Public Service Amendment Bill: hearings
Public Service and Administration
14 March 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE
14 March 2007
PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL: HEARINGS
Chairperson: Mr P Gomomo (ANC)
Documents Handed Out:
Public Service Amendment Bill [B31-2006]
Submission by Mr S Gopal
Fedusa
and IMATU Joint Submission
SUMMARY
Mr Gopal, highlighted aspects of the Bill
pertaining to the transferal of employees within the
Public Service. He noted that the Bill in effect proposed that employees could
be transferred to all parts of the country, essentially without their consent. Concern
was expressed regarding the fact that an employee would effectively have no
recourse against the Department if he were asked to transfer to another part of
the country. Mr Gopal stated that this was a right of
the Department that was likely to be abused.
The Federation Unions of South Africa and Independent Municipal and Allied
Trade Union’s joint submission expressed concern over the constitutional impact
of the intended amendment; in particular, the fact that the Bill was allowing national
government to usurp the role of municipalities, most notably through the
incorporation of agencies at the local level.
The discussion focused on the question of forced transfer of public servants,
and the issue of a single public service, as well as the fact that the proposed
agencies were not from outside of the government but would rather be formed
from within it. The Committee repeatedly emphasised that it had not yet formed
an opinion on the Bill and thus the Unions’ presentation may have been
premature.
MINUTES
Submission by Mr Gopal
Mr S Gopal (a public servant appeared before the
Committee in his personal capacity) argued that the proposed Bill was
unconstitutional and that it would strip members of their dignity. Public servants
belonged to families and the transfer of a public servant to different areas of
the country had a great impact not only on individuals but also on their
children and the general stability of his family. He argued that the aspect of
the Bill that dealt with the transfer of individuals should prioritise the
interests of that individual, rather than those of the public service.
IMATU and FEDUSA Joint Submission
Representatives of the Federation Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA) and
Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Unions (IMATU), Mr Van Heerden and Mr Van Staden, made a
submission challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. Their presentation
dealt primarily with the manner in which the Bill appeared to compromise
stipulations regarding the three spheres of local government.
Discussion
Mr M Sikakane (ANC) stated that the current
government would never negate the principles of freedom. He asked what the Department
should do if it were faced with a public servant whose skills would be better
used elsewhere.
Mr Gopal replied that the problem he had was that
someone could be moved if it was in the public interest, without that public
servant’s consent. The needs of the employee needed to be placed at the centre
of the issue.
Mr A Nyambi (ANC) stated
that he felt the employees would be assisted by this system, and enquired if Mr
Gopal had had the opportunity of looking at the Bill
with a legal expert.
Mr Gopal replied that he did have a legal background
and was thus in a position to interpret the Bill for himself
Mr K. Khumalo (ANC) stated that Mr Gopal had raised a legitimate concern. A recommendation
should have been made.
Ms Roopnarain (IFP) remarked that currently employees
were being transferred from one place to another and did have redress in those
instances.
Mr Gopal replied that there should be checks and
balances. If an employee did not want to move, he should have the option of
staying. He was against forcing Public Servants to move and it was not going to
always result in greater capacity on the other side.
The Chair stated that there was currently no forced transferal
of people.
Mr Khumalo stated that the presentation of IMATU was
slightly premature. He noted that Mr Van Staden had
referred in his presentation, to section 196 only and had failed to refer to
section 195, which dealt with the functions of the public service. He noted
that section 195 was far broader. Nowhere did the creation of agencies mean taking
power away from local government. Nowhere in the Bill was it stated that
municipal services would be replaced by agencies.
Ms L Maloney (ANC) asked whether the issue of agencies was being fully
understood. These agencies were not from outside the government, but from
within it and they therefore understood constitutional issues.
In that light, Mr Van Staden questioned the necessity
of the agencies and suggested opening a government office to carry out those
tasks.
Mr N Gcwabaza (ANC) asked for greater clarity on the
issue of unconstitutionality that Mr Van Staden had raised. Was the concern over the subordination of one sphere
of government by the other?
Mr Van Staden replied that the Bill indicated that
functions could be transferred from an organ of state. The transfer of
municipal tasks to national government was unconstitutional. Section 151(3) of
the Constitution determined the powers of the national government, and that
certain functions be done by the municipality.
The Chair enquired as to why IMATU was calling for the Bill to be revoked.
Surely it should have been looked at and grievances taken under advisement. The
Chair thanked the presenters.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.