Single Public Service and Affirmative Action in the Public Service: briefings

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 August 2006
SINGLE PUBLIC SERVICE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE: BRIEFINGS

Chairperson: Mr R Baloyi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Presentation on Legislation for a Single Public Service (Phase Four: Toward Legislation for the Single Public Service)
Presentation on Affirmative Action (An Audit of Affirmative Action in the Public Service)
Narrative Draft of Phase Four: Toward Legislation for the Single Public Service
Narrative Draft of an Audit of Affirmative Action in the Public Service
Presentation on Audit of Affirmative Action in the Public Service

SUMMARY
The Committee, joined on this occasion by Members of the Provincial and Local Government Portfolio Committee, received two presentations. The first presentation was from the Department of Public Service and Administration on the creation of a single public service and the second presentation was from the Public Service Commission and examined the progress of affirmative action in the public service.

Members questioned the expansion of the single public service model to local government, the involvement of Parliament, flexibility, service delivery, the effect on rural areas and the failure of including disabled persons in affirmative action and an empowerment component to that process.

MINUTES
The Chair acknowledged the presence of Members of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government at the meeting. He also introduced the delegations from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the Public Service Commission (PSC).

DPSA Presentation on the Single Public Service
Dr R Levin (Director-General) presented the objectives and progress of his Department’s work on creating a single public service. He said that the core goal of creating a single public service was to deepen service delivery by standardising and coordinating the work of public servants. He particularly emphasised the importance of extending the single public service to local government, where no uniform public service exists.

Dr Levin explained that the goal of the DPSA is to publish draft legislation on the single public service in December 2006 for public comment. The single public service legislation will come from five work streams that are currently under way that focus on issues such as local government service delivery, government information technology, and human resource management.

Discussion
The Chair said that it is clear that the creation of a single public service will be a difficult process and that conflict between different departments is likely to arise. He added that it would be important for Parliament to involve itself in this process and to act to resolve any conflicts that occur.

Mr S Tsenoli (ANC, Chair of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government) said that it is important to recognise that there is a need for flexibility in different spheres of government and that he hoped they would find ways for the single public service to avoid creating rigidity within government. He added that it is important for the legislation to be people-centred.

Mr Tsenoli was also concerned by problems with the fiscal relationship between different spheres of government.  He was encouraged, however, that the presentation had mentioned monitoring and evaluation and he was interested in hearing more about specific monitoring mechanisms. He suggested that the Committee solicit suggestions on how to more easily integrate the public service.

Mr J Matsomela (ANC) said that public servants should be familiar with the objectives listed in the presentation. He told an anecdote about hospital workers ignoring their patients and asked how a single public service will teach local government to deliver. He also reminded the Committee that it is the people who receive the brunt of poor government service.

Ms P Mashangoane (ANC) was concerned about reconciling the creation of a single public service with the different needs of different government sectors. She added that the presentation had talked about “cascading Batho Pele to local government” but she wanted to get a better sense of the current status of local government as far as Batho Pele is concerned.

Mr K Minnie (DA) asked why the presentation had not made any mention of provincial government.

Mr I Mogase (ANC) said that he had a rural constituency and that he was therefore concerned about how the strategy took into account the different situation of local areas. He also wanted to know if the Department had considered involving traditional councils and including council secretaries in the single public service.

Dr Levin said that one of the key questions was about imposing a single public service on the different spheres of government. He assured the Committee that there was room for flexibility and that he did not believe that the independence of different spheres of government would be compromised. He added that the reason that the focus was on local government was because there is already an organised public service for national and provincial government. 

He added, however, that they did want to create a common approach to service delivery and common standards for human resource management. He noted that the Department did not believe that the national and provincial spheres of government were functioning perfectly, but that they needed to be better integrated with local government.

Dr Levin explained that human resource management was very rapidly decentralised in South Africa and that a whole host of problems have resulted. He added that it was not decentralisation that was the problem but the speed with which South Africa had decentralised, comparing it to the example of Canada which had decentralised much more slowly and successfully. He added that practices such as job evaluation had to be standardised, because of the instability that result when there are managers doing similar tasks at different levels.

Dr Levin said that he agreed with the suggestion that the Department should go through a process of consultation. He also acknowledged that avoiding urban biases was a challenge that the Department had to address.

Mr K Govendor (Chief Director: Human Resource Development Strategy in DPSA) said that the process of drafting the single public service legislation would take into account constitutional issues such as the independence of the different spheres of government. In terms of fiscal flaws he said that most of the money spent by the different spheres of government was not on the public service, which creates a problem because if minimum salaries are established there is a mandate that they be funded.

Mr Govendor also noted that the creation of a public service was not an attempt to impose one level of government on another but to spread the best practices of all levels of government. He said that the Public Service Commission (PSC) needed to involve the community and would look into working with traditional councils.

Dr D Bvuma (Director of Batho Pele for DPSA) said that under the current system the framework for Batho Pele affects only the spheres of national and provincial government and that they were just beginning the process of expanding Betho Pele to local government. He added that if DPSA continues to cater primarily to urban areas they would not be solving the problems with service delivery and noted that traditional officers would be key stakeholders in furthering their access strategy.

Mr M Mshudulu (ANC) said he was pleased to hear that different departments were working together on the single public service. He said that other organisations such as the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and unions should be included in the process. He also thought it would be a challenge to take all the existing legal structures into account.

Presentation on Affirmative Action in the Public Service
Dr N Maharaj (Western Cape Commissioner of the PSC) and his delegation made a presentation in which they described the demographic makeup of the public service. The data focused on the demographics of race, gender, and the presence of people with disabilities. Using various sampling methods, the Commission was able to present data on each province individually, although they had had difficulties getting data from some government organisations, particularly in Limpopo.

They described the difficulties in implementing affirmative action given South Africa’s history and problems with compliance. They also reported on the “empowerment” aspect of affirmative action whereby employees are trained and given career guidance.

The presenters concluded that progress on affirmative action had been varied. Some areas were on track to meet their targets whereas other areas were far behind. The empowerment aspect of affirmative action was poor and it was found that many employees were leaving the public service. The presentation ended with an extensive list of recommendations for how the implementation of affirmative action could be improved.

Discussion
Mr Mshudulu said that unions should also be playing a role in affirmative action. He said that the core issue is employment equity and that organisations should be expected to implement some of the recommendations the Commission had put forth. He suggested that the recommendations could be simplified. He also asked to what extent the Commission had worked with and provided resources to municipalities to implement affirmative action and empowerment.

Ms Mashangoane said that it was disappointing to learn that an issue as important as affirmative action was not being taken seriously by managers in government departments. She asked how enforceable the Commission’s recommendations were.

Mr Minnie asked what the demographic makeup of the government was five or ten years ago and how it had changed since then.

Ms M Gumede (ANC) spoke specifically about the empowerment of women, mentioning that although there was a women’s month, there was no men’s month, which separated women. She said that empowerment was still missing from affirmative action and that unless empowerment was improved people would continue to see affirmative action as a decoration. She also requested a workshop on affirmative action and when it would end.

Mr M Mzondeki (ANC) said that unless managers were committed to affirmative action it would not succeed. He added that he was disappointed that people were so anxious to learn when affirmative action would end when it had just started. He said that if the Committee could go into every manager’s office he wondered how many would have complied with employment standards. He noted that a disabled candidate for a job would never be hired in a building that had no elevator, despite the fact that he could be an excellent worker. He added that accessibility needed to improved, particularly in public buildings and that the government was not taking the lead on that issue.

Mr Tsenoli said that affirmative action is a cross-cutting issue. He suggested that the issue should be addressed to a committee consisting of appropriate committee chairs so that all of the areas where affirmative action could apply would be dealt with.

The Chair said that he thought the Member’s comments had all been valuable, but that he was not sure that a workshop would be useful because workshops involve a “one-way information flow.” He added that the government needed to engage in self-examination to find where things are going wrong. He said that it would be productive to target specific issues and deal with them one at a time.

Dr Maharaj said that all Members’ comments had been very important and that he acknowledged that affirmative action is an issue that cannot be examined in a vacuum. He said that it had to be recognised that affirmative action improved the diversity, creativity and service delivery of organisations— ultimately providing a better life for all. He also said that he thought enforcement was very important, saying that “the road to hell is paved with strategic plans” because no amount of planning is effective unless those plans are enforced.

Dr Maharaj explained that the Commission wished that they had more power to enforce affirmative action but that in the meantime they were trying to make better use of all the powers at their disposal. He cited the PSC’s ability to have hearings with other departments, which he did not think that they did enough. But he added that the Commission’s power was limited to making recommendations and he hoped that Parliament would put those recommendations into effect.

With regard to the progress made on affirmative action, Dr Maharaj said that there had been continual improvements, but that the pace was not quick enough to meet the goals that the government had set. He also noted that there had been a negative trend with regard to people with disabilities and that he had received complaints from university registrars who were trying to improve affirmative action that their work had been met with hostility.

Mr Tsenoli said that there was a clear need to continue to support affirmative action and he encouraged the Committee to have an optimistic approach. He though that most departments were doing their best in a difficult situation but that non-compliance should not be tolerated. He said that the Committee must meet with the Premier of Limpopo, (which was singled out by the Commission for having the most departments that did not submit affirmative action statistics). He thought that as a general practice, the Committee should meet with those organisations that did not comply and hold them to account.

The Chair said that the Committee and the presenters appeared to be in agreement. He added that the recommendations provided by the Commission were helping the way forward. He also suggested that different departments be brought to future meetings so that they could sort out any disagreements.

The meeting was adjourned.