Public Service Amendment Bill: briefing by Department of Public Service and Administration
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE
5 June 2007
PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL: BRIEFING BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND
ADMINISTRATION
Chairperson: Mr S
Shiceka (ANC, Gauteng)
Relevant Documents:
Public Service
Amendment Bill [B31-2006]
Department of Public
Service and Administration presentation
Audio Recording
of the Meeting
SUMMARY
The Department of Public Service and Administration tabled the Public
Service Amendment Bill, and indicated that a number of changes had already been
proposed to the Bill by the Portfolio Committee, and that there had been
extensive consultation which led to the current version being presented. The
Bill aimed at strengthening the organisational and human resources aspects
within the public service. It further regulated power conferred upon the
Minister of Public Service and Administration, such as delegated powers. It
dealt with the powers of the President to create and disestablish government
agencies, and aimed at enhancing compliance with the Public Service Act.
During the discussion, Members sought clarity on issues such as the manner in
which the Bill dealt with political rights of public servants, the creation of
government agencies and the impact of the Bill on government’s plan for the
envisaged single public service. It was noted that there would be a further
meeting to consider the final draft of the Bill after the Portfolio Committee
on Public Service and Administration had adopted the proposals.
MINUTES
Public Service Amendment Bill: Briefing by Department of Public Service and
Administration (DPSA)
Ms Empie van Schoor, Chief Director: Legal Services, DPSA, informed the
Committee that the proposals contained in the Public Service Amendment Bill
came out of a consultation process with relevant stakeholders, such as the
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), other labour unions and the
Public Service Commission (PSC).
She outlined the objective of the Bill, which included the strengthening of the
organisational and human resource dimension in the public service. Certain
definitions had been included, such as of the ‘executive authority’ and
employment practice’. The Bill also included provisions relating to the powers
of the Minister of Public Service and Administration (the Minister), and
strengthened the existing collective bargaining procedures. It also sought to
regulate government agencies by, for example, providing for the creation,
establishment and disestablishment of government agencies by the President.
Certain provisions were aimed at enhancing compliance with the Public Service
Act, the implementation of disciplinary sanctions, and alignment of the grounds
for dismissal with those contained in the Labour Relations Act. The Bill also
proposed the excising of political rights of public servants from the Public
Service Act, as those were already dealt with sufficiently in the Constitution.
The regulation-making powers of the Minister would be simplified, and the
delegation of powers by senior department officials would be further regulated.
Discussion
Mr L Fielding (DA, Northern Cape) thanked the department for the
presentation. He wanted to know what was meant by ‘outside institutions’. He
further enquired about the meaning of ‘executive authority’, and whether it
stood for employed or elected individuals. Mr Fielding asked how an employee
could be dismissed on the grounds of ill health.
Ms van Schoor responded that the termination of service on the grounds of ill
health was recognized by the Labour Relations Act, and so were provisions for
temporary ill health (with reinstatement on recovery). Sufficient and fair
pension amounts were given to those dismissed on these unfortunate grounds.
She said that ‘executive authority’ meant elected officials.
Mr A Manyosi (ANC, Eastern Cape) had a question on political rights of public
service employees. He wanted to know if the department faced a challenge with
individuals who played both roles, elected and employed.
On the issue of employees who held political offices, Ms van Schoor said that
the Bill would allow employees to be candidates in elections, only if they were
to hold part-time positions (i.e. that of Councilor) and not perform such
duties on the State’s official time.
Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) wanted to know what methods or guidelines were
used to determine whether outside work was interfering with employees’ work.
Ms Colette Clarke, Deputy-Director General: DPSA, said that in the education
sector and elsewhere, the primary contract was with the employer and the
secondary with other work. Some public servants erre registered with
professional councils and erre expected to consult privately from time to time.
The Amendment Bill proposed a policy framework around this, and pushed for
ethical conduct.
Ms van Schoor added that the idea behind forming agencies was to prevent more
outside entities coming up.
Mr J Le Roux (DA, Eastern Cape) commented that although he understood the
advantages of a single public service system, he feared that it might have
unintended consequences.
Prof Richard Levin (Director-General: DPSA) said he also feared that the
unintended consequence could be further fragmentation of the State. This had
been a trend globally since the early 1990s.
Kgoshi L Mokoena referred to the Minister’s powers, specifically the making of
decisions only ‘after consultation’. He asked whether the Department foresaw
any negative aspects in such a provision. He also wondered if, by proposing the
formation of government agencies, the department was not admitting failure.
Kgoshi Mokoena felt it was unacceptable that the agencies would directly report
to the Minister, and ignore the Director-General. Kgoshi Mokoena also felt that
the proposal of attaching disciplinary actions on transferring employees would
jeopardise people’s careers and was not progressive.
Prof Levin responded that the proposal for the formation of government agencies
had been discussed with all stakeholders, including Unions, COSATU and the
Public Service Commission. There were lessons that had been learned. If the
Department had to this all over again, things would be done slightly
differently, especially the consultation process. He said that the department
believed that there were strategic issues to be discussed, such as the
fragmentation of the State, a proliferation of alternative entities post-1994,
and some departments, like the
Department of Trade and Inudstry (dti) had a number of entities in the economic
sector.
The Chairperson asked the department whey they chose to table the Amendment
Bill now, whilst also trying to put the legislation in place for a single
Public Service, as he felt it wasted time and resources.
He further enquired if the department faced a lot of legal challenges from
disgruntled staff on appointment processes.
Ms van Schoor said that in terms of appointments and promotions, internal
candidates (within public service) had an advantage insofar as allegations of
unfair labour practices were concerned, because they could take the route of
bargaining councils, which was a cheap process. External candidates did not
have these rights. The Department was hoping the Bill would regularize the
position.
Ms van Schoor added that there would be a meeting to consider the final draft
of the Bill after the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration
had adopted the proposals. The State Law Advisors would deal with any more
concerns.
The Committee agreed that since this was the first time it had seen the
amendments, a further meeting should be held for more input, even if the
Portfolio Committee had gone through the process.
The meeting was adjourned.