PSETA briefing on its integration with Department of Higher Education and Training & relations with Department of Public Service and Administration; Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report

Public Service and Administration

16 October 2013
Chairperson: Ms J Moloi-Moropa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Public Service Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA) gave a presentation on its integration with the Department of Higher Education (DHET) and their current relations with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA).

PSETA informed the Committee of their challenges. The Authority did not have a viable funding model which prevented it from delivering on pre-determined objectives. The Annual Performance Plan (APP) had to be amended and they relied on the National Skills Fund (NSF) to fund core business projects for the unemployed, rural youth and artisanships. There was a limited impact on Public Service and Education given the limited resources. The limited funding had an impact on staff morale because they could not match remuneration packages of other Skills Education and Training Authorities (SETAs). The staff establishment had been based on the proposed funding model but those posts had been frozen due to the lack of funding. The Premier of the Western Cape had questioned the authority of the Directive, and the National Treasury had issued a letter instructing government departments to withhold funds from PSETA. PSETA called on the Committee to intervene by facilitating an urgent meeting between the Ministry of Public Service and Administration (MPSA), Ministry of Higher Education and Training (MHET) and Ministry of Finance (MoF) to discuss the status of the Directive, clarity on PSETA’s role in professionalising the public service in relation to the National School of Government, and a funding model in order to carry out their legislative mandate.

Members raised concerns about the viability of PSETA given that its role seemed similar to that of the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA). They said that they wanted to avoid duplication because it was a dent to the budget and that PSETA needed to claim its space and be certain about its role. The Committee would intervene in terms of facilitating the necessary meetings but that it should not be avoided that PSETA was in a crisis. They also raised concerns about the pending case between PSETA and the Premier of the Western Cape as well as the National Treasury, which needed to be resolved as soon as possible.

The Members concluded by saying that PSETA could not answer all the questions posed given that the executive authorities, namely the Minister of Higher Education as well as the Minister of the Public Service, had to be present. Members added that this meeting had to be facilitated immediately but that they were pleased to announce that they were on track with their work and had had a fruitful year.

Members adopted the Department of Public Service and Administration Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report with amendments.
 

Meeting report

Apologies
The Chairperson noted apologies from Mr E Nyekemba (ANC), Professor C Msimang (IFP), the Minister and the Deputy Minister.
Briefing by Public Service Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA)
Ms Koko Mashigo, Chairperson, The Public Service Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA), said that the purpose of the presentation was for PSETA to update the Portfolio Committee on developments since the organisation’s re-certification. PSETA had been an ‘unfunded’ entity since its establishment, given that government departments did not contribute the 1% skills levies in terms of the Skills Development Levies Act, like all other employers. PSETA was established in terms of the Skills Development Act, reporting to the Minister of Higher Education and Training as the executive authority.  PSETA also functioned as a sub-programme within Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and assumed operational independence from the Department as of 1st April 2011. During 2010, the Minister of Higher Education and the Minister of Public Service and Administration established an Inter-Ministerial Task Team to recommend a viable funding model for PSETA.
In November 2012, Cabinet had taken a decision on the utilisation of training budgets in Public Service. Its prime intention was to regulate the manner in which monies on the Education, Training and Development (ETD) were spent. The directive provided PSETA with a budget of more a less R100 million. The directive provided them with challenges given the fact that in June 2013 the Premier of the Western Cape challenged the legality of the Directive. The National Treasury also issued letters to government indicating that government departments withhold payments to PSETA due to the uncertainty of the Directive and capacity of PSETA. This caused reputational damage to PSETA, given that their ability to manage funds was questioned. The lack of levy contributions to PSETA impacted their 2013/14 Annual Performance Plan. In August 2013 PSETA was invited by the Advisory Task Team on the National School of Government (NSG) on a possible collaboration between PSETA and the NSG. The most unsettling thing about PSETA was that it was back to where it was in 2001 – without any viable funding – and therefore could not deliver on predetermined objectives.
Ms Mashigo requested that the Committee intervene by facilitating an urgent meeting between the Ministry of Public Service and Administration (MPSA), Ministry of Higher Education and Training (MHET) and Ministry of Finance (MoF) to discuss the status of the Directive, clarity on PSETA’s role in professionalizing the public service in relation to the National School of Government, and a funding model that would enable their legislative mandate to be carried out.
 
Discussion
The Chairperson said that PSETA had presented their current status quo and opened the floor for Members to ask questions.

Mr A Williams (ANC) enquired about how far the legal challenge with the Premier of Western Cape had progressed. It seemed as though a way forward was dependent on the outcome of that situation. He also enquired about the issue of PSETA getting R23 million from the grants and the skills fund whereas it should have received 33% of its money from departments. How could this be resolved?

Mr S Marais (DA) asked whether the integration of PSETA had been cleared with the Minister of Higher Education and Training and the Minister of Public Service and Administration, because the role of the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) and PSETA needed to be cleared. There should be no duplications and unnecessary competition with these entities which were providing a similar service. Their respective roles needed to be clearly defined because duplications in terms of cost and oversight were unnecessary. They needed to clear exactly where they stood with respective ministers. The Minister of Finance would not clear something that was a duplicate because that would just be causing the state an unnecessary expense.

Mr D Du Toit (DA) echoed the concerns raised by Mr Williams. It seemed as though the results from the case of the Premier were hanging in the air. He asked for clarity on how PSETA’s presentation related to the National School of Government (NSG). Would the migration of PSETA to NSG not translate into PSETA conducting training as opposed to its original mandate of overseeing the quality of training? Would this create conflict as well as duplication in terms of PSETA’s role? He asked how PSETA fitted in and what exactly its focus and target market was. Its role, product and customer needed to be clear.

Mr L Ramatlakane (Cope) asked about the Skills Levies Act. The Act was clear where money should be allocated, by which state officials, and at different levels and spheres of government. All of this was governed by the Act and what it prescribed. He was trying to grapple with PSETA’s reluctance to comply and wanted to know what their main reasons for this was. The Letter of Directives had a dispute with the provincial government of the Western Cape. Was executing authority intervention needed in this situation? His second concern was that there seemed to be disagreement on how integration was to roll out and be implemented. Unless there was agreement there was going to be this constant problem. The Committee could not resolve the matter if its executors were in disagreement. He also alerted the Committee that PSETA had presented a budgetary problem and that the Appropriation Committee needed to be alerted in terms of intervening. There were legal problems with the Skills Act and it seemed that the Directive was intervening where there was a vacuum in terms of legislation. Spheres of government taking each other to court was messy and not an ideal situation. When there was a dispute with regards to legislation, the national act always prevailed in order for all government entities to move forward in one direction.

The Chairperson said that Mr Ramatlakane had raised very critical issues but she urged the Members not to expect PSETA to respond to all the issues that had arisen, given that they would not necessarily have answers to them. The respective Ministers needed to be present in order to provide clarity on those issues because they were executive issues. It was important for the Committee to see what higher education had captured in terms of PSETA and that the Appropriations Committee would be alerted accordingly. Where PSETA could provide clarity they could answer but it was pressing for the Ministers to be present.

Ms Mashigo appreciated the manner in which the Committee would proceed with the challenges they had brought forward. The intervention they sought from the Committee was critical as they had attempted to have a joint meeting with the respective Ministers. The two ministers were talking to each other and had scheduled a meeting with the Minister of Higher Education. PSETA had scheduled a meeting with the Minister of Public Service and Administration to discuss the case brought by the Premier of the Western Cape and the directive from the Treasury. The directive was having a negative impact on the entity’s ability to perform its duties adequately.
Ms Shaura Huluwan, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), PSETA, said that the legal challenge with the Western Cape government came at the time that government departments had complaints about the cabinet decision being late.
DPSA and PSETA had distinct roles. PSETA was an authority in terms of the Skills Development Act and it provided research on skills needed; PALAMA was the skills provider. PSETA delegated specific functions to accredit skills provided from PALAMA; it also had an oversight role on PALAMA and the NSG to make sure that they were maintaining standards. In essence it had an independent quality assurance function. It also had a role to develop sector skills plan and that that WSP’s were being left to SETA’s by government departments. Sector training authorities played an oversight role and responded to sector plans in identifying what the needs were. There was confusion that SETAs were in fact training providers, but in fact they brought together employers to drive skill development.

The Chairperson said that there was a clear understanding in terms of what roles PSETA had and especially with regards to the NSG, which was not another school but it had a particular role of quality assurance. PSETA should have a clear understanding of a particular role. The Committee aimed to transform the NSG to include PALAMA rather than allowing organisations to collapse. Transformation was the solution that the Committee would want to support. The main issue was the budget and the need for a clear proposal. The area of satisfaction was that PSETA was brought on board. The pending legal issues needed the executive authorities to intervene and a meeting would be made with them as soon as possible.

Mr Ramatlakala agreed with the Chairperson but added that the presentation by PSETA was slightly unsettling as it brought about many serious issues. In his view things were falling apart and it would be very unacceptable to allow agents under their watch to fall apart whilst they were watching. It was no secret that there had been issues with SETAs and as an oversight body they should express unhappiness about some of these things because coded language had implications.

The Chairperson said that the agreement for the current matter was for the executive authorities to come and that she would discuss the programme with the ministers and get back to the Committee. The issue would not go away as it was urgent and a priority.

Ms Mashigo appreciated the manner in which the Chairperson had responded to their presentation and was grateful for the route the Committee was going to take. She alerted the Committee that they were scheduled to present their strategic plan the following week but they would wait until they knew what funding they were allocated and would be guided by that for their plan.

The Chairperson said they needed to first deal with the issue of funding before they had a strategic plan and adjourned it for the next week until she had spoken with the ministers.

Department of Public Service and Administration Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR): Formulation of Recommendations
The Chairperson tabled the document for consideration.

Mr Du Toit alerted the Committee that there was a tying error on page 21. Page 22 fitted in with what they had discussed. There should not be uncertainty on who was included on (ii) page 24 (vii), it should also say ‘as the process proceeds’, because the time frame would mean that they would not be able to fill it immediately. The word imminent should be used because they could not just have them fill the posts too long before they kicked in. In paragraph 26 they needed to take out ‘a lot of’ and replace it with ‘greater progress’. He would be happy to clear up paragraph 7 on page 27 and proposed the adoption of the report. It was an excellent piece of work that was explanatory and that people outside the Committee would be able to understand clearly. He congratulated the staff on the concise language that was used.

The Chairperson also thanked the staff for producing a good report and proposed a change to ‘reservation’ to ‘Committees findings’.

Mr Williams seconded the proposal to adopt the minutes with the proposed amendments.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) seconded the adoption of the report with its amendments.

The Chairperson appreciated the robustness of Members when interrogating NTT’s and that they also wanted to interact with the Select Committee on Appropriations regarding the PSETA matter. She said that they had done their work thoroughly and that they were cleared. She echoed Mr Du Toit in that the report was easy to understand and read. She thanked the Members and told them they would have a meeting to prepare for next week when they were going to meeting the executive authorities regarding PSETA.

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: