visits in Limpopo, North West and Mpumalanga.

The Chairperson said that Prof Levin was not in a position to clarify these issues. Mr Ben Mthembu, Chairperson of the PSC was welcomed to take over from Prof Levin and to respond to the questions of Members of the Committee.

Mr Mthembu stated that the PSC would neither be able to answer questions nor clarify issues of which did not fall in the scope of Annual Performance Plan or allocation of budget.

With respect to the additional funding of R29 million, he responded that it was granted in order to expand its work to municipalities.

The PSC Amendment Bill had been withdrawn, due to bad timing. It was decided that a comprehensive review of the Bill would be undertaken in the 2014/15 financial year. The Bill was with the State Law Advisor and was expected to be finalised by December 2014.

On the questions related to the PSBD, he responded that the Director Generals of portfolios were in position to respond to those questions. However, the PSC appreciated the PSBD as it was used to depict departmental performances. It was very effective in picking up weaknesses, especially in Kwazulu Natal, where the PSC had conducted two visits.

On the issue of enforcement of directives or recommendations, he elaborated that the Bill that was introduced was intended to give more power to the PSC to become body with “bite.”  As it stood, the PSC’s power was limited to offering recommendations and advice. In practice, that meant that the entities might or might not follow them. There was nothing the PSC could do within its power to enforce an entity to be bound by those recommendations or advice.  The PSC power was constitutional.  Within the constitutional power framework, the PSC could, if the entities disregarded its recommendations, report to Parliament, an organ of the State that was constitutionally empowered to hold the executive to account. This mechanism had been used once by the PSC.

With respect to SONA, he responded that the Cabinet appreciated the information supplied by the PSC.

The Chairperson said that the PSC lacked “bite”, and asked Mr Mthembu how the Committee could assist the PSC in respect of enforcement.

Ms Lesoma was concerned with the issue of potential duplication in terms of the PSC and departmental priorities and the lack of enforcement mechanisms, and sought further clarity on enforcement and sanctions. She was convinced that the PSC had the power to enforce its recommendations.

Mr Mthembu said that Ms Lesoma’s question would be responded to at later stage.

Mr M Booi (ANC) interjected and said the Mr Mthembu should follow the Committee’s meeting procedure.

Mr Mthembu explained that the PSC had a persuasive authority.  This meant it could persuade the entities or department to comply with the recommendations.

With regard to monitoring and evaluation, the PSC had conducted the Citizens’ Forum in Mpumalanga. It was attended by citizens and various stakeholders. As regards compliance with the sectors’ mandate, the PSC had developed an information tool kit.   Due to financial constraints, the Citizens’ Forums were not conducted in other provinces.

With regard to the evaluation of high performing schools, he reported that it had transpired that the schools in rural areas were complying, whereas the schools in urban areas were not.

He said there were three outcome-oriented strategic goals that were further expounded on, in terms of strategic plans or programmes, to embark on for the period of five years.

With regard to the entities and portfolios complying with government’s 30-day payment period to service providers, the PSC was challenged with evaluating and monitoring compliance because it relied heavily on collaboration with stakeholders. For that, the PSC had to ensure it had a good relationship with the governmental bodies.

He clarified that there was on open hotline that were used by members of the community to report corruption, and the PSC maintained confidentiality. People could report anonymously.  In such a case, a tracking case number was allocated to record a complaint.  Most of the provincial departments had their own anti-corruption teams, but these teams had no investigative workforce. They had to refer work to the PSC and the PSC had 40 days to investigate any matter reported.
Investigation was, in some instances, restricted by the constitutional right to privacy because the PSC had no power to infringe an individual right to privacy. That had the implication of relying on self-compliance and expecting an individual to submit an honest report. The PSC could only scrutinise the report to assess whether he or she was honest or not.

With regard to the definition of corruption, he responded that the definition in the Preventing and Combating Corruption Act was used. 

The Chairperson repeated her previous question of whether the South Africa was on track of becoming a “developed country”.

Mr Booi objected to the argument that the PSC was not a “biting body.”  He remarked that if Mr Mthembu believed that the body he was chairing had no teeth to bite, he was not aware of the PSC’s constitutional mandate and how the recommendations could be enforced.   Mr Booi reminded Mr Mthembu that he had a mandate to report non-compliant bodies to Parliament who, in return, would make a follow up.

Mr Booi view was supported by Ms Dlamini-Dubuza, Mr Ntombela and Ms Lesoma.

Mr Mthembu responded that he was attempting to explain the difficulties underlying the enforcement mechanisms. He referred to the difficulty of imposing sanctions against the Kwazulu Natal provincial department which submitted 52% of the FDF forms, and said that it was difficult to impose any sanction against KZN.  If the PSC Amendment Bill became law, it would have the legal mechanisms to enforce governmental bodies to comply with its directives. Under the Amended Bill, the PSC would provide directives, but not recommendations.

Mr Booi asked whether the Director Generals, especially the Director General for the Public Service and Administration, were defying their constitutional mandate. He cautioned Mr Mthembu not to misguide Members of the Committee.

Mr Mthembu responded that he was trying to explain that the PSC had “no direct power” to enforce its recommendations. It had “an indirect power.” He was not implying that the Director Generals were not complying with their constitutional mandate.

Mr McGluwa and Mr Motau supported Mr Booi.

Mr McGluwa said that if Mr Mthembu’s statement was true, the country’s service delivery system would be said to be in chaos. He was concerned with the separation of power between the provincial departments and the PSC, which lacked clarity.

Mr Motau agreed with Mr McGluwa and said that he, during the brief, had said that the PSC lacked power and thus understood well why South Africa was in a state of chaos. He suggested that the PSC’s power should be strengthened and expanded under the Amendment Bill.

Ms Lesoma proposed that the Committee should conduct a workshop to enlighten the PSC team about its constitutional mandate and the enforcement mechanism available. In that workshop, the Committee would be able to detect other shortcomings that affected the PSC’s ability to be a body with “bite.”

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana  said that the PSC was challenged by an absence of understanding its constitutional mandate as well as its constitutional power. This had created the disagreement between the Committee and the PSC, so she supported holding a workshop to elaborate on the power of the PSC.

Mr M Dirks (ANC) agreed with Mr Booi, and stated that the PSC was sending out a wrong message that could create a crisis. He explained that the PSC had the power to enforce its recommendations in the context of reporting to Parliament, which had the “biting power” to enforce those recommendations. Otherwise, service delivery would remain in chaos

Mr Ntombela agreed with Mr Dirks.

Mr Mthembu responded that it was not the power that was in dispute, but “direct” enforcement mechanisms.

The Chairperson said that the PSC had the right to develop guidelines, directives or regulations that the provincial departments and entities must comply with.

Mr Mthembu responded that the constitutional mandate, read in tandem with the PSC Act, did not permit the PSC to develop and enforce regulations, guidelines or directives. The PSC could merely advice or offer recommendations.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana requested the Chairperson to use her power to bring to an end the discussion on the powers of the PSC.

The Chairperson closed the topic and said that a day would be scheduled for such a discussion. The PSC would be invited for further discussion, and would not be summoned.

The PSC team was excused.

Briefing by National Planning Secretariat (NPC)
Mr Khulekani Mathe, Acting Head of the NPC Secretariat, took the Committee through the presentation, which focussed on outlining the NPC mandate, thematic areas of focus for the NPC, supporting strategic goals, functions of the secretariat’s core units, an overview of the on-going initiatives, and categories of work of the secretariat.

In order to give effect to the categories of work, the NPC had established three working groups.  These were human development and social protection (HDSP); state capacity and active citizenry (SCAC); and economy, employment, infrastructure and environment (EEIE).

The HDSP group’s priority areas of work included defining a decent standard of living; development of social welfare services; demographics; household food security and nutrition; out-of-school youth – transitions into the labour market; nurturing the next generation of academics; district support to improve education outcomes, including issues related to maths and science, infrastructure development, etc; modelling the expansion in further education and training (FET) enrolments; early childhood development; and health.

The SCAC group’s priority areas of work included defining principles to inform provincial implementation; producing a discussion document on promoting youth engagement with the NDP; analysis of the role of NGO’s in implementation of the NDP; policy briefs on the political-administrative interface in the public service; research on the changing nature of career paths in the public service; research on the role of leadership in managing intergovernmental relations; research on the planning systems; and research on active citizenry and accountability – with an initial focus on the transparency of service level agreements.

The EEIE group’s priority areas of work included reducing the cost of doing business; food security; energy security; economic transformation; advancement of the Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMME) sector; broadening ownership to historically disadvantaged groups; and informal community of practice for regional planning entities.

Mr Mathe said that the NPC had established a National Income Dynamics Study (NIDS) with a view to measuring and understanding who was getting ahead and who was falling behind in South Africa, or why some people were making progress and others were not. The key feature of the NIDS was its ability to follow people as they moved out of their original households. The study had been conducted in three waves, in 2008, 2010, and 2012.  In 2008, 7301 households were surveyed, followed by 6 809 households and 8 040 households respectively.

The NPC established had established the Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD) with the aim of promoting the use of research and other evidence in the policy making process in South Africa, and to assist policy makers and researchers to systematically harness the best available evidence to inform the policy-making process. It had secured from the European Union (EU) funding of €10 million (approximately R140 million), over a five year period, from July 2012 to December 2017.

For the 2012/13 financial year, a budget of R89 908 million was allocated to the NPC and R72 595 million was spent. For the 2013/14 financial year, R77 312 million was allocated, whereas R57 770 million had been spent. For the 2014/15 financial year, estimated national expenditure (ENE) was R113 392 million. Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) allocations for 2015/16; 2016/17; and 2017/18 financial years were R97 655 million, R112 072 million, and R118 105 million respectively. 

Discussion
Referring to the fact that the NPC was composed of a small team, the Chairperson asked whether the NPC saw itself as having the human and financial resources to deliver on its mandate, and how the research, in actual terms, would contribute to the needs of the 52 million population. She sought further clarification on the Households Survey of 2008, 2010 and 2012.

Mr Booi sought clarity on how the NPC would achieve its mandate in respect of implementation; how the NPC collaborated with international bodies that misjudged South Africa at international forums; what the NPC did to feed the realities of the country to those international bodies; how the money received from European Union was spent, with a particular focus on elaborating on whether EU funding squarely fell within the scope of the NPC; and how much the NPC was spending on attending conferences or meetings overseas.

Mr Motau, referring to the identified five focus areas of priorities, stated that he appreciated them. He asked whether there were further identified strategic goals that strengthened priorities and neutralised the weaknesses.

Dr M Cardo (DA) sought clarity on the commission mandate, where the presentation stated that it would expire next year; how the NPP would be implemented at provincial level, and what the projects to be rolled out at provincial level and what their time frames were; and what the institutions supporting these projects were.

Ms Dlamini-Dubuza reminded the Committee that there were fundamental changes resulting from the Proclamation, which clearly placed the NPC under vote 6.  Formally, the Committee had not yet received a communication about the changes.  If the NPC was under vote 6, the proceedings to consider the APP and budget would be contrary to the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act.  In terms of the Act, the onus to brief the Committee was on the Minister.

With reference to the research mandate, she said that it was more confusing, given that the Committee oversaw the implementation of established policies.

She expressed her concern on the decrease in the budget allocated to compensate employees for 2013/14 financial year and sought clarity on expenditure on goods and services.   Moreover, she sought clarification on what “household” involved in the context of the NPC research framework and how the NPC would resolve the duplication problems.

Ms Lesoma asked whether the NPC leadership understood what “falling under Vote 6” meant.   She expressed her concern with the EU funds expenditure and the NPC mandate, grounded on research and advising. Within the understanding of a research-oriented body, the issues of politics should be left to be directed to the Minister.

With reference to the NPC allocating its work into three groups, she sought clarification on how these three groups collaborated with portfolios, and whether there were any relationships with higher research and learning institutions. She found the budgets allocated for financial years 2012/13 and 2013/14 to be inconsistent, and asked for reasons for the increase and decrease, as well as for the shifts in core focuses.

Mr Mante responded that the team could carry out the mandate.

As regards households, he explained that the NPC in 2006 had identified households to be surveyed. In 2008, 7 301 households were surveyed.  Individuals who were first surveyed were 28 247. However, due to changes in the formulation dynamics of a household caused by marriages, or migration of members of households, the households decreased in 2010. In 2012, the NPC had to trace down those who had moved out and thus established new households. This exercise had resulted in an increase of households. The methodological lens of the survey was based on the notion that more than 25 000 interviewees would provide a true reflection of the state of South Africa in the context of service delivery. The NPC had a panel of highly distinguished and experienced researchers who were acquainted with conducting this kinds of research. It was highly unlikely that they might come up with poor reports.

The Chairperson pointed out to Mr Mante that the issue in question was human capacity, not research capacity.

Mr Mante reiterated that there was no problem with the NPC workforce. The fact was that the NPC’s work supplemented other institutions dealing with issues such as poverty or economic participation.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana sought clarity on how the NPC’s distinctive study was aligned to policy to yield a desired outcome.

Mr Booi, referring to human capacity, sought clarity on the increase and decrease of the budget, especially the financial implications in achieving its mandate.

Mr Mante responded that the Committee would be informed if the NPC needed more money, depending on the changes that might be effected in its programme.

With regard to challenging negative views about South Africa, the NPC shared its report with international bodies and welcomed them to come to South Africa to meet the reality. In South Africa, they could interact with various stakeholders, including interviewing the people at the grassroots level. These types of engagement would enable them to grasp the social reality of South Africans.

With reference to the EU funds, Mr Mante responded that the funds were too little in real terms. The EU funded a bigger project, and the NPC had just a small share. Though the funds came from overseas, the NPC was accountable as it had to report back on how the money allocated to it was spent.

As regards overseas trips, no members of the NPC could be said he or she was enriched by those trips. Only money that could cover their expenses was authorised.

Mr Booi objected. He said that the expenditure of the EU funds was not reflected in the presentation. He cautioned the NPC to differentiate between politics and facts.

Chairperson agreed with Mr Booi, and requested the breakdown of the funds the next meeting.

On the question asked by Dr Cardo regarding the expiry of the NPC’s mandate, Mr Mante said that there had been a mistake.  The expiry time referred to was for the office bearers. The NPC was created and existed separately from the office bearers.

With respect to the implementation of the NPP, Mr Mante responded that the NPC had developed medium and long term strategic plans. These plans were implemented in collaboration with different spheres of government, such as the provinces and municipalities. At the initial stage, the NPC had been working with central government. He said that the APP, for its realisation, had two components:  the establishment of strategic goals and the mechanism to achieve them; and the identification of possible challenges and how they would be mitigated. The NPC’s strategic plans surrounded those two components.

With regards to the Proclamation, he stated that it was issued a week prior to the presentation. The NPC had not yet acquainted itself with the changes it introduced, and thus it was not a position to explain its impact on the presentation.  Inasmuch as changes were concerned, Mr Mante said that the NPC would be aware of possible duplications. He stressed that the NPC had an exclusive mandate.

Mr Booi asked whether Statistics South Africa contributed to the NPC budget.

Referring to collaboration with the higher learning institutions, Mr Mathe said that most universities had contributed to the establishment of the NPC and in the design of its mandate. He said that the list of those universities could be forwarded to the Committee. In particular, the NPC maintained a good relationship with the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University.

Mr McGluwa asked whether universities were contributing to the research.

Mr Booi said that McGluwa’s question was crucial, because the Committee could send a note of appreciation to them.

Mr Mante reiterated that the universities were actively involved.

Dr Cardo sought clarity on how the NPC’s citizens-oriented research was designed and institutionalised, and which people were targeted, for example, intellectual citizens, business citizens, poor citizens, etc.

Mr Booi asked Mr Mathe to unpack on how citizens would benefit from the NPC’s work.

Mr Mante responded that all South Africans, as active citizens, would make the NPC work. The work involved day to day actions that would take South Africa forward. The NPC would interact with the broad societies, including citizens and institutions, to detect what were challenges to citizens’ development and to offer solutions and recommendation on how those challenges or problems could be addressed. This would involve a presentation to relevant stakeholders, who would take it from there.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Mathe, but said that the Committee was still sceptical about the NPC’s work.  The NPC would therefore be invited to do a presentation on the implementation of its strategic plan, as well as more detailed breakdown of allocation of budget.

The NPC team were excused.

Budget Vote: Public Service Administration/Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Budget Vote: Public Service and Administration
The minutes were considered page by page, and minor amendments were effected.  Mr McGluwa, on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, said its members reserved their right to vote.

Budget Vote: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation.
The minutes were considered page by page. Some amendments related to spelling, grammar and the rephrasing of unclear sentences, were effected. There were corrections on page 1, page 6 (under table1), page 7, page 8, andpage 9 (observation).


Mr McGluwa suggested to the Committee that the absence of the Minister and Deputy Minister to brief the Committee should be reflected in the minutes, including the deep concerns raised by the Members of the Committee. He was seconded by Mr Motau.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had accepted their apologies.  Therefore their concerns were annulled by the acceptance of the apologies and by the delegation of power to the Deputy Director General.

Mr Motau said that it was only the Director General who had sent the apology, not the Minister and his Deputy.

The minutes were adopted, with amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.