Budget Vote 2008/09: Public Service & Administration Department

Public Service and Administration

27 February 2008
Chairperson: Mr M Baloyi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Public Service and Administration gave a report outlining the historical overview, their recent achievements, the Department’s programme structure, budget information, the operational plan 2008/09 and priority projects per programme. The presentation touched on the growth in the Department and the impacts, the Single Public Service approach, the six programme structures, the budget summary for the medium-term, the Policy on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement, the main cost drivers in the DPSA for the next few years and the optimal use of existing personnel.

Members discussed improvement in service delivery and skills, consequences for the Department if objectives were not realised, the Public Sector Education Training Authority funding, anti-corruption standards, the Geographic Information System, enhancing professionalism within a Department, and efficient use of resources and vacancies within the Department.

Meeting report

Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA): Budget overview 2008/09
Prof Richard Levin, Director General, DPSA, discussed the historical overview to give Members a sense of how the DPSA had grown over the years. The amount of staff increased from 251 in 1996/97 to 383 in 2006/07. There was a steady growth in the organisation as new tasks were taken on. An increase in the volume and scope of work resulted in a larger overall budget. The DPSA combined a few budget programmes to contract the number of programmes in the organisation.

The budgetary growth in the expenditure on Human Resources indicated that the DPSA experienced a period of rapid growth. However, the organisation was now in a process of consolidating the growth and programmes to enable the DPSA to become fully effective.

As far as recent achievements were concerned, the Public Service Amendment Bill was passed, and was published in the Government Gazette. The Single Public Service (SPS) Draft Bill was approved by Cabinet and consultations with stakeholders were being put in place. Some of the other achievements were the development and approval of the Health and Wellness and Leadership Development Management Strategic Frameworks, the approval of the Human Resource Development Strategy (HRDS), the launch of the HOD’s Eight Principles Action Plan for Women Empowerment, the report on the e-government strategy for ICT connectivity, the support provided to the Auditor-General to develop a framework to guide IT auditing in the public service, the completion of the “Know Your Service Rights” booklet as well as the guide for the submission of Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIPs) and the development of a Conflict of Interests Framework.

The DPSA structure consisted of six programmes. The first programme was Administration, which meant that the DPSA would provide policy, strategic leadership and overall management of the department. The second programme was Human Resource Management and Development (HRM&D), which looked to develop and implement an integrated strategy, monitor employment practices, conduct human resource planning and diversity management, and to improve the health and well-being of the public service. The third programme was Management of Compensation (MOC) and was meant to develop and implement compensation policies and guidelines for the public sector and ensure coordinated bargaining. Programme four was Information and Technology Management (ITM), which ensured the effective use of IT in Government and facilitated the use of IT for modernising Government and establishing e-government practices, within an acceptable information security environment. Programme five on Service Delivery Improvement (SDI) looked to engage in supportive interventions and partnerships that improved efficiency and effectiveness as well as innovative learning and knowledge based modes and practices of service delivery in the public service. The sixth programme focused on Governance (Gov) in an effort to improve governance and public administration for improved service delivery in Africa and other participating countries worldwide, in support of the vision of efficiency and increased participation in governance, by fighting corruption and carrying out participatory monitoring.

The budget summary of Vote 8 was presented for the Medium term, by programme. Total expenditure was estimated to decrease from 2008/9 to 2009/10 and then expected to grow again in 2010/11. This was due to the Policy on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement (PILIR). Budgets would be decentralised to departments who would then need to take direct responsibility for managing and implementing the programme. There was also a question of the Public Service Education and Training Authority (PSETA) that had presented the DPSA with numerous challenges. The organisation created the institutional basis on which the PSETA would become a fully fledged public entity, but there were issues regarding capacity and the related risks which hampered rapid progress towards the institutional realignment of the PSETA.

The largest portions of the budget were allocated to the SDI, PILIR and Administration Programmes. The SDI portion included the Single Public Service (SPS) budget.

The DPSA was required to submit all policy options. The organisation developed a series of options, some of which were not funded. The HR Connect was an important programme as well as the Geographic Information System (GIS), as it was needed for achieving the objectives of the SPS by indicating where the population were located in South Africa. It would indicate the service delivery points in relation to the population and the deployment of public servants

Main cost drivers in 2008/9 would be PILIR, the PSETA transfer and SPS. The 2009/10 main cost drivers would be SPS and the 2010/11 cost drivers would be the HR Connect and SPS projects. Accommodation costs occurred as a result of growth in staff and building constraints. 

DPSA operational plans consisted of the Presidential “APEX” project, the DPSA priority projects, the government and administration Programme of Action, projects emanating from Lekgotla as well as short and medium-term projects from the DPSA Strategic Plan. The plans were discussed in relation to the six programmes.

It was noted that National Treasury curtailed funding for the expansion of personnel. The DPSA would focus on the development and optimal use of existing personnel and effective use of available operational funding. A strong corporate governance environment was required to achieve this, given the DPSA’s current resource base. Priorities included the completion of the Big 5 priority projects, the Programme of Action projects, Lekgotla projects and other items on the Operational Plan.

Discussion
Mr M Sikakane (ANC) referred to the historical overview in the Report. He expected the figures to have a sequence and asked for an explanation.

Prof Levin stated that it related to the change in finance allocation. In terms of 1999/2000 and going forward, certain projects were undertaken. There was also restructuring as well as matching and placing of officials that resulted in the increase in the budget during that time. The budget decreased after the completion of those projects.

Mr K Julies (DA) clarified that the funding would be used to improve service delivery and skills. He wanted to know what would happen to the Department if these goals were not achieved.

Prof Levin looked at performance management. It was supposed to be a developmental as well as a punitive measure. If performed properly, the Department would be able to see the development needs and the steps to address them. If performance was managed properly and there were well-structured performance agreements in place but managers were not able to meet the commitments they made through those agreements, on an ongoing basis, then action would be taken. This could lead to incapacity and dismissal.

Mr Julies stated that he asked the question because there were people in management positions who were not performing, yet they received performance benefits. Someone would have to demand improvements in service delivery. Prof Levin answered that HR norms and standards had to apply to Government workers across the board, as SPS was an important value. People had to be rewarded and punished according to the level of delivery against their performance agreements.
 
Dr U Roopnarain (IFP) looked at PSETA funding. She asked why it would be funded by the public service budget. She further asked if the “Know Your Rights” booklet would be circulated in all the official languages.  Recently there had been news of public servants and financial improprieties. She asked how the DPSA would ensure that the minimum anti-corruption standards were implemented at every level so that all the constitutional values of public service were realised.

Prof Levin spoke about the skills development levies in relation to PSETA. The actual learnerships were implemented through the PSETA and funded by the skills development levies. The Department funded other operational, HR and corporate costs of the institution through PSETA.

Prof Levin said that the “Know Your Rights” booklet would be translated in all the official languages so that all citizens would be able to make use of a user-friendly document. In ensuring the implementation of minimum anti-corruption standards, this related to the challenge of compliance. The frameworks were available for HR, financial management, anti-corruption and governance, but there were issues with the compliance mechanisms. The Amendment Act resulted in stricter compliance, as the Minister as well as the Public Service Commission could take stricter measures when there was non-compliance with some matters. It was about rigorous monitoring and reporting as well as action and follow-up.

Ms M Matsemela (ANC) voiced concern over the DPSA projects. She queried the reduction in programmes and asked what the motivation was for it, and if the decrease improved service delivery. The Committee welcomed the funding toward the GIS, as it would prove to be helpful and informative. On HRM&D, she appreciated that the issue of enhanced professionalism was being taken seriously. She asked what the measures were that would be taken. The Committee acknowledged that the Treasury curtailed the expansion of personnel and that the Department would have to make optimal use of the resources at hand. She asked if the SPS would assist in ensuring that the Department would make optimal use of the resources that were available.

On programme structure reduction, Prof Levin answered that it was a management decision to combine some projects into one programme. Also, there were too many programme managers reporting to the DG. This decision did not weaken the programmes or reduce their effectiveness. He looked at management effectiveness in relation to the GIS and improvements in professionalism. With GIS, the Department wanted to look at the deployment of managers as well as deployment in relation to the services that were delivered to the public. There was a view that the Department focused too much on the National Departments and the Head Offices in terms of management. The system would also show where the service delivery points were in relation to the population.

Ms Matsemela asked if the Committee could anticipate the redeployment of managers.

Prof Levin stated that he would have to be careful, as the Department was looking at the matter in relation to the SPS. The legal side would have to be considered but the intention was to recruit people into the proper positions to service the public. The Department would also look at incentives to encourage the correct people to work in less developed areas of the country.

In relation to enhancing professionalism, he noted that some projects were undertaken but improvements could still be made. The Department was considering the Senior Management Service (SMS) and commitment to civil service and duty. It was his opinion that a professional association should be created to discuss matters of enhancing and setting standards in profession. The SMS should also have the kind of association that would provide support to its members and would be a separate vehicle for running events.

Prof Levin looked at whether the SPS would help to use the resources more optimally. He stated that the bureaucracy in the country fascinated him, particularly in regard to how institutions created and protected their turf. The Constitutional provisions on cooperative governance needed to be realised in practice. There was duplication and the SPS was about building cooperative governance. He suggested the removal of duplication and better synergy. Departments would have to work together to be successful. Duplication meant that there was not optimal use of resources. The SPS and the information systems that were being built should assist in the optimal use of resources. The DPSA needed to make sure that the public servants understood the SPS because they would have to learn to work across boundaries. There would be implications for the DPSA in terms of preparing the Government for change that would come about through the SPS and the change management programme.

Mr I Mfundisi (UCDP) asked why PILIR was allocated such a large portion of the funds. According to the documents, allocations were for 2008/2009 and did not look to the medium-term. With policy options, he asked what was the Department’s intention in so far as each department having its own building.

Prof Levin informed the Committee that the Department had found that there was a lot of money being wasted because of incapacity leave and ill-health retirement. The DPSA developed a pilot that would provide expert medical advice to Directors-General and Heads of Departments and would lessen the impact and cost on the Department. This resulted in cost saving and Cabinet emphasised that PILIR needed to be implemented immediately. The real cost driver was around hiring service providers and health risk managers to advise the Department.

In regard to the building situation, the current building was not user-friendly. The DPSA had not taken into account the growth of the Department and the increase in personnel and when they moved in they found that the building was too small.

Mr K Minnie (DA) referred to the historical overview. He stated that it would be interesting to see the vacancy rates included in the document.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) looked at the positions that were filled. He asked if the filled positions were fixed or acting positions.

Mr S Simmons (NA) focussed on Programme two and the filling of posts. He asked for more information on the number of posts that were vacant. He also asked what the Department as doing to retain good, qualified staff.

Prof Levin told Members to look at the current structure, which included PSETA. There was a 14% vacancy rate. All vacancies that were not funded would be eliminated and brought in line with the budget. On the new proposed structure, which still needed approval by the Minister and would exclude PSETA, there was a vacancy rate of 16.8%. There was a problem with having acting officials in important positions.

Mr Minnie asked how far the Department was in regard to the costing of the SPS, as the Committee needed the information for budgeting purposes. He asked what was the date for the budget vote. He felt that the e-government programme needed to be brought forward as there were important issues to be discussed in the Committee.

Prof Levin responded that the DPSA was working with a team of actuaries on the costing of the SPS. A report would be submitted to Cabinet for approval and the cost scenarios would be presented. The probable date of the Budget Vote would be 3 June 2008.

Ms Michelle Williams, Deputy Director General: OGCIO, DPSA, stated that she did not think that e-government was being used as effectively as it should be used across the public sector. E-government was defined as the use of information and communication technology to allow greater public access to information, to facilitate more acceptable government services, and to promote more effective government. It was about the internal and operational administration of government, and to make e-government more accountable to citizens, businesses and stakeholders. There were a number of initiatives within the DPSA that were being implemented across the government. Increasingly, countries were being measured by their e-government readiness and South Africa was falling behind. Unfortunately, there was no budget for e-government. The Department would hold discussions with Treasury to look at the implementation and resources of e-government.

Mr B Mthembu (ANC) focused on the completion of the submissions for Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIPs) and the Guide on Organisational Structures. He stated that the Committee welcomed those achievements, as they were important interventions for the improvement of HR planning and service delivery, which were interrelated. He stated that there was a desire from the administration that all structures would look at the guide. He asked if the guides had been distributed and if departments were in possession of these documents. Oversight would be performed in respect of service delivery improvement.

Prof Levin stated that the Department managed to raise the level of compliance. A quality audit for the SDIPs across provinces and clusters was completed. The DPSA would start to monitor the actual implementation of the SDIP. They would look at whether the departments were able to implement their service standards and other elements identified in the SDIP. The Department wanted better alignment between the service delivery improvement approach and the service delivery models and processes within organisations’ structures so that there was a real operational structure.

Ms P Mashangoane (ANC) wanted to know if there was any time frame for the change in accommodation. The Member was worried that there were no programmes to check on the quality and impact of trainee officials in municipalities. Also, on the assessment of mobile units, she asked why the project’s completion could not be brought forward as elections were going to take place.

Prof Levin responded that in relation to accommodation, the DPSA decided to stay in their current situation for a while. During this year, they would identify the building and prepare it for use for the following year. An impact assessment on the training approach would be completed in the year.

Ms Williams said she was not sure about the mobile units. The DPSA was currently analysing connectivity to the Thutsong Centres as well as inadequate service delivery points in remote and rural areas. The GIS would be used to help with decision support about where the Thutsong centres would be allocated and how the Department could be more effective in terms of providing services to citizens. Prof Levin added that the DPSA was looking into the possibility of integrated mobile units, which would offer more than one service.

Mr Matsomela observed that the main cost driver was the SPS. He wondered if there was a need for intervention to avoid a negative impact on some of the other programmes.

Prof Levin answered that it was quite a challenge, but the SPS allowed the DPSA to have a more integrated team and this helped to mitigate the impact on other programmes.

The meeting was adjourned.


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.

Share this page: