PSA Bill & PAMA Bill: DPSA briefing; DPSA 2023/24 Annual Report

Meeting report

Absence of Ministers
The Chairperson said there was an apology from the Minister who was outside the country on business. It had been promised that a Deputy Minister would be present, which was why it had been agreed that the meeting would proceed.

The Department had emphasised that politicians must be present during the meetings – if a Minister was not present, then an acting Minister must be present, and if an acting Minister could not be present, then a Deputy Minister must be present. The Chairperson said that the Deputy Minister had informed them that he would not be present on the morning of the meeting, but the reasoning was unclear. This was the last meeting to be held without a Minister present, as it was unacceptable.

DPSA briefing on PSA Bill & PAMA Bill

Ms Renisha Naidoo, Chief Director: Legal Services, Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), said that she and her fellow colleagues would present the presentations, and allow for the Committee to reflect on the current bills and the proposed changes.

Public Service Amendment Bill [B13-2023]  
The Bill proposes amendments to the Public Service Act of 1994, addressing structural and functional changes to enhance efficiency, accountability, and alignment with the National Development Plan (NDP). Key features include:
 

Devolution of powers

Administrative powers shift from executive authorities to heads of departments, allowing executives to focus on strategy and policy directions.

Heads of Departments are tasked with operational, organisational, and administrative responsibilities.

Enhanced roles

The Director-General in the Presidency gains expanded functions to act as an administrative head of the public service, aligning with NDP goals.

Heads of Departments (HoDs) are further empowered in appointments, probation decisions, and dismissals.

Regulatory clarifications

Definitions and roles of executive authorities and heads of departments are clarified.

The President and Premier's roles in appointing HoDs are detailed.

Ethical and operational integrity

Prohibits heads of Departments and their direct reports from holding political office to maintain a clear boundary between political and administrative functions.

Provides mechanisms for the lawful recovery of overpaid salaries and ensures compliance with labour laws.

Grievance and accountability

Clarifies the Public Service Commission's (PSC's) role in grievance procedures.

Offers mechanisms for executive authorities to intervene when departmental heads fail to perform duties.

The DPSA said this Bill reflected an effort to streamline public service operations, ensuring alignment with constitutional values and enhancing accountability and service delivery.
 

Public Administration Management Amendment Bill [B10-2023]  
This Bill introduces updates to the Public Administration Management Act of 2014. It aims to improve efficiency and cohesion across the public administration system in South Africa. Key features include:
 

Employee transfers and secondments

Simplifies and regulates the transfer of employees across government levels (e.g., municipalities and public service).

Ensures secondments occur only when operationally justified.

Ethics and governance

Reinforces prohibitions against public employees conducting business with the state to avoid conflicts of interest.

Introduces a "cooling-off" period of 12 months for employees involved in procurement decisions, barring them from working with related service providers immediately after their tenure.

National School of Government

Establishes it as a national department to oversee training and development, enhancing public service capacity.

Reducing inequalities

Addresses disparities in remuneration and conditions of service across public administration entities.

Collective bargaining

Coordinates processes for collective bargaining in the public sector to ensure alignment and affordability.
The DPSA said the overall objectives of this Bill were to enhance accountability, remove operational inefficiencies, and promote a unified public administration system aligned with South Africa’s constitution and its policy objectives.
 

DPSA's annual report
The DPSA's 2023/24 annual report was presented by Mr Masilo Makhura, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DPSA, and his colleagues. Overall, it showed a clean audit, and improvements were made from previous years. Its main points included:
 

Audit outcome

Achieved a clean audit, improving from the previous year’s unqualified audit with findings.

Key achievements

Developed a public service skills audit methodology framework.

Successfully reduced the public service vacancy rate to 7.53% in Q1 of 2024/25.

Increased participation in the Government Employees Housing Scheme (GEHS), with significant reductions in government employees renting, and increases in homeownership.

Modernisation and service delivery

Launched the business process modernisation programme to enhance service efficiency.

Conducted a citizen report card survey to evaluate government service delivery and identify improvement areas.

Open government partnership (OGP)

Revived efforts, including the OGP 5th National Plan of Action (2023–2026), focusing on transparency and accountability.

Discipline and ethics management

Addressed long-overdue disciplinary cases and introduced a directive to manage precautionary suspensions more effectively.

Developed a public service discipline management strategy (2023–2026).

ICT and knowledge management

Streamlined ICT compliance and reporting processes.

Supported departments in implementing ICT directives and cloud compliance.

Emerging leaders in public service (ELIPS)

Designed to empower young public servants with leadership and decision-making skills.

Successfully completed the pilot program with plans for expansion.

Gender equality

Launched the gender equality seal initiative with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to promote gender integration across departments.

Internal systems and processes

Improved organisational culture, employee health and wellness programs, and introduced a lactation room for mothers.

Transitioned to an electronic submission system for efficiency.

Financial management

Unspent budget savings attributed to cost containment and delayed project implementations.

No irregular or unauthorised expenditures reported for the year.

The DPSA called for further improvements in good governance, and welcomed the Committee to add any recommendations or suggestions they might have.
 

See attached for full presentation
 

Discussion

Public Service Amendment Bill

Mr F Badenhorst (DA, Western Cape) said that the devolution of administrative powers to Heads of Departments, which was the main object of the Bill, was very much welcomed, as finally, someone was seeing the DA’s position. All executive functions should be devolved to lower departments. He therefore congratulated the administration on finally seeing the light. The Bill was a step in the right direction for transparency and accountability, but some provisions must still be looked at. He said that the DA always welcomed bills that address corruption. He said it seemed that some of the clauses were taken directly out of the DA’s end of cadre deployment bill that was presented to the previous administration, and shot down by the ANC.

He raised a concern in Clause 3(8) (a) that it was very broad and potentially open to abuse. Consideration should be given to narrowing these actions to only certain aspects. Later on in the clause it also limited any action to be taken within three years after a person ceases to be employed. However, there should not be an expiration date on decisions being made with regard to criminality.

Dr I Scheurkogel (DA, Free State) said there was no provision dealt with in Clause 2(c) to cater for when the executive authority fails in their duties. He therefore asked what processes there could be if the executive authority failed in their duties.

Clause 16, dealing with HoD appointees not holding political office in a political party, states that it needs to be complied with within one year of taking effect. Why could it be done immediately? And in Clause 18, he felt that the Department should look at another mechanism of accountability for wrongly paid over funds, because there was not enough to support it if money was deducted. He recalled that during a previous presentation, someone had told him that most of the funds had been paid back, but he still thought another mechanism should be looked at to ensure that funds were paid back.

He agreed with his colleague that this Bill was very much welcomed.

Mr K Ceza (EFF, Mpumalanga) commented that there was a lot in local government that could be fixed, along with the issue of race. He asked for clarity on page 21 regarding the current provision -- was the presentation referring to early retirement, or was it the actual retirement age – as it also referred to “any date after that date.” What were the specificities there?

Mr M Peter (UDM, Eastern Cape) said he was happy with the Bill. He asked if the Department was driven by a political agenda or administrative issues that were picked up in the Bill. The presentation mostly discussed the HOD and how to increase the HOD’s powers, so he wanted to know the motivation behind the proposed changes.

Mr B Mabebo (ANC, North West) also welcomed the amendment. His main concern was wrongly granted remuneration. He understood that if that happened, then the money was recovered from the employee,   but what were the consequences, and what would happen to that person?

Mr M Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) referred to the definition of political rights and the broad understanding of the Bill of Rights, and said this should be looked into. The constitution gave everyone the right to freedom to associate, and one could associate under various political formations. He said there could be tension between the right to associate, but then not to be elected because of one's association with a political organisation.

He referred to section 3.9(a)(ii) in Clause 2, and asked who contracts the employment. Was it a contract between the executive authority at the departmental level? If that were the case, would one not have the right to act in the event that there was a violation of duty on the part of the department? Or was there a complete disregard for authority, so the only power one had was to report to the Premier?

He mentioned Clause 9, which relates to the intelligence community. He said that over the weekend, there had been news of an uproar within the State Security Agency (SSA) over the restructuring within the service to deal with this clause, because in the SSA, the Criminal Intelligence Service or the Defence Intelligence, the retirement age was 65. In the clause, it states one could still serve until one dies. He therefore asked what had the interaction been with the intelligence services around this clause. From the news, it looked like there was an attempt to re-energise the Department by bringing in new blood, but there was the challenge of those who were beyond 65 and were still part of the services. This created a bit of a dilemma, because that had been an opportunity created by Treasury to allow those who were under the age of 65 to take a voluntary package.

Mr Ceza said that he had previously skipped a question because he was conscious of time. He referred to Clause 1’s new definition of “political office,” and asked for clarity.

The Chairperson said that the question had been adequately covered by Mr Mmoiemang. Just as Mr Badenhorst had mentioned, this Bill was good, which meant that the Government of National Unity (GNU) was aligned because these were resolutions of the ANC.

Responses

Ms Naidoo said that in terms of Clause 3 and the ability of the HOD to deal with former employees, the provision currently existed in the public service. It states that if an employee had left the service and there was a matter that needed to be dealt with up to three years after they had left the service, and if the HOD or the executive authority could have dealt with that matter, the law allows them to continue to deal with that matter. What that provision sought to do was to avoid going to court to correct something that the administration could correct, so the provision itself was not a new provision.

With regard to what happens when an executive authority fails with their duties, that was covered within the current Act itself. Section 16A(3), which was not in the presentation, states that the Minister of the DPSA may report to the Cabinet, or through the relevant premier to the executive council of the relevant province, any non-compliance by an executive authority with any provision of this Act or regulation. The Act therefore already provides a mechanism to report non-compliance to Parliament or the legislature.

In terms of the “cooling off” period, the initial proposals were to have the prohibition kick in as soon as the Act was implemented. There was a view, however, that there should be a transition period to allow HODs who were already employed to either decide within a year to relinquish their authority within a political party, or to relinquish their employment within the public service. That was an issue which Parliament could decide, otherwise that there did not need to be one. It was similar to what had been invoked in the municipal systems.

Regarding the recovery of money, generally the principle in the public service was that if one paid money that was not due to anybody, one was obliged to recover that money. There were therefore provisions in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and many statutes dealing with the recovery of undue enrichment.

What the Public Service Act particularly deals with, in addition to what currently exists, is what happens when employees are granted a salary that they should not have received and for which they are now overpaid. The general principle with any employment was that one would be paid for services rendered. If one was accidentally paid for services not rendered, then the state must recover the money, as it was taxpayers’ money. There were, however, circumstances that came into play with how that money should be recovered.

What happened in this case was that this provision was unconstitutional, because the Gauteng province had decided that an employee had been overpaid by R100 000 during the transitions of the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD). They had deducted the full amount from the employee’s salary, so the employee was left with no money in the end and no bills could be paid. The court had said that was completely unfair, because it did not take into account the employee’s affordability – it was just an unfettered right the state had. What they had been asked to do by the Constitutional Court was to put in a mechanism that stated what the process to recover overpaid salaries was, and what the mechanisms were to ensure that there was no abuse of employees. What the DPSA had done was to put in a process to recover with the consent of the employee, and recognise that affordability must be taken into account.

The downside was that even though there might be consent, sometimes employees did not know what they were consenting to. Therefore, one did not want to have the muscle to force consent, which was why parameters were necessary. This Bill takes care of that kind of situation.

With regard to the retirement age, the Public Service Act had various retirement ages, but the consequent payment of pensions was different. There were different rules that dictate what happens when one is deemed to be retired under the Public Service Act. For example, the Act states that at the age of 55, one has the right to retire. However, if one decides to retire at 55, but the pension fund rules penalise one. At the age of 60, one could choose to leave with no penalisation on the pension. The age of 65 in the public service was the compulsory age of retirement. There was a provision in Section 16 that states the executive authority could decide to keep one for two years longer, therefore one could stay until 67. However, retirement between 60 and 67 was completely voluntary.

Ms Naidoo said she wanted to discuss the issue of voluntary severance packages and people being enticed to leave at the age of 55. The Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) was having a conversation with labour on allowing public servants to exit at the age of 55 and not have their salaries penalised, the idea being to exit people who had been in the public service for a long time, and to try to bring in new skills and personalities.

What had driven the Department to proceed with the Bill stemmed from many historic documents. There was the National Development Plan, the Professionalisation Framework, the Zondo Commission report, and the commitment by the President in respect to the Zondo report, all of which ensured that the public service remained stable despite changes in the Executive. This requires a political separation from the administration to the extent that it remains stable and is not influenced by politicians within the administration. However, government policy would always influence the way a department operates and its policies and the departmental agenda. Therefore, the idea of this Bill was to look at good governance. There were provisions in the Act that allowed executive authorities to delegate power, but it had been seen historically that that did not work, as there would be a change within the executive power and they would immediately withdraw those delegations, and HODs were then powerless to manage their departments.

With regard to consequence management in respect of wrongly-granted remuneration, there were already processes within the public service to deal with people who did not act as they should. If someone creates a challenge by paying someone money that was not due, there is a process to discipline that person and to hold them accountable. If it was a fraudulent transaction, then criminal procedures were an option.

The issues around the constitutional challenges from the municipal system have also been considered.

One of the reasons why the provision on political rights was so closely drafted was because the Municipal Systems Act limited all employees and excluded them from holding political office. What had now been done was to justify why this particular right had been limited. In this case, it was to manage the ethical conundrum between the HOD and those reporting to him or her. This was to try to prevent any conflict of interest. There had been discussions, however, on whether the DPSA had gone far enough in terms of the definition of “political office”. That might be something that the Committee might want to look into.

Regarding the contracts of HODs and what happens when they do not act, the Public Service Act was configured so that the appointment of HODs was vested in the Premier at provincial level and in the President at the national level. If an HOD did not act, the matter would be referred to the appointing authority.

In terms of the State Security Agency, this Act applies to all employees in the public service, except in instances where there were laws that state otherwise. The Public Service Act was therefore the default act, unless another statute states otherwise.

Public Administration Management Amendment Bill:

Discussion

Dr Scheurkogel referred to clause 5, which states that a minister would decide what type of transactions were considered as remunerative but not for profit, and asked for clarification on how the Minister was going to determine that. He added that there should be greater limitations put on the power of the Minister to avoid abuse of this provision, as it could allow other corrupt contracts or transactions to be awarded.

He said that Clause 6 went a long way in preventing corruption, but asked if there was not a possibility to change the 12 months to 24 months to avoid these practices from happening. He said that both Bills served to avoid cadre deployment and transactions that were not in the public’s favour, as well as the devolution of power. This was the greatness of these two Bills, as whatever happened politically, the administration would be able to continue and would not be influenced by political factions.

He suggested considering expanding the integrity unit’s powers to do independent investigations and to perform oversight without fear of political reprisals.

Mr Ceza refers to page 28, and said that currently, public entities report to the relative authority. He then referred to part 2A on the same page, and said that the DPSA was stating that there was no minister for that. He thought the entities reported to the departments, so what was the rationale behind the public entities having to report back to a separate minister for public services?

Mr Peter said he was happy with the manner in which his questions had been answered and that he had not been taken for granted. He just wanted to express his gratitude for their professionalism.

Mr Mabebo asked for clarity on the ministers responsible, as the proposal states that it was only the Minister of Local Government and the Minister of Finance that could be consulted when making salary adjustments etc. What was the role of the Minister of Public Enterprises then in this regard? Should they not be involved as well?

Mr Mmoiemang asked if this Act was relevant only to the National Council of Provinces.

Mr Badenhorst referred to clause 11, and said that it gives the Minister vast autonomy in deciding on education and training requirements without further consultation being required. He suggested that a provision be included to require the Minister to consult the affected person or institutional leaders when making educational decisions under the section.

With regard to Clause 14(17A), the inability of the prescribed steps to reduce salaries of existing employees, except through an Act of Parliament or a collective agreement, was likely to render any attempt to reduce unjustifiable disparities as ineffective in the foreseeable future, as entrenched high salaries would likely remain in place. What was the DPSA’s comment on that?

Responses

Ms Naidoo said that Clause 5 did give the Minister powers to decide what entities could do business with the state. Part of that already existed within the public service domain. This Act deals with the municipalities as well as the public service, so the DPSA started by initiating the clauses to prohibit the public service from doing business with the state. What had been found was that there were unintended consequences in this Act.

She proceeded to read the current list of activities that exist in the public service.

Firstly, there was participation in marking, teaching, lecturing or training at public educational institutions. Secondly, official activities are undertaken on a part time basis, either temporarily or permanently, to a number of departments in terms of the employee’s employment. Thirdly, employees supporting the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) as voting staff during elections. Fourthly, employees volunteering their services to boards of their professional institutions through the nomination and election of their peers. Fifthly, the appointment of an organ of state to an official capacity as a director of a company. Sixthly, appointments to an audit committee. Seventhly, appointment as a member of a reserve force, as well as social assistance assessment provided by health professionals.

These things affect people who are already doing business but must also render sessional services. So, if one prohibited them strictly by the provision, one would hamper the delivery of services. The provision was therefore there to assist the Minister to cater for these services and to agree to the regulations being put in place. The provision was powerful, but it had been exercised prudently thus far.

The issue of extending the prohibition to 24 months would be up to the Committee, and she urged the Committee to consider that it was a constitutional right to be employed in an organisation, so it would be limiting that constitutional right. The justification thereof would have to be scrutinised.

With regard to expanding the powers of the intelligence unit, for now there were sufficient powers with regard to what the assistant unit could do. However, the Committee was welcome to make recommendations on further mechanisms.

Ms Naidoo said the DPSA had been very mindful that public entities report to a board. The way that provisions had been drafted was that even when SOEs made these new adjustments, there had to be some sort of feedback to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Public Service and Administration. This was to ensure that the fiscus was manageable.

With regard to the role of the Minister of Public Enterprises, what was the most important was to ensure that because the Bill was traversing national, provincial and local government and public entities, the ministers responsible for each of those sectors must also be part of making regulations. This was so that regulations were not made without understanding what was happening in public enterprises.

Now that there was no longer a Minister of Public Enterprises or a Department of Public Enterprises, it was necessary to find a mechanism for those ministers who had public entities reporting to them to be consulted during the regulation-making process.

Ms Naidoo said the single public administration initiative was still being pursued. This was because they were one administration and should have similar norms and standards. There were currently different legislations in the different spheres, and they had tried to align the regulation-making processes so that when regulations were made under the Public Service Act, a synergy could still be found with regulations made under the Municipal Systems Act. They had also used the Public Service Act to focus on areas that were not regulated elsewhere.

Referring to the education of trainees, she said the Minister currently in the public service space already determines compulsory training that must happen for employees before they could enter the public service. Those provisions in the Public Service Act had therefore been repealed, so this provision was intended to replace them. It was not a provision that would be done without consultation. The idea of consulting with Cabinet should not be a mandatory provision, because it was in all statutes now that one should come to Cabinet when making these decisions.

The matter of high salaries and unjustifiable disparities had already been addressed. It was recognised that there were currently high salaries, but the steps to remove those high salaries had to be put in place to ensure that whatever exists now would not continue endlessly into the future.

DPSA's audited 2023/24 annual report

Discussion

The Chairperson congratulated the DPSA on achieving a clean audit.

He said that owing to time constraints, only questions by Members would be allowed, and the DPSA should prepare their response in writing.

Mr Badenhorst asked what tangible improvements had been observed due to the service delivery improvement plan for 2020-25. How have satisfaction levels since been assessed? Had the implementation of the public service skills work methodology framework improved departmental competencies? With regard to ethics and discipline management, what progress could be made in the discipline management strategy?

Dr Scheurkogel referred to slide 8’s open government partnership, and asked that the plan referred to in the slide be made available to the Committee. Turning to page 9, he asked what had caused the backlogs mentioned. He also asked if a program for all departments could be developed that could prevent employees from moving back and forth and then disappearing, so that they could prevent corrupt companies that were blacklisted.

With regard to slide 13, what programs had been implemented that were ongoing? What were the continuous programs implemented? Slide 19 states that a 2016 target had not been met. It was now 2024, so why had that matter not been resolved yet? Could one get an update on the central registry and what progress has been made? He would like to see that report.

Mr Ceza welcomed the qualified audit, and commented that the Auditor-General had found three areas that could be straightened out: the Department of Justice (DOJ) and cities’ annual performance plans; the fact that the DPSA did not keep full records of achievements of targets properly; and lastly, some of the indicators were not well defined by the DPSA.

He asked what the DPSA was doing to deal with the current problem of skills and verifying qualifications in municipalities.

He asked the other Members to be disciplined during the meetings, as interruptions could be distracting.

The Chairperson apologised, and said that they were busy joining another meeting online.

Mr Ceza continued that the report also called for government to improve planning and service delivery’s monitoring and reporting. What were the issues that were still leading to non-compliance?

Mr Peter referred to the DPSA receiving an unqualified audit, and asked if it had ever received a clean audit. What was the main challenge that hindered the Department from achieving its main goal? What made the DPSA struggle to achieve what it wanted to achieve? Had the Department ever considered that a clean audit had its own merits and implications?

Mr Mabebo asked for clarity on the 30% youth goal that was not achieved, and what the reason for this was? He also noted how young female candidates were more likely to be employed and successful than young male candidates, even when the male candidates scored more points than the female candidates. He asked for an explanation for that.

The Chairperson asked about the extent to which consultants were used, commenting that once there were people who were employed in good positions, and asked how that was being mitigated. He added that the culture of learning had disappeared.

He said that seven days would be granted for responses to be prepared.

The adoption of Committee minutes took place, and the meeting was adjourned.