Orientation Session with Committee Secretariat Team; Dr I Chipkin Briefing

Meeting report

Dr Ivor Chipkin, Co-Founder and Director, New South Institute, delivered an orientation presentation of a thorough analysis of the Public Service and Administration Ministry framework, addressing both theoretical and practical aspects. He outlined the Constitution’s view of public service in general as well as its similarities and differences with public administration. The presentation then covered an analysis of South Africa’s state of public service, also citing other similar cases in the international area. He highlighted the five C’s of crisis in the SA context – contradiction (political/administrative), confused (accountability), corruption/capture, weak capability and centralisation.

Dr Chipkin then presented the possible solutions to these problems, some of which he said were already on the state’s agenda. These incorporate: depoliticising the public service through the Public Service Amendment Act, introducing a professionalisation framework involving a basic entry into public administration incumbency, and reforming the Public Service Commission.

[Refer to presentation document for more details]

Discussion
In interaction with Dr Chipkin’s presentation, Dr T Letlape (Action SA) highlighted the issue of a lack of coordination within the current system. He inquired about how to address this absence of coordination, referencing previous successful examples mentioned by Dr Chipkin regarding how National Treasury consolidated former Bantustan’s finances into a single post-Apartheid treasury. He asked what measures were taken that led to such successes, emphasising that it is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed to improve the system's efficiency and effectiveness.

Ms W Tikana-Gxothiwe (ANC) raised concerns about the delegation of authority for appointments according to the Act, pointing out that while the provincial Premiers have delegation powers and MECs hold accountability, only the President has the authority to discipline, especially the Directors-General. She questioned if this lack of alignment between the person responsible for discipline and those they work with, such as the Ministers, is a source of confusion.

Dr Chipkin responded by explaining that political appointees are appointed by the President. Specifically, Directors-General are appointed by the President through the Cabinet, creating a unique situation where chief bureaucrats in departments hold political appointments. This structure extends down to the lowest levels, unless those responsibilities are delegated to the Director-General. He highlighted that the way powers and responsibilities are structured within departments is critical, especially in the context of Parliament. The ability of departments to function effectively relies on the delegation of powers, which are often not delegated, leading to tensions between political leaders and departmental staff. This lack of delegation leaves departmental staff, particularly at senior levels, powerless to make operational decisions, creating significant inefficiencies and confusion.

Ms L Potgieter (DA) sought clarification on the structure and appointment processes within local and provincial governments. She referenced readings shared previously, noting that local government operates similarly, where politicians make appointments. She questioned whether, at the local level, the staff structure and establishment are done by politicians or if they involve appointed directors. She also asked about the role of the Public Service Commission (PSC) in centralised HR appointments and whether Directors-General, rather than politicians, should be responsible for these appointments. She said she was trying to understand how appointments of officials – which she believed should be done through an independent apparatus like the PSC – are currently handled.

Dr Chipkin explained that, historically, appointments in the public service were made through an independent apparatus, such as the PSC, which vetted candidates before recommending them to departments. This ensured that public service appointments were independent of political influence. However, from 1994, South Africa's system granted politicians discretion over appointments in the public service by law. This means that politicians have the authority to make appointments unless they delegate this power to Directors-General or heads of departments. This lack of delegation leads to significant operational challenges and inefficiencies within departments, exacerbating the issues and confusion in the public service structure.

Mr De Villiers (DA), the Chairperson of the Committee, commented on the inefficiencies in the current process, noting that it takes too long and suggesting that the Committee could address this issue. He expressed enthusiasm for Dr Chipkin's presence, emphasising the importance of quickly identifying areas for reform to achieve meaningful changes within their term.

Dr Chipkin agreed with the observation that the process is overly prolonged, and highlighted a fundamental issue: the confusion between the roles of politicians and the operational aspects of public service. He said that expecting politicians to have an in-depth understanding of departmental operations and public service structure is problematic. This confusion complicates the effectiveness of government functions and underscores the need to address the structural issues within public service organisations. Dr Chipkin further elaborated on the overcrowded and overlapping responsibilities among various departments and political actors in South Africa, which complicates the management of public service. He pointed out that, while many departments and political figures have roles related to public administration, no single entity has overarching responsibility. He stressed that this structural confusion has historical roots, particularly dating back to the 1970s, and must be addressed to improve the efficiency of public service management.

Dr Letlape inquired about how China manages public appointments compared to the politicisation seen in other contexts such as the USA under President Trump. He asked for insights into China's approach, which seems to offer better accountability and effective performance management, albeit in ways that might be considered harsh.

Dr Chipkin explained that China has a systematic approach to reorganising its state apparatus, emphasising a high level of specialisation and training for public servants. In China, entry into public service is regulated through rigorous examinations and training programmes, such as the National School of Administration. This method ensures public servants possess the necessary skills and qualities for effective governance. He highlighted that China's approach is rooted in thousands of years of administrative practices, which focus on maintaining a high standard of expertise and commitment among public officials.

In response to Dr Letlape's follow-up question about whether South African politicians are considered public servants, Dr Chipkin clarified that politicians and public servants have distinct roles. Politicians are not public servants in the sense described in his presentation. Their role is to set policies and direct public servants, who are the ones actually implementing those policies. Dr Chipkin also remarked on the idea of whether there should be specific criteria for being a politician, suggesting that while there may be benefits to having stringent qualifications, the democratic principle of allowing diverse individuals into politics is a significant achievement. He questioned whether those entering politics should be desired to dictate the functioning of government without the necessary expertise.

Ms S Gcilishe (EFF) sought clarity on the role of the PSC and its interaction with other institutions. She was interested in understanding the confusion created by the PSC’s role and how it might affect practical governance, particularly in the provincial and local government context. Dr Chipkin elaborated on the PSC’s role, noting that it has often been side-lined from its original mandate. Traditionally, the PSC functioned as a grievance and complaints department where public servants could raise issues about their employment conditions or departmental issues. However, its role has shifted away from human resources functions, towards a more symbolic position over time. Politicians hold significant power within their parties and can influence the framework and staffing of departments, such as the Department of Health, which complicates the PSC's ability to address and resolve issues effectively.

Ms Potgieter raised concerns about practical contradictions between provincial, national, and local government structures. She noted that local governments operate under the Municipal Systems Act, which is often implemented differently compared to national policies. This leads to issues where local public officials and politicians face delays and inefficiencies due to lack of centralised oversight and authority. She suggested there might be benefits in emulating national-level practices, such as those of the PSC, at the local government level to improve oversight and performance. She also questioned the effectiveness of the PSC and its ability to address issues within its mandate.

Dr Chipkin discussed the potential for replicating the PSC model at the local government level, suggesting it could help streamline and enhance oversight functions. He highlighted the challenges the PSC faces in trying to assert jurisdiction across national, provincial, and local levels. The PSC aims to centralise its role in overseeing public administration, but this effort faces complications due to the varying degrees of authority and responsibility at different levels of government. Dr Chipkin also questioned whether there should be a separate equivalent body for local government, indicating that the current structure might lack clarity and effectiveness in managing public administration across different government tiers. He implied that a specialised or modified approach might be necessary to address the unique needs and challenges at the local level, suggesting that the existing model may not fully meet the requirements for effective governance and oversight.

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC) requested a follow-up meeting for an extended time to delve deeper into the crucial role of public service in effective service delivery and the professionalisation of public service. She emphasised the need to closely examine relevant legislation to ensure alignment and progress.

Ms Potgieter expressed concerns about managing the appointments of board members for state entities, citing examples from her experience in municipalities where board members lacked relevant expertise, leading to operational failures. She highlighted the issue of having board members with unrelated professional backgrounds, which undermines the effectiveness of these entities.

Ms Tikana-Gxothiwe lamented the ineffectiveness of Social Development and Home Affairs departments. She expressed frustration with the performance of these departments, questioning whether their issues stem from systemic problems or a lack of professional standards. She suggested that addressing these departments' challenges could potentially resolve broader issues within the public service.

Dr Chipkin addressed the question about the role of politicians versus specialised administrators in the public service. He argued that, while politicians are essential for policy-making, the implementation of these policies should be managed by specialised administrators with the necessary skills and training. He added that international examples often show that politicians do not handle the specialised functions of implementation; instead, these roles are filled by trained professionals. He mentioned that many individuals in the public service lack the proper training and preparation needed for their roles, both technically and ethically. He pointed out that, even if employees have advanced degrees, they might not have received adequate ethical training or commitment to public service. The professionalisation framework aims to address this issue by emphasising the need for proper training and ethical considerations.

He discussed a proposed amendment to the Public Administration Management Act, which includes establishing the National School of Government as an independent department. This would enhance its role in training public servants and contribute to the broader goal of professionalising the public service. Dr Chipkin indicated that this amendment is part of the ongoing efforts to transform and improve public administration.

Ms. Xaba-Ntshaba sought Dr Chipkin’s perspective on the Nyukela Programme, specifically its effectiveness and impact on individuals in the public service. She questioned whether the programme is merely a compliance measure or if it genuinely contributes to improving the standard of public service and has a meaningful impact on those it aims to support.

Dr Chipkin responded by acknowledging that, while the Nyukela Programme, which focuses on induction and compliance, may seem to have limited impact, it is crucial for setting up a framework for professionalisation. He emphasised the importance of ensuring senior officials and public servants have the right skills and attitudes to perform their roles effectively. According to Dr Chipkin, the professionalisation framework aims to address this by providing the necessary infrastructure for proper recruitment and development. He noted that similar to international models like those in China and France, a robust induction and examination process is vital for selecting and training public servants. Dr Chipkin highlighted that the professionalisation framework is designed to support these efforts by establishing a solid foundation for modernising the public service. He suggested that the current reform processes present a significant opportunity to enhance public sector capabilities and positively impact service delivery.

Dr Letlape raised a concern about potentially exacerbating confusion in the public service by increasing the discretion of ministers. He questioned whether this could lead to situations where ministers might face legal challenges from within the system, thereby complicating matters further.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked about the current setup concerning the appointment of accounting officers and the impact of proposed reforms. He highlighted the need to address the potential political influence in administrative appointments and suggested reviewing the entire process to ensure transparency and fairness. Mr Sithole emphasised the importance of external evaluations and testing for candidates to minimise political interference.

Members raised the urgency of having Dr Chipkin back for more than three hours for further deliberations.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee could invite Dr Chipkin back for further engagement on specific issues as legislative amendments arise.

Ms Xaba-Ntshaba sought clarification on the role of the National School of Government in ensuring that public servants are adequately trained and professionalised. She inquired about the mechanisms in place to support the professional development of public servants and ensure they perform their duties effectively.

Dr Chipkin discussed the current crisis in public administration, particularly focusing on corruption and capture. He emphasised the need for systemic change and the crucial role of committees in supporting and facilitating this transformation. He highlighted the importance of the National School of Government and its role in ensuring cohesion among various public administration institutions. Dr Chipkin stressed the need for this institution to assist both the PSC and Parliament in navigating the public administration landscape and ensuring adherence to appropriate procedures.

He advocated for amendments to the Public Service Act that would reduce the discretion of politicians and empower Directors-General with the authority to make departmental decisions. He suggested that the appointment of high-level officials should be managed through a process that involves the PSC and the National School of Government, rather than being solely at the discretion of the President. This approach, he argued, would ensure that appointments are made based on merit and the right qualifications. He also proposed consolidating training institutions into a single entity to foster long-term professional development and networking among public servants. This, he noted, would align with international practices and contribute to a more effective public service system.

Ms Potgieter asked about the implications of establishing a separate entity related to energy – specifically, whether there are any potential negative consequences of doing so.

Dr Chipkin suggested that the establishment of a separate entity for energy might have had potential downsides. He indicated that his understanding might have been limited, and the decision to create a new entity could have been influenced by the fact that the current National School of Government might not have been configured to offer long-term, specialised programmes in energy. The existing setup might not have allowed for the depth of training required, thus justifying the move to a separate entity. However, he acknowledged that this separation could have led to issues such as overlap or competition with existing institutions, which might have created inefficiencies or confusion. The negative consequences of establishing the entity separately could have stemmed from these potential overlaps and the challenge of ensuring that it operated effectively without duplicating efforts of current institutions.

Dr Letlape asked whether another approach should be considered. He wondered if it might be more effective to have a standardised model for producing public administration professionals, perhaps through different universities, rather than establishing a separate entity. He suggested that experts could examine this approach to determine its feasibility and effectiveness.

Dr Chipkin responded by referring to the initial understanding that the National School of Government might eventually evolve into a university dedicated to regional public administration. The idea was that this transition could help overcome some of the competition and inefficiencies within the existing system. However, he admitted that he did not have all the answers to the questions raised. He emphasised that the autonomy of the training and the regulatory environment were crucial factors. He noted that the configuration of the regulatory institutions was an important consideration in evaluating these issues.

Ms Tikana-Gxothiwe raised a concern about the public service, specifically regarding individuals who continue to receive government salaries without performing their duties despite being suspended for extended periods. She asked for clarity on why such situations occur, noting that these individuals might end up in other government departments without any real accountability.

The Chairperson added that these individuals often end up in different government departments, continuing to work for the government despite their previous performance issues.

Dr Chipkin responded by redirecting the question back to the Committee, asking why such situations might occur. He explained that the legislative framework did not adequately address these issues and that the delegation of powers often resulted in inadequate enforcement of regulations. He pointed out that current legislators and administrators might not have the authority to address these issues effectively. Dr Chipkin noted that these problems were often related to the toxic working environment and the contradictions between political power and administrative performance, which could contribute to such issues.

Dr Letlape expressed interest in the amendment and emphasised the importance of avoiding political interference in the public service. He highlighted the need for a clear delineation of responsibilities within the amendment, ensuring that changes in political leadership do not disrupt the continuity of administrative functions. As a medical doctor by training and experience, Dr Letlape used the analogy of a need to remove a tumour if doable or transitioning the process to palliative care for ultimate demise. He also used another analogy mentioned by Dr Chipkin about an engine component, to illustrate that the operational aspects should remain stable even if the "drivers" or political leaders change. He advocated for the amendment to be implemented with precision, akin to the Chinese or Japanese approach of maintaining stability and continuity despite changes in leadership.

Dr Chipkin added that while the amendment offers greater clarity on the roles of political and administrative functions, it does not fully address the problem of political influence and administrative independence. The amendment clarifies roles but does not resolve underlying issues related to political interference.

Dr Letlape emphasised the importance of maintaining stability and continuity within the public service despite changes in political leadership. He highlighted that while the amendment provides clarity, it must be implemented with precision to ensure that operational aspects remain consistent.
 
Both Dr Chipkin and Dr Letlape acknowledged that the issue of how to handle high-level suspensions and administrative accountability remains complex. The conversation emphasised the need for clear separation of responsibilities and effective mechanisms to address suspensions and political interference in the public sector.

Ms Tikana-Gxothiwe raised concerns about addressing issues of non-compliance and the challenges faced in implementing recommendations from Commissions. She emphasised the need to tackle shortcomings in implementing recommendations by departments and the PSC. Her focus was on the disconnect between recommendations and their execution, especially in light of frustrations expressed by Commissioners regarding the lack of action from departments. She mentioned that, despite understanding the division between political and administrative roles, there are still issues with compliance and implementation, which need to be addressed. She urged for a re-evaluation of behaviour and practices to improve performance and benefit public trust.

Ms Gcilishe sought clarification on the protections afforded to employees within departments compared to political office bearers. She said she was keen on understanding whether employees are adequately protected by law and how this protection compares to that of political appointees. Her question aimed to clarify the extent of legal protections for different categories of public servants and whether these protections are sufficient to ensure fair treatment and accountability.

Mr Sithole acknowledged the value of the presentation and expressed a need for further clarification on several points. He highlighted that the brief time allotted was insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues discussed. He requested additional time to delve into the specifics of the legislation, particularly the roles defined by the Constitution and the Public Administration frameworks. Mr Sithole also touched upon the need for clearer distinctions between political officeholders and departmental staff, emphasising that the current explanations had left some contradictions unresolved. He suggested that a more detailed session would be beneficial for a better grasp of the legislative and constitutional roles and responsibilities and for addressing the existing confusion and contradictions.

Dr Chipkin addressed the fundamental issues concerning the responsibility and autonomy of public administrators. He emphasised that resolving the environmental and regulatory challenges departments face would significantly contribute to more effective and professional governance. Political environment and lack of clarity in the regulations often hindered the ability of public officials to comply fully with the rules. He used the example of National Treasury, where the autonomy and professionalism of the Department were compromised by the expansion of the private office, which undermined the Department's independence. He stressed the importance of passing legislation that aligns with constitutional values and ensures consistency across all public administrations.

Dr Chipkin mentioned the need for legislation that would enforce the values and principles of public administration. This legislation, he indicated, has not yet been enacted, and he saw this as an opportunity to advance the legislative process. He expressed willingness to collaborate on this issue and shared his ongoing work with colleagues and the Commission to address these legislative gaps.

Dr Letlape suggested the adoption of a hybrid model that integrates modern approaches to improve to sustain and improve consistent interaction of Committee Members. He proposed inviting the PSC to contribute to the discussions around public service, believing that the entity’s involvement could offer valuable insights and support for implementing effective reforms.

Chairperson’s Closing Remarks
The Chairperson delivered closing remarks emphasising the practical importance of effective public administration. He highlighted how crucial dependable services like roads, sanitation, and healthcare are for individuals, especially in low-income areas, and how these services are fundamentally linked to the effectiveness of public administration.

He expressed gratitude to Dr Chipkin for his valuable input and indicated that this session was just the beginning of more detailed engagements. He mentioned the upcoming induction and workshops where further discussions on legislation could take place and invited continued collaboration.

The Chairperson noted that the Public Service Amendment Bill, which had passed the National Assembly and was now in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), could still be amended. He suggested engaging with colleagues in the NCOP to propose additional changes before it returned for final approval.

He commended the Committee Members for their insightful questions and professional conduct, wished everyone a good break, and looked forward to future discussions.

The meeting was adjourned.