Special Report of Public Protector on Public Service Delays: briefing

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 February 2005
SPECIAL REPORT OF PUBLIC PROTECTOR ON PUBLIC SERVICE DELAYS: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr P Gomomo (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Public Services Commission Report by Public Protector, 2001

SUMMARY
Advocate S Fourie of the Public Protector’s Office related the findings of its report on public service delays, emphasising that even though the report had been completed in 2001, its findings and recommendations were as relevant today as then. Very little improvement had occurred in the raising of the standard of service delivery in the public services sector. A general lack of awareness of the principles of Batho Pele still remained and the constitutional responsibility that every public servant had towards the public had not yet become part of the public services culture. The report identified up to 47 reasons for lack of service delivery. Members were generally appreciative of the report and agreed that the matter had to be debated in Parliament in order to make heads of departments accountable for improved service delivery.

MINUTES
Adv S Fourie said that the eight principles of Batho Pele must be implemented in order to allow the public to experience the public services sector in an entirely different way. These principles could only be put into practice if national and provincial government co-operated in the ways suggested by the Report. Standards of service delivery could not be raised overnight and could only be affected within the limits of available resources. This made it imperative that every possible effort was made to reduce wastage, duplication and inefficiency, in order to improve utilisation of existing resources. It sometimes took government departments up to three months to respond to claims and queries. This was a clear indication that the principles of Batho Pele were not being applied.

The first principle of Batho Pele was to treat every citizen as a customer. The Public Protector had concluded, after reviewing all relevant statutes and policy documents, that all organs of state are constitutionally obliged to allow access to information held by the state and were responsible for administrative action that was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Constitution expected the public administration to perform in an effective and efficient manner. Many public servants were unaware of this requirement and it was often en eye-opener for them that service delivery was a constitutional obligation. The Constitution also stated that service must be preformed diligently and without delay. Failure to comply with this requirement was essentially a violation of the highest law of the country. The Report found that all spheres of government and all organs of state were constitutionally bound to assist and to co-operate with one another, in a manner that assured proper service delivery. The delay in communication between government agencies was a major component of ineffective service delivery and incomprehensible. Public servants who did not perform at the level required of them constitutionally were guilty of misconduct.

The application and implementation of the principles of Batho Pele would raise service levels to where the Constitution required. No further legislation was needed to affect this change, just adherence to the principles. This pointed towards accountability. Various reports issued since 1997 and the most recent Report of the Public Service Commission of November 2001 showed that Public Service resources were still not being used optimally and that inefficient communication between government departments contributed greatly to the lack of service delivery. It found that the principles of Batho Pele were poorly understood and the underlying reasons for poor service delivery were not being addressed. In effect little or no improvement had occurred in the last five years. Government departments were not user-friendly and in many instances the benefits of technological advancements such as email were still not being used.

A lack of skills required for adequate performance contributed greatly to this problem. It was found that routes of correspondence were much too time consuming and impractical to assure any level of speedy response to the public. All in all the Report identified 47 reasons for poor service delivery. It was acknowledged that lack of capacity was often cited as the main reason for inefficiency, but that this needed to be seen as a challenge to be addressed. Another challenge was the general lack of knowledge by the public about what the functions and jurisdiction of government departments were and this often added to delays and frustration. The public had to be better informed on this score. The attitude displayed by public servants towards the public often lacked any sense of urgency.

The Directors-General identified poor supervision, management and registry as other reasons for unacceptable levels of service. Certain departments had taken the matter in hand and were in the process of implementing the principles of Batho Pele. Reports of these measures had been submitted to the various provincial and national legislatures and were the responsibility of the MECs and Ministers. Information provided and measures taken by the Directors-General agreed that much could and should be done to improve the delays in communication between government departments. Inquiries were made to ombudsmen in other countries and although our situation differed in many respects from theirs, it was found that other countries suffered similar maladies. The Public Protector collaborated with the Public Service Commission in compiling this report, since their mandates overlapped and duplication had to be avoided. The Chairperson of the Commission would take the matter forward. Recommendations had been made to oversight institutions such as Parliament and provincial legislature relating to provisions of the Constitution.

One of the key areas of accountability rested with the Portfolio Committees. They had a constitutional obligation to call administrative and political heads of department to account for performance in their departments. In conclusion, the reasons for poor delivery of service in the public administration were that the Batho Pele principles were not being applied, an inadequate use of technology and a lack of skills and capacity. Many government departments did not have a mechanism for dealing with complaints. The Public Protector should be seen as a last resort and in many instances complaints should have been dealt with by an internal structure. The public often did not know whom to approach in a department, with regard to finding out the status of their application. An example of such measures being successful was reflected in the success of the Department of Housing in Gauteng, where previously all queries had landed up with the Public Protector. Now they were handled internally.

Adv Fourie said that after the Report had been submitted to all the Speakers requesting a response to the recommendations made in the Report, not one such response had been received to date. The Report recommended that portfolio committees and national assemblies call heads of department to account and that poor service levels be considered in a very serious light. The Public Protector depended on these recommendations being taken seriously since without that follow through, the body could do nothing more to protect the cornerstones of democracy. The nature of changes that were needed did not have to be complicated and could be measured by things like how many rings it took before a phone was answered and an improvement in the attitude of the public servant to the customer.

Mr Gomomo said that Members carried a responsibility for the resolution of these issues, especially as a Committee which cut across all departments. The issue would have to be debated in Parliament and time frames set for the relevant portfolio committees. The Minister would be made aware of this.

Mr R Ntuli (DA) said that poor service delivery seemed to be the result of a developing state, which was five to ten years into democracy. It needed to be made clear to all that improvement in services was a common objective and in the interest of all.

Dr U Roopnarain (IFP) said every department had to be called to account in improving service delivery. What was an acceptable time frame for the processing of a transaction?

Mr M Baloyi (ANC) commended the Public Protector for the Report and agreed that it came down to the attitude of public servants in making a difference to service delivery. The Committee should take the recommendations further and engage the relevant departments. He said that it was disturbing to see that service levels were so poor, in view of the standard of qualification among public servants.

Ms W Newhoudt-Drunchen (ANC) asked whether it was not preferable for complaint handling mechanisms to be independent rather than situated within departments.

Adv Fourie said it was difficult to advise on a timeframe for certain deliverables, as every department was different. Each department should set its timeframes for deliverables. His department had definite time frames for responses to queries and acknowledgement of receipt of those queries. It was telling that during the investigation, responses had been slow to arrive and often only after strongly worded letters had been sent. The fact that many public servants were highly qualified only seemed to add to their frustrations, but did not necessarily assist them in being able to carry out their functions. The whole idea of creating an internal structure for handling complaints was to obviate the need to go to an independent body such as the Public Protector. The resolution of a query should not be a cause for discomfort or conflict. It just required good communication between departments and a person who could act as a decision-maker. Every government department should be compelled to have such an internal structure.

Ms P Mashanoane (ANC) commended the Public Protector on the Report. Although the Report had been issued some time ago, it should act as an eye-opener to all public representatives. It increased their responsibility to take these issues forward.

Mr W Skhosana (ANC) asked whether the re-demarcation of the provincial borders had not had a negative effect on service levels, as in some instances certain administration offices were more efficient than others.

Adv Fourie agreed that service levels differed between provinces and departments, but that this was not necessarily due to re-demarcation, but rather the fact that some regional offices did not have high service levels compared to some national offices. It had been recommended that decentralisation did not always serve the public better and in certain cases could be the cause of more delays.

Mr Gomomo said other stakeholders had to be engaged on the matter. Mr Baloyi said that a process had to be drawn up and timeframes set to take the matter forward and to hear the other side of the story. Adv Fourie said he looked forward to Parliament taking the matter in hand. Mr Gomomo said the Committee would respond to the report within fourteen days.

The meeting was adjourned.