Professionalising the Public Sector: PSC input

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted the apologies from Dr T Letlape (Action SA) and the Minister and Deputy Minister. Prof Somadoda Fikeni, Chairperson of the Public Service Commission (PSC), also advised the Committee that he had to catch a flight at 14:00, and had to leave early.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that on 11 September, the Committee had invited the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), along with the National School of Government (NSG), to provide an update on the implementation of the framework for the professionalisation of the public sector.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) had been invited to offer an independent view of how government and key stakeholders were working to implement this framework. The framework was critical and central to building a capable and ethical developmental state. Having received updates on the implementation of the framework, it was of paramount importance for the Committee to identify gaps and develop a strategy to hold all stakeholders accountable for its implementation.

PSC Perspective on Reform Towards Professionalism

Prof Fikeni presented on the topic Reform Towards Professionalisation: A PSC Perspective, which he regarded as the most important public sector reform intervention in response to the existing crisis caused by the weakening of the public service. He commented on the outcomes of the Zondo Commission, investigative reports from the media, court cases, service delivery protests, corruption, and poor implementation of policies, raising the question of whether the state had the institutional capacity to implement reforms effectively.

In 1998, the then-President considered appointing Dr Vincent Maphai to explore the professionalisation of public service, but this initiative was never realised. Parliament later tasked the late Prof Kader Asmal with examining the issue of professionalisation and the autonomy of constitutional bodies, but this effort also stalled. In 2014, the PSC introduced the first draft on the professionalisation of the public service as a necessary intervention.

Chapter 13 of the National Development Plan highlighted that the successful achievement of all its goals depended on the state's capacity. When the Minister appointed a broadly representative ministerial committee from various public administration sectors, in which he himself had been fortunate to have been involved, it led to the creation of the current professionalisation document. The National School of Government (NSG) had been assigned the task of coordinating this initiative, working closely with the Department and the Minister.

In line with its Chapter 10 mandate, the PSC focused on ensuring efficient and effective public service. A draft was submitted to Cabinet and other institutions and was ultimately approved in October 2022. The PSC has since been coordinating with different institutions and departments for the implementation of the framework. While South Africa had some of the best policies, implementation remained a challenge, which made the implementation framework critical.

Multiple stakeholders were involved in the process. The NSG completed its coordination work, while the DPSA also sought to assert its role. This led to the PSC being approached to oversee the coordination of the implementation, and it then invited all stakeholders for a three-day retreat, where a framework was developed.

Issues such as austerity and funding were raised, leading the PSC to approach the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which provided financial support for the framework’s facilitation. Although the implementation plan contained recommendations that could be monitored, the PSC anticipated a staggered approach in reporting back to the Committee. For instance, regarding the tenure of Directors-General (DGs) and Heads of Departments (HoDs), it was suggested that their term of office be set at five years or longer, and the PSC expects feedback on the progress of this regulation.

Communication among stakeholders responsible for implementation was not effective, prompting the PSC to call for another meeting. Each stakeholder had specific responsibilities, and the Auditor-General (AG) was particularly strict about ensuring the PSC coordinated the implementation. This issue was deliberated for almost a week. The PSC, in collaboration with a panel of experts, was committed to fulfilling its role, while also addressing elements included in the proposed Bill.

Mr Vusumuzi Mavuso, PSC Commissioner and convenor of the Leadership and Management Practice Specialist Committee within the PSC, continued the presentation. He presented two reports, one partly addressing public service reform towards professionalisation by the PSC, and the other focusing on the framework towards professionalising the public sector and its implementation plan.

Established in 1912, the PSC was initially mandated to handle all transversal matters from a centralised perspective, particularly those related to personnel practices and public service administration. The Constitution outlines the PSC’s functions in section 196(4). The content of the reports was informed by both previous and current reforms, extending up to 2023.

Dr Ronel Singh presented on the 30-year journey reflected in the report. The analysis examined various reforms, aligned with the PSC’s mandate concerning human resource (HR) practices, focusing on reforms before and after 1994. The study explored paradigms of public administration from both theoretical and academic perspectives. The report was extensive, covering a broad historical period.

Before 1994, there was an Appointments Commission, followed by the creation of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) from a policy perspective, with its functions becoming decentralised. In terms of the staffing and career system, there was a clear progression path in the public service. Today, however, an open employment system allows individuals to apply for positions in the public service. The rationalisation of the public service, which began in the 1980s, continued into the 2000s.

The first wave of reforms post-1994 focused on integrating and rationalising the public service, including harmonising the Constitution, the Public Service Act, and the Public Service Regulations to structure the public service effectively. The second wave of reforms introduced monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms, shifting the focus from activities and outputs to policy outcomes, which had a significant positive impact. The third wave emphasised stabilising the political-administrative interface and creating the role of Heads of Departments (HoDs).

Regarding recommendations, Dr Singh noted a lack of analytical capacity within Departments to understand HR planning effectively. The rigid HR templates used in Departments resulted in an inflexible approach to addressing HR matters. The report recommended discontinuing the DPSA Human Resource Development (HRD) strategic framework. Additionally, problems and recommendations related to the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) were discussed.

Regarding professionalisation and the career system, the primary issue was that although young people complete internships, retention remained a challenge. Concerns about the competencies of individuals within the senior management service (SMS) were also raised. Another issue was the suppression of creativity within the public service, leading to a rigid adherence to rules and the neglect of values. The report emphasised that rules and values should complement each other.
A recommendation was made to establish an expert body, comprising relevant stakeholders, to develop a rationale for macro-organisational changes.

Dr Singh also elaborated on the process of filling Director-General (DG) positions, the introduction of the role of the Head of Public Service, the recruitment processes for this role, and the necessary safeguards.

Implementation of the Professionalisation Framework

Ms Zukiswa Mqolomba, Deputy Chairperson, PSC, briefly introduced the presentation on the Implementation of the Professionalisation Framework. The purpose of the implementation plan was to address the challenge of South Africa having good policies but consistently falling short in their execution. The plan was aimed at transforming a weakening public service into an ethical and developmental state guided by values.

Key challenges included the coordination among government departments on their respective roles and responsibilities, as well as the lack of adequate resources. The PSC had secured R10 million from the UNDP and the World Bank, with the stipulation that the funds must be utilised by November/December 2024 due to the differing financial year constraints, and full accountability for the expenditure was required.

Mr Cameron Jacobs, Chief Director, PSC, continued with the presentation on the implementation of the framework. He gave context and background of the national professionalisation framework, implementation challenges, the role players in the framework, and the PSC’s roles in HoD evaluation. One of their challenges was that they could not proceed unless they had legal enablers.

Mr Mavuso clarified that the PSC had noted slight disjunctions between the National Development Plan (NDP), the professionalisation framework, and the related recommendations. However, he emphasised that these could be aligned and complemented over time. He further explained that when referring to the public sector, this included local government, though there may be a caveat regarding whether it also encompassed the legislative sector. He also stressed that integrity assessments must be clearly defined, along with the systems required to ensure that these assessments lead to proper outcomes.

Ms Mqolomba said they had received a communication from the Committee indicating that part of the Committee's resolutions was for the PSC to further develop the monitoring framework. However, she clarified that this responsibility did not fall within the PSC's jurisdiction, but rather within that of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME).

Prof Fikeni added that when they hold a retreat with all departments present, they would develop a more unified position to avoid presenting fragmented information to the Committee at this stage. This unified position would address the delegation of responsibilities. In addition, he mentioned the Committee’s submission of the medium-term plan, noting that once it was approved by Treasury, all subsequent actions must align with it. Treasury was very stringent, especially after plans had been submitted and approved.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC) inquired about the specific role the PSC plays in overseeing the implementation of the professionalisation framework. She asked whether the PSC would proactively develop a tool to monitor this implementation. She also questioned whether the framework formed part of the performance contracts or agreements for accounting officers. Lastly, she sought clarification on why it was challenging to hire information technology (IT) specialists, given that they were in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where IT was crucial across all departments.

Mr P Ndamase (ANC) raised several concerns. First, he addressed the reluctance to discuss the concept of a "new cadre" by the Commissioner, despite not having an issue with the idea itself. He referenced former President’s Kgalema Motlanthe's description of a cadre as an advanced revolutionary responsible for maintaining the organisation, noting that the public service being discussed was an organisation and that this was acceptable within the context of transformation.

He then highlighted his repeated inquiries regarding the legislative sector, which he felt were often dodged, describing it as a "missing leg." He pointed out that civil servants within the legislative sector should be part of the overall framework. He contrasted the over-regulation complained about by local states with the lack of regulation in the legislative arm, questioning how accounting officers in the legislative sector could be employed at a salary scale significantly higher than that of Director-Generals (DGs). Given their role as legislative authority, he asked the PSC for clarity on this, especially regarding the omission of speakers from the consultation process.

Mr Ndamase further questioned the political-administrative interface, particularly at the provincial level, where DGs were placed under premiers who oversee relatively small budgets, while other departments, under the same DG, manage significantly larger budgets. He asked how this situation could be reconciled, given that no law granted the DG authority over other departments.

Regarding integrity, he asked whether state security agents could be used to enhance integrity testing, despite the fact that those agencies also faced integrity issues within their own ranks.
He also raised concerns about state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and their governance, highlighting that the transformation process in SOEs was chaotic due to challenges such as the absence of the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) and the slow legislative process. He inquired about the PSC's involvement in these processes, specifically asking how to manage situations like that of Eskom, where the CEO earns nearly R7 million, and does not report to the DG, despite the DG being seen as the CEO’s superior.

He also touched on the issue of salary harmonisation within the legislative sector, explaining that it had been difficult to resolve due to the ability of some workers to negotiate their salaries independently. This resulted in directors earning less than senior managers.

Lastly, Mr Ndamase questioned the performance management system, particularly concerning service delivery. He asked how HoDs could receive performance bonuses when they were unable to articulate clear milestones related to their department’s work. He expressed concerns about relying solely on clean audits as a performance measure, pointing out that clean audits often contradicted the lived experiences of people in the communities affected by poor service delivery.

Ms M Pholwane (ANC) inquired whether the PSC had a monitoring tool for the implementation of its strategies. She also raised concerns regarding employment, noting that their only solution seemed to be creating posts. If a post was not approved, she suggested that the Committee would follow up on the approval process.

She also expressed frustration about certain tasks being delayed due to the lack of delegation from specific offices. She proposed that the Committee should assist in checking for any gaps in delegation, as the Committee was responsible for monitoring this.

Finally, she emphasised that successful implementation required the involvement of all stakeholders, since multiple parties were engaged in the process. She voiced her support for a workshop where all stakeholders could participate and present their challenges.

Ms W Tikana-Gxotiwe (ANC) acknowledged that much work needed to be done, particularly regarding non-implementation. She inquired whether the recommendations had been presented to the DPSA for consideration and implementation, as the DPSA played a major role in carrying out these recommendations. If they had been presented, she urged the Committee to follow up with the DPSA to track the progress and implementation of these recommendations, which could help the government move forward.

She pointed out the "elephant in the room" -- the sentiment among employees and Department officials that while the Committee serves for five years, nothing would be implemented. She emphasised the importance of having clear timelines for the implementation of the Bill and the framework, stating that without timelines, progress could not be measured. The stakeholder retreat should produce definitive timeframes, adopted by all stakeholders, to ensure proper implementation of the framework. Without clear timelines, progress could not be tracked, and service to the people may remain unmeasurable.

She also raised concerns about the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) for senior management. She asked how best to monitor its implementation, as many departments comply with procedures without considering the actual impact on individuals and service delivery outcomes. She suggested the need for a tool to assist HoDs in conducting and measuring quarterly reviews to ensure alignment with performance management.

Ms Tikana-Gxotiwe expressed concern that merely meeting targets on paper did not guarantee substantive progress. She questioned how departments could balance their budgets with actual performance, noting that they often overspend their budgets but underperform in terms of targets. She stressed the need for a balanced approach to ensure resources were used efficiently while targets were met.

She was optimistic about the HRD and skills development plans but emphasised that the implementation lay with the DPSA. She highlighted the challenges of promotions and the need to manage outward mobility, suggesting that there must be a better way to match individuals' skills with the department's needs.

She addressed the issue of integrity, questioning how to assess integrity objectively when individuals responsible for overseeing it might themselves have integrity issues. She expressed concerns about the subjectivity of this process.

Finally, she referred to the Auditor-General's (AG's) audit and the support of the PSC in implementing the professionalisation framework, stating that the Committee must now take responsibility to ensure the departments implement the AG's and Commission’s recommendations.

Ms S Gcilishe (EFF) agreed that the presentation had been well prepared, but raised concerns about the implementation process, noting that this was where issues typically arose. She questioned how the PSC, as a Chapter 9 institution, planned to ensure that these initiatives were implemented. She asked whether the PSC had a clear plan moving forward to ensure that its recommendations were followed through.

She inquired whether the PSC had a skills recruitment plan in place, commenting that individuals frequently moved from one department to another without necessarily having the required skills to improve the department. She asked for the PSC’s stance on insourcing the necessary skills, as there was a persistent reliance on outsourcing.

Ms Gcilishe also questioned whether the PSC intended to establish an administrative task team to intervene in SOEs when things go wrong. Could government utilise professional services from companies that were 100% South African-owned, and were there efforts to include women and young people to ensure a more inclusive approach?

Mr M Matutu (MK) referred to an incident that had occurred the previous week, after which the Chairperson reportedly wrote a letter and issued a statement without informing the Committee about an employer in Gauteng. He asked whether this was the manner in which the Chairperson intended to handle Committee matters -- without prior communication with the Members. He clarified that his intent was not to confront the Chairperson, but to address the issue, which he had been unable to raise last week due to time constraints.

The Chairperson said he would answer Mr Matutu’s question after all the other questions had been addressed. He assured Mr Matutu that there was nothing he could not ask.

Mr J Malinga (MK) sought clarification for the presentation's reference to 2022, yet it was now 2024. He asked whether there had been an opportunity to present this information earlier to the previous Committee, and if so, how that could assist in moving forward, using the previously gathered information.

He also raised concerns regarding the professionalisation framework, as many government departments were widely seen as being in disarray. He questioned the PSC's plan to address the development of current incumbents in these departments, especially when many did not meet the necessary requirements.

He emphasised the importance of having a stakeholder retreat and ensuring a commitment to continuous improvement beyond just that day. He further highlighted that the evaluation and adoption of the framework would help ensure its long-term success.

Lastly, he stressed the importance of setting clear timeframes for implementation, to avoid repeating the history of merely listening to proposals without action, leading to "dead documents" that fail to serve the nation. He agreed with the proposal for a three-year implementation plan, followed by an evaluation.

Ms G Mchunu (MK) asked who was supposed to lead the implementation of the framework among all the role players.

Ms L Potgieter (DA) agreed with the recommendations of the PSC regarding the professionalisation framework, but commented that the process was long-winded and overly focused on procedures. She raised concern about the incentive and reward systems, noting that underperformance seemed to be rewarded. She agreed with the need to rethink the incentive framework, advocating for eliminating the rating scale and scoring system, as it allowed politicians to simply "tick the boxes" and still receive bonuses despite underperformance, especially at the SOE level.

On competency assessments, she recalled that the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) had been redoing its assessments because the previous framework applied to only five disciplines, making implementation difficult across the board. She expressed concern that some high-ranking officials, such as chief financial officers (CFOs), scored low in crucial areas like finance and strategy, but were still deemed competent overall, which could result in unqualified individuals being hired.

Ms Potgieter highlighted the problematic nature of the PSC's inability to set deadlines for departments to implement recommendations, asking if a ministerial directive could be used to enforce timeframes. She also questioned the monitoring tools used by DPME, and called for a presentation on how monitoring would be done.

On recruitment panels, she noted that current practices allowed inexperienced staff to form part of the panel, leading to poor recruitment decisions, and suggested rules should be changed to ensure more qualified individuals were involved.

Ms Potgieter raised concerns about the legal standing of ministerial directives and suggested that the Bill should more clearly address gaps in local government which directives may not fully resolve. Regarding the R10 million funding from the UNDP and World Bank, she asked if the PSC was on track to use the funds before the 2024 deadline, and requested a copy of the terms of reference.
She questioned whether the funding would help address Treasury’s block on implementing HR reforms, particularly those related to IT, or whether consultation with Treasury was still needed. She also inquired whether the Bill, as it stands, fully addresses the MPSA's lack of legal authority over local government and SOEs.

Ms Potgieter also raised concerns about the vetting of experts, asking who was responsible for vetting and the process involved. She referred to the Municipal Amendment Act, noting that it was widely misunderstood, and requested clarification on how various pieces of legislation align or contradict each other within the professionalisation framework.

Lastly, she suggested that legal Departments should be included in the framework, noting that HR departments often rely on legal advice, but many of those providing legal counsel had never practiced law, which she identified as a potential problem.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) raised concerns about the role of legal directives in the PSC's operations, asking where they currently stand and how the Committee could assist. He expressed frustration with the lengthy process of filling DG posts, emphasising the importance of the Minister’s role, as DGs were accounting officers. He highlighted that without addressing issues such as a lack of coordination and budget shortages, the country would face significant challenges in implementing policies, particularly at the local government level.

Mr Sithole warned that without proper coordination among role players, local government could become a breeding ground for corruption. He also pointed out a specific issue at the Department of Basic Education (DBE) in Gauteng, where long queues of people were not receiving assistance, and linked this to a broader crisis of professionalisation. He urged the PSC to investigate and address this matter.

The Chairperson responded to Mr Matutu's question by clarifying his role when complaints were brought to the Committee. He explained that he acts merely as a messenger, and forwards the complaint to the PSC for investigation. It was not his or the Committee's place to engage in deliberations on the facts of the complaint, as that could lead to premature conclusions. The Chairperson emphasised that he was responsible for forwarding complaints to the PSC and waiting for their findings. Once the PSC provides its report, the Committee could deliberate based on those facts and make decisions accordingly. He assured the Committee they were not excluded from the process, and confirmed that he was following proper procedure.

The Chairperson then noted that due to a meeting at 13h00, the current session would end at 12:55. He requested the PSC to keep their answers concise, and offered the option of providing written responses for any unanswered questions.

Responses

Prof Fikeni addressed several points in his response. First, he noted that many of the legal enablers mentioned related to the PSC Bill, which represented a significant step forward. With the Committee's assistance, the PSC's mandate could extend to include local government and SOEs.

Regarding security and vetting, he explained that delays negatively impacted appointments, with some individuals receiving communication only after their term ended.

Regarding the holding company for SOEs, Prof Fikeni stated that it remained outside the PSC's current mandate, but they were preparing for their potential involvement. He highlighted the PSC's work on creating a single public service, which would include parliamentary staff, and aimed to harmonise salaries to address the wide disparities.

On performance contracts, he noted that this fell under the DPME's responsibility. The planned implementation workshop would assist in aligning all participants, including Ministers and departments, in coordinating their efforts with the PSC. The workshop was expected to improve coordination and ensure better communication between the PSC and other departments.

In terms of financial negotiations, Prof Fikeni mentioned that the PSC was in discussion with the UNDP regarding funds, as their financial year ends in December, and the PSC was seeking guidance from Treasury on potentially extending the funds to run through March, which aligns with the PSC’s financial year.

Lastly, he expressed concerns about the high turnover of Ministers and Committee Members, which made it difficult to build continuity and required starting over without proper handovers. He mentioned that the PSC faces challenges with unconsulted restructuring efforts in other agencies. He proposed joint inspections, such as with Home Affairs, to address issues like long government pension queues.

Prof Fikeni identified a growing "oversight saturation" problem, where various agencies did not collaborate effectively in seeking assistance from the same departments.

He also corrected the issue of the term “cadre” and said they did not want to get trapped in the political tensions in using the term, but the PSC would further use it as a neutral term.

Ms Mqoloba emphasised that the PSC was a neutral institution and functioned as a multi-party committee, distinguishing it from being part of a Government of National Unity (GNU). The PSC played both oversight and implementation roles, particularly in the performance management of HODs and the selection of technical panel experts for HOD appointments related to the implementation framework. She pointed out the challenges of integrity testing through state security agencies, which often results in delays, and suggested competency assessments as a faster, though potentially costly, alternative.

Regarding monitoring tools, Ms Mqoloba noted that the DPME was responsible for developing these tools, with the PSC expected to provide support. The goal was to have these tools ready by the end of the current financial year, or early next year. She also mentioned that the PSC had been engaging in fundraising activities, reaching out to big businesses and embassies to finance the resourcing of the framework, and they were in communication with National Treasury regarding additional funding.

Prof Fikeni clarified that the PSC was not part of a GNU, but rather a constitutionally mandated body, stressing that their fundraising efforts were independent of any political party’s interests. He also discussed ongoing efforts to improve coordination, including a strategic retreat and multi-stakeholder engagements.

The Chairperson reiterated that any unanswered questions would be addressed in writing, and reminded Members of their upcoming constituency period.

Ms Potgieter asked about monitoring mechanisms regarding requested documents, and the Chairperson assured her that staff would record and track every request.

Prof Fikeni raised concerns about document distribution, noting that sometimes sent documents were not received.

The Chairperson agreed to investigate this issue.

The meeting was adjourned.