Efficacy of Code of Conduct for Public Servants: Public Service Commission Report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
7 August 2006
EFFICACY OF CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS: PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT

Acting Chairperson: Mr M Baloyi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Report on Measuring the Efficacy of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants: presentation
Report on Measuring the Efficacy of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants: narrative summary

SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission presented the key findings and recommendations of their survey into the efficacy of the Code of Conduct for public servants. The Commission called for a comprehensive review of the Code of Conduct that would factor in changes in the circumstances since its inception. The Committee was not clear as to whether such a revision was necessary but would deliberate on the report. Members felt that adherence to the Code of Conduct should be closely monitored instead of continuously changing the standard that was used to measure conduct. It was agreed by all parties that accelerated service delivery was of paramount importance and that corrective rather than punitive measures should be put in place to achieve this common goal.

MINUTES

The acting Chairperson, Mr Baloyi, reminded Members that during the Committee’s strategic planning session earlier in the year it was decided that the Committee would be briefed on developments around the Code of Conduct for public servants and its possible refinement. Since then the Public Service Commission (PSC) had tabled their Report on Measuring the Efficacy of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants. The Committee had discussed issues related to the possible refinement of the Code of Conduct with the PSC and thought it best that the PSC formally brief Members on the report.

Mr Baloyi pointed out that at the strategic planning session it had also been decided that when issues relating to more than one institution would be discussed all stakeholders with an interest in those issues would be invited. Since issues pertaining to public service affected the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) as well, its representatives were present and could participate in the meeting.

Deputy Chairperson of the Public Service Commission’s opening remarks
Mr J Ernstzen, Deputy Chairperson of the Public Service Commission, said that the PSC had been fortunate to attend the Committee’s strategic planning session earlier in the year. The session had given the Commission insight into the Committee’s thinking and the need for the Commission to examine how effectively and efficiently it was functioning and the need for possible refinement of the Code of Conduct. Through experience gained internationally, the Commission had realised that, through interaction and consultation with the Committee it needed “to take stock”.

He reminded the Committee that the Code of Conduct, which was included in the regulations of 1997, had been the first of its kind in South Africa. There had never before been a code governing the manner in which public servants executed their functions and making provision for the accountability and transparency that was required. It also functioned as a forerunner for many other developments. Other aspects related to the Code of Conduct such as the declaration of assets and conflicts of interests, which formed part of the whole integrity approach to Government, would be dealt with at a more appropriate time.

The Commission used a three-pronged approach (which would be explained during the presentation) that went beyond just measuring compliance with the Code of Conduct and included an integrity survey that assessed the conduct of public servants in general.

He concluded by saying that the Commission wanted to review the Code of Conduct and that he was pleased to inform the Committee that, through its interaction with and subject to the Committee’s deliberations and assessment of the report, the Commission had included a complete re-look at the Code and its revision, in its year planner for the next financial year.

Public Service Commission Briefing
The PSC’s Deputy Chairperson. Mr J Ernstzen led the delegation, which included Mr Admill Simpson (Chief Director: Professional Ethics) and Mr N Maharaj (Commissioner). Mr Simpson presented the Report on measuring the efficacy of the Code of Conduct for public servants. The survey had been aimed at measuring compliance with the Code, as well its scope, content and best practices related to it. Mr Simpson detailed the research methodology that was used as well as the key findings of the report. In their analysis of the findings the PSC found that amongst others almost 40% of the participating departments indicated that productive and idle hours were not monitored. The PSC’s recommendations included that a comprehensive review of the Code of Conduct should be done, that an ethics training programme linked to the revised Code of Conduct should be put in place and that there should be a review of the whistle blowing mechanism.

Discussion
Mr R Sikakane (ANC) wondered why the PSC had felt that the Code of Conduct needed to be refined.

Mr Ernstzen answered that the knowledge gained in the period 1997-2005 as well as from international comparisons demanded a review of the Code of Conduct even if it did not result in any changes. One could not ignore that objective circumstances had changed and that these changes demanded a change to the “existing instruments”. He reiterated that during the period between 1994 and 1996, before the finalisation of the Constitution, the Department was ‘tilling new soil’ in areas that were unfamiliar and in many respects unknown. In 1996 there was still no Department of Public Service and Administration but a small Ministry, comprising a Minister and five officials. It determined policy, conditions of service and remuneration of public servants, appointments and dealt with misdemeanors. He said that it took a major shift in the minds of the legislators to create a PSC that was aimed at oversight and examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy, rather than policy-making. Now the Minister was charged with the functions of policy-making, while the PSC examined the effectiveness of implementation and made recommendations accordingly. Ignoring the historical context from whence a Code of Conduct stemmed might result in one not seeing the need for review. The presentation supported the PSC’s view that a review was needed.

Mr Norman Maharaj (PSC: Commissioner) reminded Members that in 1994 the Public Service Labour Relations Act was also promulgated. The need to codify the management of discipline within the public service was negotiated within the labour relations forums. This led to codification of the management of grievances. At that stage the emphasis was more on punitive as opposed to corrective actions.

Most of the new recommendations were aimed at correcting behaviour as opposed to punishing it. He felt that a high level of ethical behaviour including good work ethic, honesty and professionalism that needed to be promoted. He added that the integrity of the public service needed to be protected however: there were more honest than dishonest people within the public service. It was incumbent upon public servants themselves to protect the integrity of the public service through the whistle-blowing mechanisms for example. This was the kind of refocusing that needed to take place.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) had understood that the purpose of the meeting was to receive the briefing from the PSC and that if there were a need for the refinement of the Code of Conduct the matter would be discussed at a later stage.

Mr Baloyi said that the PSC had presented the findings of their survey. The Committee needed to listen to what the PSC was saying about the issues that had given rise to the need for the survey. The PSC explained the methodology they had used as well as their findings. The Committee, through its discussion of the presentation, must be satisfied with what was reported. As an oversight body the Committee would reflect on the presentation. He said that the Committee needed to support the PSC in its ventures but also needed to hold them accountable.

Mr I Julies (DA) noted that when a Code of Conduct was being implemented one was working towards achieving a specific goal. The Committee, the Department and the Government’s main objective was service delivery. His understanding was that when someone behaved inappropriately the Code of Conduct should come into action. Looking at the statistics mentioned in the presentation he was very concerned about the level of service delivery and since that was his main priority he requested the Commission to start with the consistent implementation of the Code of Conduct.

Mr Baloyi said that the presentation reminded the Committee that the Code of Conduct had resonance in a number of areas. It related to ethical conduct, which resulted in good service delivery. In conducting a comprehensive review of the Code of Conduct one needed to consider the original objectives as well as the assessment of the design of the code of conduct and its suitability to the current situation. He was curious about what had informed the PSC’s recommendations. He added that the report should be looked at in conjunction with the PSC’s report on moonlighting, the Auditor – General’s report on compliance with the ethics requirement as well as the Public Protector’s Special Report No 90/19.

Mr Ernstzen agreed that one could not look at the Code of Conduct in isolation of other areas of examination, investigation and monitoring because they all formed part of one whole. He reiterated that the Committee would receive independent reports from the PSC relating to the declaration of financial interests as well as a report linked to conflict of interest which was a topical issue that was related to the political arena as well as to the public service.

Mr Maharaj pointed out that the Code of Conduct had a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect. People needed to understand that when they became public servants they needed to behave in a certain way. The gaps in the Code of Conduct needed to be addressed with the different role players to determine to what extent it could be refined. The common purpose was to have public servants that had the "highest level of integrity and professionalism”, had “good ethical behaviour” and served the needs of the public with dedication.

Mr Simpson added that there was a need to refine the Code of Conduct within the framework of the integrity framework the PSC was trying to establish. It therefore could not be looked at in isolation.

Mr Julies said that the PSCs oversight role should be productively implemented within the scope of its authority. He emphasised that Departments needed to improve on their service delivery.

Mr Ernstzen agreed that service delivery was the main objective - "Batho Pele is at the forefront of our thinking whenever we operationalise things".

Mr Khumalo said that his main concern was whether there were recommendations that the Committee could deliberate upon. To develop and refine a code of conduct in such a short space of time was a daunting undertaking.

Mr Ernstzen said that the consolidated report as well as the narrative dealt extensively with the recommendations. The PSC did not expect the Committee to merely approve the recommendations. The Commission believed that the Committee needed time to discuss the report and to then focus on the recommendations. It would do no harm if, in the meantime, the Commission continued with their refinement of the Code of Conduct. If the Committee were to say that there was no need for this refinement the Commission would call a halt to this process.

Mr Baloyi felt that recommendations should look at corrective and not punitive measures. Time to time assessment should also track whether corrective actions were being taken. One could not continue changing the standard when one found that there was no compliance. Those who kept track of what departments and Parliament did would realise that "the more things change the more they remain the same". He added that in areas where there continued to be no compliance one should not "ban the word punish".

He noted that the budget was one of the instruments departments had at their disposal to ensure service delivery yet many departments received qualified audit reports. Despite these qualified reports merit awards were being awarded. He wondered what merit awards were based on if not on compliance with “the instruments”. The Code of Conduct should be aimed at accelerated service delivery.

Mr Maharaj said that the Committee knew that he was a strict disciplinarian and that he would not suggest that one should take the easy way out. In the interest of fairness, however, people should be fairly punished. They should know and understand the rule, assess its fairness and the consistency with which it was being applied. The PSC was not “squirming away” from the punitive aspect of the management of discipline - the focus at this point in time was corrective action instead of punitive action.

Mr Baloyi added that when talking of punitive action he had meant that it should be implemented when all other requirements have been complied with. He stressed that the Committee and the Commission should work together: the Commission submitting reports and the Committee doing justice to them in its deliberations. The Committee would consider the report in conjunction with other reports that have been published.

Mr Ernstzen thanked the Committee for the way the Commission had been received. He agreed that given their respective roles, the Committee and the Commission would “walk the road together”.

The meeting was adjourned.