State of the Public Service: briefing by Public Service Commission & Public Service Amendment Bill: comments by Public Service C

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 May 2007
STATE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE: BRIEFING BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL: COMMENTS BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT

Chairpersons: (Acting) Mr R Baloyi (ANC); Mr P Gomono (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Public Service Amendment Bill presentation
State of the Public Services Report presentation
Public Service Amendment Bill: Proposed Amendments following the bilateral between the Public Service Commission and the Department

Audio Recording of the Meeting: Part1 & Part2

SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission presented the State of the Public Service Report to the Committee. This report noted that there were processes in place, but that departments did not always comply with them. There had continued to be under spending that resulted in a waste of funds. This ran contrary to the high level of poverty. It was recommended that a more workable definition of poverty be arrived at in order to develop a poverty matrix. Legislation was in place to achieve equality, but departments were not complying adequately. Citizen satisfaction surveys showed that although most citizens were generally satisfied with the services provided, they remained dissatisfied with the redress mechanisms within departments, of whom only 21% had appropriate policies. The quality of the departmental reports had improved, and there was better reporting on performance, although performance management and evaluation were not yet optimally used. There was a need for further departmental capacity. Departments often did not have policies on recruitment and selection and took too long to fill posts and management did not adequately monitor the process. The targets for representivity had not yet been met.

Questions by Members addressed the low levels of education and literacy, the fairness of the job application processes, the concerns that spikes in spending resulted from poor financial planning, whether core competencies were compulsory elements in the performance management agreements, the non-compliance by heads of department, unauthorised and wasteful spending. Further questions addressed the need to clarify what poverty was, why HIV/Aids were not receiving more prominence, the reasons for the low numbers of employees with disability, how non-compliance would be dealt with, the need for different types of engagement and the detail on the reports. One member believed the same issues were recurring, with little proof of improvement, and suggested the need to convert this Committee to a Standing Committee, and the need to impose more stringent measures. Others commented that there had been clear indication of monitoring and evaluation, but that public participation could be an added advantage. The Department commented that the challenges already formed the subject of ongoing work in the social cluster.

The Public Service Commission and the Department of Public Service and Administration gave reports on the draft Public Service Amendment Bill. The Commission had raised a number of concerns, as detailed fully in the presentation, around the functions of the Minister and powers to conduct investigations, the consultative bodies, the government agencies, disciplinary steps, grievances and the timing of the Bill. The Department’s response to those concerns was tabled. It was noted that the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee that had undertaken a review of Chapter 9 institutions might affect the Commission. There had been discussion with the Minister. The Commission requested that it be apprised of the wording of the new draft.

MINUTES
Mr R Baloyi acted as Chairperson for the first part of the meeting.

He stated that the round table debate that would now follow was a new form of debate that the Committee would be practising. The Committee had extended an invitation to other portfolio committee members who could be affected by the Public Service Amendment Bill to attend this meeting. The debate was meant to be highly interactive and it would allow other Committees to voice their concerns immediately

Report on the State of the Public Service: Public Service Commission (PSC) Briefing
Professor Stan Sangweni, Chairperson: Public Service Commission, stated that this was the sixth edition of the annual report. The report was based on the themes that would promote growth and development throughout public services, and was an assessment of their contribution to the development and growth of the country. He stated that South Africa's Constitution called for a qualitative development, and this report followed those principles.

Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Deputy Director General, PSC, presented the report, which gave a high level overview of the performance of the public service, and was organised according to the nine constitutional values and principles, providing an analytical overview of the role played by the public service in the promotion of growth and development. The report drew on oversight work and was augmented by other appropriate research on public administration.

The first principle was concerned with professional ethics, which enhanced the credibility of the State as a development partner and promoted confidence in its programmes. A strong framework was fostered by the partnership with the National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF), which included public participation and a hotline. Only 36% of the cases reported could potentially undermine confidence in the system. It was found that only 66% of senior managers had returned the financial disclosure forms, and this created a very poor perception.

The second principle was efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The report showed that over 56% of allocated expenditure was spent on social services. The largest share of resources went to education. Under-spending in provincial departments had decreased. Under-spending on the national level had increased from to 1.5% in 2005/6. This was an indication of poor financial planning. The Auditor-General had reported that 2005/6 national departments incurred over R266 million in unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The public service needed to develop the institutional capacity to help address these unacceptably high levels.

The third principle was development orientation. The public service must be a strategic agent through which government could intervene decisively to achieve its objectives. Despite increased economic growth South Africa was still challenged by poverty. The government was committed to halving poverty by 2014 in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals. Different definitions of poverty made it difficult to assess progress. South Africa did not have an official poverty matrix, and so it was suggested that the public service should have provided clarity on what poverty meant. Although efforts such as social security and unemployment had reached many beneficiaries, these needed to be augmented by job creation and other income generating opportunities. Collaborative opportunities should be extended to communities who could actively participate in growth and development initiatives.

The fourth principle was impartiality and fairness. Legislation was in place to achieve equality. This included the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) and the Employment Equity Act (EEA). However inequality still remained. This was particularly true of access to education, and statistics were tabled. PSC studies showed that departments were not complying adequately with PAJA. Poor compliance could undermine public confidence in the fairness of the decision made.

The fifth principle was that the State must be responsive to people’s needs and the public must be encouraged to participate in policy making. The involvement of citizens in the decision making process was important to ensure that experiential and grounded perspectives informed the government. South Africa had an open policymaking process that attempted to reach consensus through parliamentary hearings, NEDLAC, engagement with trade unions and Imbizos. Citizen satisfaction surveys conducted by PSC showed that although most citizens were generally satisfied with the services provided, they remain dissatisfied with the redress mechanisms within departments. Departments generally lacked policies and guidelines on promotion of public participation, with only 21% having such policies in place.

The sixth principle was that public administration must be held accountable. The public service had enormous responsibility and was entrusted with vast resources and levels of authority that enabled it to deliver on the priorities of government. Annual reports were used by the Auditor-General to facilitate regulatory audits and check that these reports did not contradict financial statements. During 2005\06, 56% of departments failed to submit their reports by due date. The quality of the departmental reports had improved, and there was better reporting on performance, and better alignment with the objectives of national expenditure and individual departments. The PSC continued to strive for increased performance of heads of departments (HoDs). The performance management and evaluation were not yet optimally used and performance agreements were not always handed in on due date.

The seventh principle of transparency had to be fostered by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information. Transparency had been promoted significantly through increased access to information, largely through proactive steps to make information available, as opposed to responding to requests. Annual reports were important, and an assessment showed that 79% of departments satisfied 90% of the requirements set by regulations for those Annual Reports. Government needed to invest in departmental capacity in order to respond timeously and meaningfully to requested information.

The eighth principle stated that good human resource management practices and career development practices would maximise human potential. Skills challenges were recognised, and the launch of Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) was intended to secure those priority skills required for the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA). Unfortunately some of the efforts of the public service were undermined by failure of departments to comply with the Personnel Administration Standard (PAS) systems. 14% of the complaints lodged with the PSC related to basic human resource management matters. Departments often did not have policies on recruitment and selection and took too long to fill posts. Only 7% of departments complied with the stipulated 90-day period to fill vacancies. Management did not adequately monitor the process, which was even more serious in light of the huge shortage of skills in the public service.

The ninth principle stated that public administration should be broadly representative of the population and thus the public service was obliged to set a good example on representivity targets. The revised target for women in management by March 2009 was 50% and four provinces were under target. The public service needed to address the challenges that delayed the integration of women in management.

Mr Diphofa concluded that it was only through efforts by government and public participation that a momentum for change could be sustained and optimal results could be achieved. Growth and development were about a holistic improvement of the standard and quality of life.

Discussion
 Mr M Sikakane (ANC) stated that he was both worried and relieved by this report. He was worried that though the mechanisms in place to root out corruption were being used, the complaints that were recorded were not always being attended to. However he was relieved that the PSC had realised the problem and brought it to the attention of the Committee.

Mr Sikakane asked why there were still so many unschooled people and what was planned reduce the figure.

Mr N Gcwabaza (ANC) also mentioned the large numbers of under-educated people and stated that there should be a re-evaluation of the Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) programmes.

Professor S Mayatula (Chairperson, Portfolio Committee on Education) responded that this related to the provision of free education. Section 29 of Constitution had resulted in the creation of the no-fee schools. These were now in place and there was therefore little excuse for parents not to send their children to school. Regrettably there were still statistics showing low attendance. If the parents failed to send their children to school they could be prosecuted.

Mr Sikakane asked how the applicants for employment in the public services knew that their applications would treated fairly.

Ms Odette Ramsingh, Director General, PSC, commented that public service regulations were very clear as to how the process must be conducted. These were supplemented by the individual departments’ recruitment and selection criteria. More importantly there had to be access to a complaints and grievances procedure. Potential job applicants used this facility if they thought they had been treated unfairly. Measures should be instituted to prevent arbitrary recruitment.

Mr B Mtembu (ANC) commented that fiscal dumping was an accurate description of what resulted from poor financial planning and ran counter to good governance. Certain key issues could be put in the Performance Agreements. One section of this would feature the core competencies such as financial, human resource, development, strategic and change management. These core competencies were an integral part of management yet were listed as optional when they should rather have been compulsory. These performance agreements were used as an assessment to reveal any areas of weakness in order to address them. He asked whether the departments that had been evaluated had core competencies included in their performance agreements.

Mr Diphofa stated that there was an assessment of the core competencies, and that the optional part did not relate to core competencies, but rather to the sources from which the information could be obtained in order to feed into the overall assessment.

Professor Mayatula stated that the report was very general. He asked if the education sector was included in the results of sectors tabled during the presentation.

Professor Mayatula noted that there could be different mechanisms to improve management. For example, with regard to one school whose marks were extremely poor, there had been a change of management in the form of a new principal, and the marks improved.

Mr Gcwabaza was worried about the performance of the heads of departments as poor behaviour filtered down to other levels of personnel. He wanted to know what the PSC would suggest to correct the issues of non-compliance.

Mr Diphofa stated that non compliance by departments was regarded as important. A major challenge at present was that PSC did not yet hold departments accountable enough to ensure that they involved citizens. They needed to make use of the provisions that are in place in order to ensure that departments were held accountable for the recommendations and the implementation of them.

Ms Ramsingh stated that one factor of poor management performance was inability to detect and do something about inefficient employees.

Mr Sikakane commented on the issue of departments spending in the last four months of the financial year. Departments were clearly holding on to money to ensure that they had sufficient at the end of the year, and there was surely some way to make them budget and spend properly to remedy the situation.

Mr K Minnie (DA) wanted comment from the Commission on the issue of under spending, unauthorised expenditure, and the non-disclosure of financial interests by public service management. He stated that members of parliament would not dare to do that. He also requested comment on the lack of transparency where only 9% of departments complied.

Dr U Roopnarian (IFP) believed that the unauthorised and wasteful spending was a consequence of the poor implementation of the code of conduct and accountability, and that perhaps something more binding was required. For instance, clear directions should be added to performance contracts, as non-disclosure had been going on for years. There was a clear dichotomy as the struggle to alleviate poverty continued.

Ms Ramsingh commented on the issues of under spending, unauthorised expenditure and wasteful spending. It was clear that these arose as a consequence of poor planning and under performance. Objectives were not met and the funds were used for other objectives. It was suggested that should there be poor performance, over-spending or failure to meet objectives, management staff should not be entitled to performance bonuses, since it went to the heart of financial management.

Mr Minnie enquired what the PSC’s observation was of the reason for poverty despite economic growth and what their advice would be to government.

Mr Khumalo noted that there had been programmes designed around poverty, yet there was still confusion around the definition of poverty. He asked when the investigation into a suitable definition for poverty would be completed. He stated that as long as there was no definition of poverty there could be no solution.

Mr Diphofa stated the poverty issues were taken into consideration and that the question of whether or not there should be a different definition for poverty for different areas had been raised

Mr Minnie noted that the report had said that one-fifth of staff in the education sector were infected with HIV/AIDS and this threatened the sector. He wanted to know why HIV/AIDS had not received more prominence as it was such a serious subject.

Dr Roopnarian thanked the PSC for a report that was very well done even if it was damning for the Department. She enquired why people with disability were not applying for employment with the public service, and stated that study or research should be done on the issue.

Ms Ramsingh commented that disability was a recurring problem and it was stated in the 2002 report that unless urgent measures were taken there would be difficulties. There had not been the dramatic changes recommended. The PSC was embarking a series of public hearings that would invite people living with disability and managers to give both perspectives of the situation. This aimed to find out what was preventing an increase of disabled employees, as it may not be as easy as just changing the policy and guidelines.
 
Dr Roopnarian stated citizen satisfaction surveys were helpful, as they would help the PSC to look at relevant issues. Other methods should be found.

Mr A Nyambi (ANC) commended the Commission on their report. He enquired what would be the Commission’s recommendation when it dealt with those departments who had not complied with the policy and guidelines on growth and development.

Mr Diphofa stated that core management criteria, including these topics, had to be included in the Performance Agreement for HoDs. Other senior level management had the option of choosing from a number of different criteria, as stated in the Senior Management handbook. These issues would be addressed in the performance agreements and there would be assessment of compliance.

Ms O Ramsingh (Director-General: Office of Public Service Commission (OPSC) stated that there was a declining number of evaluations of heads of departments. The PSC did realise that a different type of engagement was required, and future discussions would also address how the PSC could assist and have increased compliance. An initiative would be required from the executive authorities to find out where the lack of compliance emanated, and thus PSC would be seeking assistance from all relevant departments.

Mr Nyambi agreed with Professor Mayatula that the report was too general and stated that the individual departments should be named, so that their provinces could be informed.

Mr Sangweni responded that there was insufficient time to go into each province and that this would also result in an enormous report. The report had already included some very important surveys that were drawn from departments. The Commission made recommendations on non-compliance to find ways to prevent and combat it.

Mr Diphofa stated that the time afforded was limited, and therefore it was impossible to cover all departments. Some relevant information could be found in the report, which listed sources. Inclusion of a table for every department and every province would have impeded accessibility of the report. Information was received from viable sources, and was in the report in a consolidated format.
 
Mr I Julies (DA) commented that the report was repetitive and that the same issues were brought up several times. He stated that there should be measures in place to prevent wrongdoing in the public service. There did not seem to be any mechanisms in place that actually worked. There was a need to ensure that all poor people actually benefited from proper service delivery. Government had the mechanisms in place to stop wrongdoing and curb shortcomings, and this was the main objective of the PSC, yet every year the same things were repeated. He believed that the Portfolio Committee should be converted into a Standing Committee, as it was the Committee’s duty to ensure that service delivery improved. He predicted that in another few months there would be a Ministerial statement that there was yet another plan to deal with the issues concerning service delivery. He stated that perhaps more stringent measures must be taken against those that do not perform as they were supposed to and have them removed.

Mr Gcwabza stated that even though it seemed as if the PSC repeatedly mentioned the same issues they should persist until there was compliance with their requests.

Mr John Ernstzen, Deputy Chairperson: PSC, emphatically stated that nowhere in the report was it said that there had been no development. The report had stated what the public service had contributed. The need for accurate financial disclosure was endorsed. The report gave credit where it was due as well as critique. It should also be noted that the work done formed part of a process and that PSC had already started on the next report. This report was a broad overview and the culmination of all the data stored and collected.

Ms J Matsomela (ANC) stated the report was well done and clearly showed what was being evaluated and monitored. Oversight was noticed and recommendations were noted. It pointed at challenges and solutions. There was no exaggeration in the report. Despite all the laws, there was seemingly not full implementation. However public participation could be used as an added advantage as it gave a sense of ownership to those involved. In regard to HIV/AIDS, the report had clearly shown that some institutions did not have the correct policy and guidelines and that there should be more dialogue on the issue. It was obvious that PAJA had not been implemented as thoroughly as expected and that if PAJA and the Labour Law could work in conjunction, the public service would have improved. The budget was the only contentious point, and she asked what PSC was going to do about it.

Mr Khumalo commented on the fact that only 21% of departments had public participation policies. He acknowledged the principles relating to PAJA but stated that if there were HODs who were not fully appraised of the application of PAJA this could cause difficulty.

Mr Gcwabaza (ANC) said that the Committee was seeing more improved reports and that if this was not acknowledged it would undermine the institution. He asked if an investigation took place with regard to the under-spending. He also asked if there had been an investigation into the fiscal dumping that took place as it could be linked to fraud and corruption.

Mr Mthembu raised the issue of development. If the performance agreements included a section on core competencies then those departments that had complied would have the required instruments in place to ensure better performances. He thanked the commission for clarifying the issue of core competencies and stated that he was glad that these issues were mandatory. The departments needed to concentrate on accountability and developmental plans had to be compiled.

Mr Gcwabaza remarked that perhaps the issues of development and retention would improve once the law had passed. He mentioned this because of the problems of staff moving from one state institution to another and skilled staff moving to the private sector, and that this linked to capacity.

Ms Colette Clark, Deputy Director-General: Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) commented that a report on competencies would have to be submitted back to Cabinet by July. One of the major issues was that of the distinction between performance management and management of performance. This could lead to non-compliance. Currently the management of performance was systemic and had to be nurtured from the embryonic stages to obtain a better understanding of the expected requirements.

Professor Richard Levin, Director-General: DPSA, congratulated the Commission on an outstanding report. He appreciated the opportunity to engage on the report. Many key challenges were raised which formed the subject of ongoing work in the executive of the social cluster, including the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), issues around poverty, and challenges around compliance. The next part of the meeting would deal with the amendments that could help with these issues. The draft legislation would refer to the whole issue of financial closure and the implementing measures that would improve compliance.
 
Ms Ramsingh stated that the public service was very clear about the process. The Department supplemented regulations, and she noted that there was also a grievance procedure in place. 

Mr Baloyi stated that it was obvious that there would be a need for a follow-up on the state of the public service. He suggested that the Committee draw up a programme to follow up on the issues and concerns. The Committee would be undertaking some inspections, and could include checks on areas of concern. The question of the Committee’s status should also be discussed. 

Mr P Gomomo (ANC) took over as Chairperson at this point.

Public Service Amendment Bill: Comment by Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC)
Ms Odette Ramsingh, Director General, OPSC, stated that the Public Service Amendment Bill (the Bill) had been submitted in draft for comment to national executive authorities in May 2006. Following comment by the PSC there had recently been a meeting between the PSC and the Department (DPSA) to discuss the changes proposed by PSC. She would therefore outline the problems that PSC had with the Bill, and the responses from the Department.
 
Ms Ramsingh summarised that the areas of concern outlined by PSC related to the functions of the Minister of Public Service and Administration (MPSA), the consultative or advisory bodies, government agencies, discipline, grievances and timing of the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill gave the MPSA the power to conduct investigations. This would possibly cause erosion and duplication of the PSC’s powers to conduct investigations, and could be unconstitutional as it could erode the PSC’s constitutional mandate. The Bill conferred powers on the MPSA to make enforceable decisions yet it was unclear how the Bill would ensure that the PSC’s recommendations were enforced. DPSA had understood the concerns and proposed to omit this clause. The Department then proposed the inclusion of a clause that would oblige the heads of departments and executive authorities to give effect to PSC recommendations within a specified time. In principle, PSC agreed that this would be useful. IN addition there was a suggestion that there should be provision for a review or amendment of a PSC recommendation within a specified time. The PSC agreed in principle that a review mechanism should apply.

Clause 3(3)(a) of the Bill provided for the establishment of advisory bodies by the MPSA. It was not clear to what extent these bodies could interfere with the advisory roles of heads of department. Further, it was not clear how the MPSA would be able to act on the advice given in relation to the functions of the other departments and how this would interface with the executive powers of the departments. There was some question as to the future role of heads of departments in advising the Executive. PSC did not believe that it was necessary to provide for advisory bodies as the Minister already had the power to call on any person or institution to advise her. It cautioned that existing statutory bodies could be sidelined. The Department’s proposal to provide for representation by organized labour was noted.

The Bill also provided for the establishment of government agencies as a new service delivery model. They were envisaged as enabling direct service delivery through focused and ring-fenced entities. PSC believed that it would be better to create capacity and retain accountability within departments. It requested clarity on whether the proposed government agencies would replicate the duties of departments, to whom they were accountable, and whether they would be created for every service provided by government. The Department responded to these concerns by suggesting that instead an executive authority could request establishment of a government agency if a feasibility study had been undertaken and recommended the need to establish an agency. The Department had also consulted with other stakeholders and had suggested further that government agencies should instead be called government components and that specialized service delivery units be set up in departments. The PSC welcomed these changes, but still cautioned about possible proliferation.

PSC had also highlighted the problems of discipline, particularly those instances where a person would resign prior to the disciplinary process. This ran contrary to Government’s commitment to root out corruption, as matters would not proceed, and their misconduct would not be made public. . In response to this the DPSA had therefore now recommended that the Public Service Regulations be changed to ensure that no shorter notice period could be supported if disciplinary charges were pending, which should allow the proceedings to be concluded. There was also a suggestion that a person resigning during pending disciplinary processes should be deemed as having been discharged for misconduct, provided certain time frames applied.

PSC had expressed concern that clauses in the Bill dealing with grievances of employees was ambiguous and did not provide other dispute resolution mechanisms such as approaching the PSC. DPSA had noted this, and had now suggested that it would address the ambiguity.

The PSC recommended that a clause with similar contents to the Public Finance Management Act be added in to the Bill, to provide that any personal or private business interests must be disclosed and that this would strengthen the financial disclosure framework.
.
The timing of the Bill was a matter of concern for the PSC. The current Act was supposed to be replaced with the Single Public Service Act in 2008. This Bill would shortly therefore be overtaken. It also seemed to be at odds with the ongoing review of the Chapter 9 and 10 institutions, which could result in some legislative amendments.
The DPSA had responded that the Single Public Service Act was now anticipated for 2009. The Bill had not taken into account any proposals from the review process.

Now that these concerns had been addressed, the PSC did not have a fundamental problem with the Bill. However, it noted its cautionary advice to the DPSA and had requested a further opportunity to examine the Bill after these changes had been made to the draft.

Comment by Department of Public Service and Administration
Professor R Levin stated that the PSC had given an accurate description of the parties’ engagement. The Department acknowledged that the clause that gave more power to the MPSA had been omitted, and noted the changes to the grievance clause and the disciplinary clause. With regard to the advisory bodies DPSA would like to engage in more detail on the matter. It believed that the framework should be made more effective, to increase the impact of the code of conduct and financial disclosure. With regard to the timing of the Bill it was hoped that this could have been tabled by May, but this had now changed. A comprehensive list of the changes would be drafted for Committee.
 
Discussion
Mr Baloyi commended both the PSC and the DPSA on having held meetings to resolve any issues. This would afford the Committee an opportunity to express an informed opinion.

Prof Sangweni remarked that the Bill would be a reflection on the dignity with which this process was handled.
 
Mr Baloyi asked what the PSC expected the committee dealing with the review of the Chapter 9 institutions to recommend.

Mr Sangweni stated that the PSC had made submissions to that Committee but did not know how PSC would be affected by the recommendations of that Committee.
 
Mr Baloyi stated that the issue of timing might not be a major problem.
 
Professor Levin remarked that this Bill would improve the quality of public service.
 
The Chairperson stated that when negotiation through a collective bargaining process was carried out, it would make the process much easier and hopefully prevent loopholes.
 
Mr Khumalo stated that it appeared as if the PSC and the DPSA was uncomfortable with the way advisory bodies were appointed and what their function might be. He asked if the PSC and the DPSA had met with the Minister.
 
Professor Levin wanted to reassure the Committee that they had cooperated with the Minister. He stated that advisory bodies would be appointed and given functions by the Minister. This was not a compromise but an improvement therefore it was believed that it would enhance the quality of the Bill.
 
The meeting was adjourned.