Poverty Alleviation Interventions in Public Service: briefing; Whistle Blowing in the Provinces: briefing

Meeting report

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION
13 August 2003
POVERTY ALLEVIATION INTERVENTIONS IN PUBLIC SERVICE: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING; WHISTLE BLOWING IN THE PROVINCES: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr P Gomomo

Documents handed out:
Report on the Establishment of Whistleblowing infrastructure
Presentation on the Establishment of Whistleblowing infrastructure
Department Presentation on Poverty Alleviation Interventions
The 20 Most Frequently Asked Questions About The Protected Disclosures Act 2000

SUMMARY
Two diverse presentations were made to the Committee - the first being the establishment of an infrastructure for the protection of whistleblowers within the Public Service. Various issues were considered, including the dissemination of information through a code of conduct booklet to the Public Service, as well as a report on the various workshops that dealt with practical issues surrounding whistleblowing.

The second presentation was made by the Department of Public Service and Administration on poverty alleviation interventions. The Committee debated whether there should be one designated department dealing with poverty alleviation.

MINUTES
The Report on the Establishment of a Whistleblowing Infrastructure for the Public Service was presented by the Department of Public Works's Mr Wentzel, Mr Aaronson, Dr Balia, Mr Davids, Mr Rapkin and Ms Abrahams.

The Report by the Department of Public Service and Administration on Poverty Alleviation Interventions in Public Service was presented by the Department's Mr A Rapea: Acting DG, Mr K Bantis: Chief Director Government Internal Consultants Service and Ms T Malaka: Project Management and Development Co-operation.

Report on the Establishment of Whistleblowing infrastructure for the Public Service
Mr Aaronson showed that the concept of whistleblowing was important although it was not always encouraged and so programmes needed to be developed. By definition, whistleblowing was the reporting, in secret, on activities of a harmful, corrupt nature. However, the whistleblower was often seen as the traitor in the situation. Mr Aaronson believed that the purpose of the Act was to allay such fears of coming forward. There was approval by the Cabinet, in principle, of a whistleblowing hotline.

The report was presented by Dr D Balia and Mr R Davids of the Department.

Discussion
Mr L Kgwela (ANC) first enquired about the demographics and number of participants to the workshops mentioned. He would be happy if the answer included participation by Political Heads and senior managers. However, he expressed concern that maybe public servants were not aware of their own code of conduct - even though all members of the public service should be.

Dr Balia responded that a code of conduct, together with an explanatory manual, had been printed for all public servants and distributed to all government departments. A code of conduct was being translated into all official languages, which would make it more readily available to all public servants.

Mr Kgwela referred to the proposals made to the Judicial Commission and added that a proposal should include amendments to tighten the current Act.

The Chair said that Mr Kgwela's last comment should be seen as a challenge to the Committee.

Dr Balia stated that that the whistleblowing issue formed part of a larger ethics framework and that the Public Service Commission had not reached the stage of amending legislation. The Commission was in consultation with the Law Commission but had not proposed any amendments to the Act.

Dr U Roopnarain (IFP) expressed her concern that it should be mandatory for senior managers to attend such workshops.

Dr Balia responded that the Commission did not have a mandate to oblige managers to attend. Where senior management were unable to attend the workshops (which may have often been the case), the Commission had tried to elicit the co-operation of the various directors of the provinces.

Dr Roopnarain asked how could one bypass a situation where one reported to the manager guilty of a particular form of corruption. She wished to know what mechanisms were in place to create a safe working environment.

Mr Davids responded that unfortunately there was an absence of such protective mechanisms. A framework could be in place where there was a specifically dedicated reporting officer in each place of work that dealt with issues of whistleblowing.

A further concern for Dr Roopnarain was that disciplinary proceedings often took a long time - in this case, how would employees continue to function in their positions?

Mr Davids said the Labour Relations Act provided timeframes - ie. one month - within which to complete the disciplinary enquiries. He did not see why any disciplinary case should take much longer as prescribed in the Labour Relations Act.

Dr Roopnarain wished to know how sexual harassment was dealt with in terms of the Act.

Mr Davids responded that sexual harassment was not seen as an 'occupational detriment' in terms of the definitions in the Act, but was rather seen as intimidation. Sexual harassment was not as such captured in the Act but could be captured in the future.

Mr R Mohlala (ANC) asked if corruption was rife in the public service. A senior manager, when signing the employment contract, would be judged on how well he/she implemented the whistleblowing policy.

Mr Davids stated that it was the duty of senior management to ensure that mechanisms were in place for the protection of the whistleblower. Corruption would never be stopped dead in its tracks, but it could be made more difficult. Fighting corruption was a long-term process.

Mr Davids added that it was the duty of the senior manager to ask questions about the procedures in place within the department available to the whistleblower. The manager needed to ask whether sufficient measures had been taken within that particular department.

Mr Mohlala said a whistleblower would be protected until a particular point - ie. until the investigation into the incident was completed.

Mr Davids acknowledged that the road of a whistleblower was essentially a lonely one. He re-iterated that it was not only sufficient to provide a safe legal environment for the whistleblower, but a safe working environment also had to be created. A support system needed to be put in place so that the whistleblower did not walk the path on their own - ie. by the provision of counselling etc.

Another question posed by Mr Mohlala related to the synergy between the Act and other Acts - he was concerned that there may be conflicts with other legislation.

Mr Davids replied that the Act coincided with the Promotion of Access to Information Act as well as with the Administration of Justice Act. He noted that there was a current draft bill on corruption wherein terms such as 'corruption' were being defined.

Mr Mohlala then gave his definition of a consultant as 'one who tells you something you already know in a manner that is new'. His question related to the idea of 'key performance areas' - what was the meaning of this?

Mr R Ntuli (DA) asked whether there would be a presentation to civil society on the combating of corruption as one should be concerned with this ground level of society.

Dr Balia responded that the Commission was working with the National Anti-Corruption Forum in involving civil society in the issue. A platform for partnership could be pursued with the business sector with the public service.

Dr Balia emphasised that whistleblowing was a measure to prevent corruption in the public service and that the Public Service Commission was engaged in the monitoring and evaluation of the process and that more in-depth data would be available soon.

Mr Kgwela made the point that anti-corruption measures lay with senior managers and should not be left to the junior managers.

Mr Aaronson concluded the presentation by stating that the Commission was in the process of finalising a report examining all the anti-corruption agencies within the Republic. However, this report was not yet ready. The Commission was establishing the infrastructure for safe whistleblowing by bringing to the fore experiences gained from the various workshops. He acknowledged that the workshops had the requisite number of participants but not the required number of senior managers. More work would be done with the National Anti-Corruption Forum in order to leave little room for misinterpretation of the Act.

He also commented on the printing of the code of conduct booklets by stating that the Commission might have overlooked the issue of literacy. Implementation had been slow but Cabinet had in principal given its support for the establishment of an anti-corruption hotline.
Mr Aaaronson also cautioned that one should not forget the audi alteram partem rule in that every party to the dispute had the right to be heard - and this also applied in instances of whistleblowing.
He requested the Committee to allow the Commission to examine shortcomings and to improve on these.

Presentation by the Department on Poverty Alleviation Interventions in the Public Service
A presentation on Poverty Alleviation Interventions was made to the Committee by Mr K Bantsi.

Discussion
The Chair said he could not believe that there was no hands-on intervention by the Department. Timeframes needed to be established and acted on, and politicians should push this forward.

A member stated that poverty alleviation was located in various departments each with their own projects - however, he asked whether there was any way to enhance the interventions so that there was overall improved performance.

Dr Roopnarain referred to the independent evaluations which had been done and wondered whether one dedicated department dealing with poverty alleviation was sufficiient.

Mr Kgwela appreciated the information that the Department was able to extract from other departments and maybe this was the function of the Department - ie. one overseer. There should be an increase in poverty relief funds together with improved co-ordination, but the question was how would it be possible to eliminate blockages. Service delivery was key.

Mr Mohlala brought the discussion back to definitions and appreciatrf that poverty had been defined in various categories. Poverty seemed to be on the rise - was this because the measurements were different than previously?
He would advise against one department being given the sole mandate to deal with poverty alleviation. However, it was also necessary not to duplicate any poverty alleviation work but rather to consider similar issues from different angles.
Mr Mohlala cautioned that care should be taken where to locate the department dealing with service delivery. He asked whether a dedicated division would be established for service delivery.

Mr Ntuli stated it was a shame that the RDP had moved from a high political profile. It was important elevate the 'status' of poverty as well as having the correct resources and mandate to interact with other departments. It was a serious threat to the Republic if 30% of the population lived in poverty.

Mr Rapea noted the establishment, within the Department, of the Service Delivery Improvements branch. The Department had been involved in support regarding strategies etc. with other Departments in the Eastern Cape. He cited the example of the establishment of mobile units where the Department had been involved hands on from conceptualisation until the building of the units. He cautioned that the Department could not claim to have been solely responsible for the alleviation of poverty in that particular area, but rather that the Department had acted as part of a team. Mr Rapea also referred to the example in the presentation of the establishment of a craft centre that assisted with job creation.

Mr Rapea commented that the co-ordination of alleviation efforts was being dealt with at Cabinet level. It was important that each Department be aware of what other Departments were doing in the fight against poverty - eg. education and health.
He also noted that problems arose in bureaucracy where some rural areas were hard to reach, but a delegate from the Department did not have the authority (or designation) to hire a 4x4 to reach such areas.
Mr Rapea pointed out that in some instances, where no money was available for resources, the Department had sponsored computers for some of the mobile units.
Responsibility for Department service in those areas was given to line managers who had to report on their activities in their annual report.
Mr Rapea also stated that poverty alleviation cannot happen overnight and that the President himself had emphasised that government must work as a unit. It was noted that local government level must also become involved in poverty alleviation and that there was insufficient involvement in this regard. Government should be seen as a seamless government.

Mr Bantsi added that there had been a strengthening of delivery capacity. The Eastern Cape experience had taught that proactive service delivery measures could detect possible failures early enough to provide for timeous interventions.

Dr Roopnarain asked whether the various investigations referred to on page 6 of the paper had been done.

Ms Malaka responded that investigations were being made by the National Treasury who had appointed KPMG to do the evaluations. However, to date, no impact study had been completed.

The Chair concluded the meeting by stating that the Department had learned much but the matter still needed urgent attention.