Country Corruption Assessment Report

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
2 April 2003
COUNTRY CORRUPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT

Chairperson: Mr PJ Gomomo (ANC)

Documents
Country Corruption Assessment Report
Powerpoint presentation on Report by Department

SUMMARY
Released this week, the Country Corruption Assessment Report is an assessment of South Africa's response to corruption, its capacity to fight corruption and the policies and methods used in its anti-corruption strategy. The study was undertaken by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Points of discussion centred around whistle blowing, the follow-up of already reported cases within departments and the problem of corruption research being mainly based on perceptions. It was noted that the report did have shortcomings and should be seen as a platform to intensify communication.

MINUTES
A short introduction was provided by the Deputy Minister of Provincial and Local Government, Ms Ntombazana Botha. She noted that the Minister of Public Service and Administration, Ms Fraser-Moleketi, could not be present as she was chairing a Cabinet meeting. The official handing over of the document to Parliament would happen latter that day.

Mr Rapea (Deputy Director-General, DPSA) briefed the Committee on the Country Corruption Assessment Report (see Powerpoint presentation).

Discussion
Dr Roopnarain (IFP) was concerned that the impression she got from the report was that there was a substantial public perception that Government could not deal with corruption.

Mr Rapea answered that people used what they were exposed to in the media to draw conclusions about levels of corruption. He admitted that they as Government had also not provided the public with enough information to prove that this was not the case. He stated that this was the reason they wanted to focus on public education.

Dr Roopnarain noted that there was no reference in the presentation to the Department of Justice's contribution, especially regarding the formulation and enforcement of sanctions to deal with corruption.

Mr Rapea answered by suggesting that the Justice Portfolio Committee fast-track the passing of the Anti Corruption Bill which was under consideration. He explained that this could be seen as Justice's contribution in the fight against corruption, especially since it contained a clause proposing a mandatory fifteen-year jail sentence for guilty officials. The blacklisting of officials and companies found guilty of corruption was also a sanction aiming at deterring individuals from corrupt practices. He added that the Justice Department was also part of the Anti Corruption Coordinating Community.

Mr Kgwele (ANC) noted that 60% of cases of corruption were uncovered through an official process. He made the point that the government thus had an upper hand when it came to dealing with cases of corruption. He highlighted the fact that the private sector had a major role to play in the occurrence of corruption. He urged the Department to focus also on the private sector and its role in corruption.

Dr Mbulawa-Hans (ANC) raised the issue of whistle blowing. She said that this was the perfect tool to ensure public involvement in the fight against corruption and suggested that the Government pick up on this. She did not really see a function for hotlines, however. She wanted to hear more about the protection of whistle-blowers.

Prof Lavine (Deputy Director-General, PSC) stated that the Government was encouraging people to use whistle blowing as a means of uncovering corruption. There was a need, however, to distinguish between the functions of hotlines, whistle blowing and witness protection. He explained that hotlines were there for the purpose of bringing to lights acts of corruption, which would then lead to proper reporting and investigative processes. Whistle blowing was concerned with specific measures around the protection of employees against occupational detriment arising from reporting corruption. Witness protection was a system that functioned to protect those who had come forward as witnesses in criminal cases. These three systems did need to intersect, however.

Mr Waters (DA) raised the issue of ethics in the public service. The fact that 37% of senior managers had failed to disclose interests was an indication of how much the public service was lacking in this aspect. He asked how the department planned to address this.

Mr Kitzoff (Manager, Public Service Anti Corruption Unit) replied that instructions had been given to act against those senior managers who had failed to disclose.

Mr Baloyi (ANC) questioned why the aspect dealing with the public's perception of service delivery was included in the Report. He asked if lack of service delivery was equal to corruption.

Mr Rapea responded that client satisfaction was a good indicator of how the public viewed an institution, whether it is a company or a government institution. He explained that this could shape their perception with regards to the extent of corruption.

Mr Baloyi asked to what extent the low figures for whistle blowing were based on the lack of action taken by departments after cases are reported.

No reply was given to this question by the delegation in their group response.

Mr Allan (Public Service Accountability Monitor) asked what percentage of corruption cases that were reported from within the departments were actually concluded. He stated that what influences public perception is the fact that not enough is coming out from government departments regarding the follow up of cases.

Mr Kitzoff answered that they had not been able to keep track of the full course of actions taken against corrupt practices and record the sanctions arising from these. This had prompted them to compile a management system for the purpose of keeping track of these cases. This was one of the projects they would be undertaking this year.

Ms Bodasing (Department of Public Service) said that they needed to strengthen their own line of government communication in providing information about the follow-up of cases.

Mr Hamlan (Local Commercial Radio) asked what the shortcomings of the report were.

Ms Botha replied that the main shortcoming of the report was that it did not have all the adequate data which was necessary in the overall analysis. She also identified the fact that the focus was on corruption in the public service, even though the report was aimed at being more holistic. She said that they still needed to fit all this in and continue with research.

Mr Hamlan asked the Deputy Minister to comment on a statement allegedly made by Minister of Social Development, Zola Skhweyiya, claiming that Batho Pele had failed.

Ms Botha said that she could not confirm that Minister Skhweyiya had said this. She admitted, however, that they did have concerns about Batho Pele, especially since public perceptions were informing them that it was not working very well. She hypothesized that Batho Pele needed exposure in the public arena instead of an internal focus. It should serve to inform people of what to expect from their Government departments. This needed an extra effort.

Dr Mbulawa-Hans stated that in her own research, she had discovered that inadequate pay was a contributing factor in the occurrence of corruption in the public sector. She asked if the department had any measures to deal with this finding.

Mr Rapea replied that the pay issue was difficult because officials received pay increases regularly. He added the point that even highly paid public servants ended up being involved in acts of corruption. He did not think that the increase of pay would really be a preventative measure against corruption.

Mr Gomomo (Chairperson, ANC) commented that he failed to understand the notion that investors could not invest in the country because of corruption, stating that there were many other countries with worse crime and corruption levels. He dismissed this notion.

Mr Modisenyane (ANC) firstly noted that it was worrying that there was public perception that police seemed to be the worst in corruption. He made the point that if they were to leave the public sector out of the analysis, they would find that the greatest influence in the occurrence of corruption originates from the private sector, since they have the financial means to lure public officials. He thus concluded that their strategy would be more respected if it was holistic.

Mr Kitzoff responded to Mr Modisenyane's concern regarding the police. He stated that sometimes the public could not distinguish between the South African Police Services and the Traffic Department, and this distorts their perception of corruption regarding the police in general. He stated that in Kwazulu-Natal, there was strong satisfaction shown by the public regarding the police force.

Mr Kgwele brought up the issue of the suggestion of a single national anti corruption agency. There was curiosity from various people regarding why South Africa did not make use of the Hong Kong Model, where there is only one large centralised agency mandated with dealing with corruption in the public sector. He preferred the South African anti corruption model because it fights corruption where it occurs. He said that he felt that the report reflected this.

Mr Baloyi noted that by hearing that the United Nations Organization is involved in the project, one expects the report to relay a picture internationally. Considering the shortcomings of the report, he felt that the officials and departments would have been given a platform to challenge the findings. He thus questioned why there was a rush in publishing and launching the report. What was needed was an attempt to go beyond perceptions when researching levels of corruption.

Mr Kitzoff stated that this report was the first systematic look at the information obtained by varying research. He argued that the intention was not to do an international comparison. This report was a start. Some countries had done something similar, but this is the first of its kind in South Africa. The Report could be seen as a platform for them to intensify communication locally and internationally.

Ms Bodasing stated that they were not rushing the release of the report, but had chosen to release it at that point because it was perfect timing.

Mr Kitzoff made reference to the subject of hotlines. He stated that that what needs to be considered is that the setting up of hotlines required a whole infrastructure and that it would be a challenge to put that into place.

Mr Van der Merwe commented that since the advent of the new democracy, the government has demonstrated far greater transparency than before, thus crime and corruption are publicised more than they used to be. He admitted that they as government had failed in reporting back to the public about the follow up of cases of corruption.

Mr Mthembu inquired as to what it was that we, as South Africans, wanted. He explained that South Africa had whole range of corruption monitoring agencies, unlike other countries where there are hardly any institutions committed to dealing with corruption.

The Chairperson concluded by stating that the challenge they were left with was that of fast tracking the Anti Corruption Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.