Public Administration Management Amendment Bill: public hearings

Meeting report

The Chairperson greeted Members and declared the meeting open.

The Committee noted the apologies of Mr C Sibisi (NFP), Inkosi R Cebekhulu (IFP) and Dr J Nothnagel (ANC).

Seven organisations and individuals made their submissions on the Public Administration Management Amendment Bill [B10-2023] on the day. Those included the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC), the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI), the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), the City of Tshwane, the Western Cape government, and Ms Nomfundo Tofu.

Mr A Bhola did not make an oral submission, as originally scheduled.

Submission by SA Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC)

Ms Busi Hlumbane, Chairperson, South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC), said that the organisation consisted of SALGA, the employer party, and the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) / Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union

(IMATU), the trade union parties, on the other.

The Council's submission expressed deep concern with the provisions of the bill. It opposed ss17(a) and (b), and said the bill would damage the bargaining council relationship which had been cultivated over the years. It was concerned that the bill would result in a breakdown of labour relations in the sector and an increase in industrial action.

The Council’s view had not been taken seriously by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). The bill undermined the interests of organised labour, and the SALGBC lamented the lack of consultation process.

Mr Irvin Lawrence, from the ENSafrica law firm, took the Committee through the presentation on behalf of the SALGBC.

He said the Public Administration Management Act (PAMA) had been established in 2014. The bill contained provisions where s16 norms and standards could be set. Hence, there was no need to introduce new legislation.

Regarding 17(b), as collective bargaining was a right that was established in the Constitution, local government was considered an autonomous sphere of government legislatively and executively. The mandating process of SALGA was prescribed in various legislations. This section would remove the collective bargaining power of SALGA, and consign local government to the decision-making of ministers. It would empower the committee of ministers to reject the collective agreement among local government.

(For full details, refer to the attached document).

Discussion

Ms M Ntuli (ANC) thanked the Council for taking the time to make the presentation to the Committee.

No Member asked any clarity-seeking questions.

Submission by COSATU

COSATU was concerned with ss17(b) and 17(c). It viewed it as a constitutional overreach into the affairs of local government. If the bill did not address that issue as suggested, COSATU feared it would plunge the local government sphere and entities such as Eskom and Transnet into crisis.

It expressed its concern about the consent for the transfer of employees.

It was of the view that no individual who received a salary from the state should be doing business with the state.

(For full details, refer to the attached document).

Discussion

Ms Ntuli emphasised the importance of ensuring the constitutionality of the bill, and commended the work which the people on the ground at COSATU had done.

The Chairperson noted COSATU’s input that the SALGBC undermined its authority. She said the Department would respond to COSATU’s submission in due course.

Submission by Public Affairs Research Institute

The joint submission made by PARI, the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), The Ethics Institute (TEI) and Corruption Watch, welcomed the Public Administration and Management Amendment Bill (2023) as a step in ensuring the vision of a public administration that was professional, effective, impartial, and developmentally directed (Section 195 of the South African Constitution). They welcomed the amendment clarifying the definition of s8 on public servants doing business with the state.

(For full details, refer to the attached document).

Discussion

Ms Ntuli commented that PARI had presented a crucial submission which touched on various aspects of the bill, and for that she thanked the presenter.

No Member made any additional input.

Submission by the Auditor-General of South Africa

Ms Sybil Lyons-Grootboom, AGSA, supported the Public Administration Management Amendment Bill because the sole mandate of the organisation was to ensure that public funds were being spent in a transparent and accountable manner. AGSA believed that this bill may help shift the direction of the public sector culture, and improve its ethical, financial and performance management.

AGSA supported the provision of the bill that transferred capable employees between the three spheres of government and between municipalities.

It supported clause five on the prohibition of public servants doing business with the state, and specifically recommended including the employees of public entities as well.

AGSA supported clause six because it could curb corruption. It was its submission that contracts exceeding the amount of R100 million should be reviewed and have a longer period than the 12 months suggested in the bill. In the absence of that, senior managers might award contracts to their preferred companies in the private sector, and then end up joining that company.

AGSA supported compulsory education and training and the establishment of the National School of government, because it was crucial to have a stable supply of qualified employees.

In summary, the AGSA supported the amendments.

Discussion

The Chairperson and Ms Ntuli welcomed AGSA’s support, and thanked it for its submission.

No other input was made by Members.

Submission by Tshwane Municipality

Mr Richard Wilkinson, legal advisor to the Executive Mayor, City of Tshwane, made the submission on behalf of the municipality. The City of Tshwane was resolutely opposed to the notion of a single public administration, and believed that the introduction of this notion would undermine the autonomy of the local government sphere. The bill was therefore unconstitutional, and it recommended the Committee should withdraw the bill in its entirety.

He highlighted that at least two grounds supported the assertion that the creation of a “single public administration” was unconstitutional. Firstly, it interfered with the autonomy of the local government sphere, as provided in ss156(1) and (2) and s153 of the Constitution. Secondly, it was important to recognise the distinction that existed between the public administration and the public service, as explained by 197(1) and (4) of the Constitution.

(For full details, refer to the attached document).

Discussion

Ms Ntuli thanked Tshwane Municipality for showing an interest in the work of the Portfolio Committee. Indeed, all citizens were encouraged to participate in commenting on any bills before Parliament, as it was part of the democratic process. She highlighted that those two bills before the Committee were for the future interest of South Africa.

Dr L Schreiber (DA) noted the common theme across stakeholders regarding the encroachment of the bill on the local government sphere. He asked Committee Members to bear this in mind during their deliberation stage.

The Chairperson noted the Tshwane Municipality’s objection to the bill.

Submission by Ms Nomfundo Tofu

Ms Tofu’s submission focused on the individual transfers of employees, and the conduct of employees, or former employees participating in the award of work to service providers. She currently works for the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI).

She recommended that there needed to be an integrated system in place to ensure that the individual transfer of employees did not disrupt the affected employee’s continuity of service.

Regarding former employees participating in the award of work to service providers, she believed that the proposed 12-month period was too restrictive.

(For full details, refer to the attached document).

Discussion

Since no Member made any comment, the Chairperson indicated that the Committee had noted Ms Tofu’s concerns and inputs. It would deliberate on her inputs, and the Department would also respond to some of those concerns.

Submission by Western Cape Government

Dr Ivan Meyer, Western Cape Minister of Agriculture, indicated that the province supported greater devolution of powers instead of centralisation of power. He emphasised the importance of protecting the autonomy of local government.

(The detailed clause-by-clause comments can be found in the attached document).

Discussion

Ms Ntuli thanked Dr Meyer for the submission of the Western Cape Government. Even though no question would be asked today, such submissions provided content for Committee Members to debate on.

The Chairperson noted all the inputs and concerns Dr Meyer had raised on this bill, and assured him that the Committee would further deliberate on its submission.

Response

Mr Meyer thanked the Committee for allowing the Western Cape government to make this submission. He asked it to provide a timeframe for when the inputs from the national Department would be communicated to the Western Cape government, so that he could report back.

The Chairperson said that as the public hearing was an ongoing process, and the Committee still had to listen to other submissions tomorrow, she could not give a definitive timeframe. She guaranteed that feedback would be given to all stakeholders at the end of the process.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.