Batho Pele Principles of Access and Redress & Budget 2007/08: Department briefing
Public Service and Administration
02 March 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
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.
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.