House Chair, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and colleagues, it is generally accepted that our Constitution guarantees the right for all citizens to make their livelihoods, so long as they do so legally. That constitutional imperative is not what is under consideration in this case. Essentially, what we are discussing today is the phenomenon of serving two masters simultaneously. Rightly or wrongly, the current framework allows our senior public servants to perform remunerative work outside official duties, with the proviso that they obtain approval and disclose their interests. This is informed by the non-negotiable principle that senior public officials should maintain the highest standards of professional ethics and that disclosure measures are aimed at preventing incidents of conflict before they occur. They also protect both senior officials and, more importantly, strengthen citizens' trust in public institutions.
Paragraph 4.5.5 of the Explanatory Manual on the Code of Conduct for the Public Service, states that:
Employees are expected to place their undivided attention, time and skills at the disposal of the Public Service as employer. The nature and demands of the job in the Public Service are such that the interests of both the Public Service and the community may be prejudiced by a public servant undertaking remunerative work outside official duties. It is therefore mandatory to obtain prior approval to perform remunerative work outside official hours.
There is no ambiguity in the statement. So, let us consider how it matches up to reality as reflected in the Auditor-General's performance audit. According to the report, 2 319 government officials had an interest in companies or CCs, close corporations, that did business with national and provincial government departments. Of those, only 75, that is 3%, had approval to perform paid work outside their official employment at the departments, whilst some departments were still determining their approval status when the report was finalised. The business contract with government by these employee-related entities for the 2005 until the 2007 financial years amounted to R615 million.
This is not only a case of an official in the Western Cape having interests in a company doing business with the Limpopo government. A total of 30 employees are identified as directors or members of companies or CCs doing business with the very same department where they are employed. It goes without saying that none of them had any approval for the work, which netted them R32 million for the period under review.
A department such as Correctional Services had four employees who transacted with the department, a contravention of the Correctional Services Act, to the tune of R1 037 000. This is not to single them out, but it is equally factual that the department has had qualified audits every year since 2001. Another person employed on a part-time basis at the then Department of Housing had interests in companies that did business with other national departments amounting to R17 million.
The Auditor-General identified a number of factors that militated against employees seeking approval. These are: One, the majority of national departments do have a system of control in place to manage the performance of other remunerative work by employees; two, the national departments do not have a database or register in place to monitor other paid work; three, designated employees were under the impression that the financial declaration forms submitted to national departments and the Public Service Commission were sufficient; and, four, the national departments rely on the integrity of employees to seek approval to perform outside paid work or declare their interests in companies or CCs. So this is rather a grim picture.
The committee recommends that national departments investigate instances of employees performing remunerative work without approval and that the relevant accounting officers take immediate and appropriate disciplinary action and report the outcomes of the investigations to Scopa.
All provincial heads of department should take immediate remedial action to henceforth ensure compliance with legislation by all staff, and that matters related to the difficulties in the implementation of legislation be addressed with the Department of Public Service and Administration.
The provincial public accounts committee should consider holding public hearings with respective provincial departments to monitor the actions taken against implicated employees by the respective provincial departments. The national and provincial departments should implement and actively monitor the systems of control to manage the performance of other remunerative work by employees.
The legal interpretation regarding what constitutes remunerative work must be speedily concluded by the relevant bodies, namely the Public Service Commission and the Department of Public Service and Administration, and be communicated widely in the Public Service.
Again, it is instructive to note that the report from the Auditor-General has hardly spurned the PSC to re-examine the framework governing outside paid work and financial disclosures. The committee was assured that baseline documents incorporating some of the Auditor-General's recommendations would be published in the near future as they are currently in the work plan of the DPSA.
In conclusion, we, in the ANC, have realised the gravity of the situation. In this regard, I must refer to the statement after the first national executive committee meeting on 18 and 19 September 2009, which referred to declaration ... I thank you, Madam. [Time expired.] [Applause.]