Batho Pele Principles of Access and Redress & Budget 2007/08: Department briefing

PUBLIC SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
2 March 2007
BATHO PELE PRINCIPLES OF ACCESS AND REDRESS & BUDGET 2007/08: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr M Baloyi (ANC)

Documents handed out
Report on the Evaluation of Performance and Compliance with the Batho Pele Principle of Access [available at www.pc.gov.za once adopted]
Report on the Evaluation of Performance and Compliance with the Batho Pele Principle of Redress [available at www.pc.gov.za once adopted]
Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC) Access/Redress Report: Powerpoint Presentation: Part1 & Part2
Narrative Summary of Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC) Access/Redress Report
PSC Budget Presentation 2007/08
Narrative Summary of PSC Budget Presentation 2007/08

SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission reported on the evaluation of performance and compliance of government departments with the Batho Pele principles of redress and access. His presentation was exhaustive and included statistical comparisons between the national and provincial departments. It also highlighted the barriers to improvement and full compliance and suggested ways in which departments could seek to improve. There was concern in particular about lack of access for the disabled, youth, women and the illiterate. Members asked questions around the methodology used in the study, the reasons why some departments had not participated, and whether the study would have arrived at different conclusions if there had been face-to face interaction. They were critical of excuses offered by departments and urged the Commission to issue directives. Members should look to compliance with the principles in their own constituencies and consider whether the Batho Pele principles were realistic and achievable. 

The Office of the Public Service Commission presented the budget allocation for the MTEF period 2006/07-2009/10. Although there were increases, they were in line with inflation. The increased allocation to certain programmes was indicative of projections of the work that would be required during that period.  The Committee queried whether the PSC was satisfied with its allocation and whether it would be able to complete its investigations. It was noted that requests for an increase had thus far been denied. The Commission was losing its own staff as it was unable to offer salaries commensurate with other departments.

MINUTES
Mr Baloyi was asked to act as Chairperson in the absence of Mr P Gomomo.

Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC) Access/Redress Report
Dr Norman Maharaj, PSC Commissioner stressed that access and redress to services had a significant impact on service delivery.

Dr Dovhani Mamphiswana, Chief Director: Service Delivery and Quality Assurance, PSC described the role of the PSC as being constitutionally mandated to monitor and assess the public service. The reports under review were aimed at evaluating the performance and compliance of national and provincial departments in implementing the Access and Redress principles as required by the Batho Pele White Paper.

Dr Mamphiswana said that all national and provincial departments, except the National Intelligence Agency, the South African Management Development Institute, the Defence Force, and Secret Service and the Presidency, were involved in the study. A self-administered questionnaire approach was followed because the original idea of conducting face-to-face interviews with Head of Departments  proved impossible. Certain departments, such as Treasury, refused to participate in the survey because they claimed that they did not deal with service delivery.

Under the topic of Access, Dr Mamphiswana said that this was defined as all citizens having access to the services to which they were entitled. Access therefore needed to address the legacy of apartheid discrimination, physical location of the service point, the ability of the citizens to get into the building especially the disabled and the ability of citizens to find their way around government buildings.

Pleasingly, the majority of questionnaires were completed by senior officials in the respective departments. 76% of departments said that their services were accessible, but only 16% were able to qualify their accessibility. 6% reported that their services were not accessible while 2% felt that there was room for improvement. Measures to improve access to services were in place in 90% of national and 86% of provincial departments. He provided a more detail breakdown on the number and type of measures utilised to improve access. 

Departments were asked whether they had communication policies and strategies in place. 90% of national and 71% of provincial departments reported having communication policies and strategies. National departments mainly advertised through the newspaper (95%), radio (90%) and television (90%). Radio (82%), newspaper (80%) and leaflets (80%) were listed as popular advertising means in provincial departments.

The study highlighted that only 50% of departments nationally and 46% provincially had developed access standards. However, only 30% nationally and 47% provincially had met the set standards. 10% of national and 26% of provincial departments had partially met their targets. Reasons for not meeting the standards included Inadequate resources and infrastructure, lack of implementing policies, and failure to translate policies into local languages. Barriers to improvement included budgetary and or resource constraints, lack of capacity or understanding and inadequate stakeholder participation. Some measures that could improve access were listed as capacity building, including the filling of vacant posts, consultation with stakeholders, increased budget requests, public education and interaction, establishing a batho pele unit within departments and refurbishment of building to give access.

A strategy for access for people with disabilities did exist in 60% of national and 63% of provincial departments. 25% percent of national and 27% of provincial departments had no strategy at all. A good practice model would include setting standards, implementing them and monitoring.

Dr Mamphiswana concluded that  measures to improve access must be backed by a clear communication policy and strategy. It was suggested that departments must improve skills, fill vacant posts, consult with stakeholders and solicit funding. Consultation levels still needed to be improved for access to be effectively implemented. In terms of physical access, rural communities, the youth, women and people with disabilities had to be considered. The pensioners and the functionally illiterate were the most neglected groups.

 Dr Mamphiswana said that the Batho Pele White Pele defined redress as “where promised standard of service is not delivered, citizens should be offered an apology, an explanation and a speedy and effective remedy; and when complaints are made, citizens should receive a sympathetic, positive response”. This Batho Pele principle was supported by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). This guaranteed a right of review or appeal and the right to request reasons for an administrative action or inaction.

The study revealed that 90% of national and 83% of provincial departments had some form of complaint handling mechanism. Of these, 71% of national and 55% of provincial departments had complaint mechanisms linked to legislation or government policies other than Batho Pele. Training on redress had taken place in 59% of the national and 54% of provincial departments. For people with special needs, figures indicated that both national and provincial departments prioritised on non-English speakers and the physically disabled.  

It was envisaged that Batho Pele should be integrated in the performance agreements of senior managers. This was only happening in 14% of national and 29% of provincial departments. There was lack of redress standards in the national and provincial departments. A good practice model for redress would developing a complaints procedure, training staff on handling complaints, ensuring accessibility to all, proper recordal and analysis of information and  implementation of  service improvement. The three broad areas requiring further attention were the need to formalise the complaint handling systems, the implementation of the monitoring systems and review on a regular basis.
 
Discussion
Mr R Mthembu (ANC) thanked the PSC for undertaking the mammoth study. He voiced concern regarding the methodology used in the study. He believed that the study was compromised because there were no face-to-face interviews. He found it problematic that a public institution could not have access to senior officials in government departments. Lastly, he stated that this lack of cooperation was a matter of serious concern.

Dr Norman Maharaj agreed that the methodology was not rigorous enough. He claimed that the PSC had strengthened this defect because it had established an extensive plan that included site visits and questionnaires.

Mr Mashwahle J Diphofa, Deputy Director-General: Monitoring and Evaluation, PSC said that the lack of availability had nothing to do with the lack of cooperation and more to do with scheduling difficulties. HODs were swamped with requests for interviews from different institutions and were thus not always able to make themselves available. He declared that the PSC would invoke its powers where there was lack of cooperation.

Mr Mthembu asked why certain government departments did not want to participate in the study.

Mr Diphofa replied that the Treasury and the Department of Public Works did not want to participate because they felt that they dealt with other departments and not the public. He commented that all departments needed to be educated and orientated. He rationalised that their arguments were illogical because their employees were people. Lastly, he expressed contentment that a high number of departments had responded. Only 31 of 130 national and provincial departments did not respond.

Mr A Nyambi (ANC) sought to examine whether the study would have arrived at different conclusions if there had been face-to face interaction with HODs.

Mr Diphofa responded that there would not have been different findings through the interviews themselves. However, he felt that site visits were important to evaluate compliance and gain first hand knowledge of challenges. He concluded that the interaction with the HODs would have only had a promotional and motivational aspect.

Mr Mthembu continued that it was it was unacceptable that after 10 years most departments did not adhere to the access and redress principles. He argued that the excuses of capacity and budgetary constraints were flimsy.

Dr Maharaj shared this view and answered that it was worrying that 30% of departments did not even have a policy regarding access. He lamented that there was a culture of denying people services and not wanting to improve services. He urged the Committee and the PSC to stop offering advice and to issue directives. He asserted that punitive measures should be implemented when there was non-compliance. He called for a paradigm shift in the mindset of public servants.

Mr I Julies (DA) bemoaned the fact that disabled people were still unable to access buildings. He wondered whether there was a standard building plan that made allowances for disabled people.

Dr Maharaj expressed amazement at the lack of allowances made for people with disabilities. He commented that senior managers needed to be made aware of this reality. 

The Acting Chairperson stated that PSC should compare this study with one completed in 1999. This would determine whether there were similar findings and might move the PSC to review its approach. He revisited the methodology debate and commented that the Committee would not accept the scheduling excuse. He believed that HODs were not prioritising their time. Lastly, he proffered that the opinions of the recipients of service delivery were the most important in this discussion.

PSC Budget 2007/08
Mr Dumisani Maphumulo, Deputy Director-General: Corporate Services and Regional Liaison, PSC presented the MTEF budget allocation for 2006/07 to 2009/10. He pointed out that the budget represented a gradual increase of 6.4%, which was in line with inflation. He divided the budget projections into different programmes to show precisely how the increases would take place in the different areas over the MTEF period.

Mr Maphumulo noted that administration would be increased by R10 million. He detailed the breakdown into management funding of R2 million, which would take account of capacity building, Corporate Services of R5 million which would enable PSC to establish its own internal auditing directorate, and Property Management of R2 million since PSC had taken over management of properties from the Department of Public Works.

Mr Maphumulo indicated that investigations and Human Resource Reviews increased by over R6 million: This was mainly attributable to the increase in the number of investigations that the Committee anticipated it must conduct. R4 million received for professional ethics and human resources review was required to interrogate the financial disclosures of senior officials.

Monitoring and Evaluation had increased by more than R3 million, as the Commission would have to monitor and evaluate government’s poverty reduction programme. Leadership and performance improvement showed a slight increase because PSC anticipated an increase in the number of HODs. The amount received for service delivery and quality assurance would be used for that purpose and to conduct citizen satisfaction surveys.

Discussion
The Acting Chairperson noted that the PSC was investigating 122 cases. He wanted to establish whether the Commission would meet its targets to resolve these cases.

Dr Maharaj replied that the Commission was unable to meet its targets because it had to make interventions at the Department of Home Affairs and other provincial departments. He also proclaimed that the Commission’s ability to investigate cases was limited because of budgetary and people constraints.

The Acting Chairperson queried whether the PSC was satisfied with its budget.

Dr Maharaj commented that there were no additional resources added and that the increase was inflation related. He stated that the PSC did not factor external factors into the budget. Furthermore, the PSC would not do more anti corruption investigations because of the budget constraints. In conclusion, he expressed dissatisfaction with the budget because Treasury did not accede to the PSCs request for a bigger amount.

Mr Maphumulo added that the PSC needed additional funding from the Treasury because its DDGs were being poached by other government departments. He elaborated that the PSC was unable to match the salaries offered by the other departments.

The Acting Chairperson interrogated what an acceptable rate of non-expenditure was.

Dr Maharaj explained that 2% was the official acceptable rate of non-expenditure.

The Acting Chairperson commended the PSC for their commitment and  requested that they look at all previous studies on compliance with Batho Pele principles. He proposed that Members inspect whether there was compliance with access and redress principles of Batho Pele in their constituencies. He asked the Committee to consider whether the Batho Pele principles were realistic and achievable. He insisted that if a review was found to be necessary, then this should take place.

The meeting was adjourned.