Several years ago, the provincial government set in motion a process to develop a provincial Human Resource Development plan. Over quite a long period, a task team (or was it a steering committee or a working group?) met to construct this important document. Once the draft was completed, submissions were invited and made. The PCB, certainly, made one after quite considerable thought. Inexplicably, the process petered out and the plan has not been heard of since. I asked the former Director-General once what had happened to it. He said: “Oh, I remember something about that. I don’t know. I’ll look into it.” He asked me to send him an email to remind him to do so. This I did, but he did not uncover the plan and bring it back into the public eye. One suspects that the public servant responsible for it moved on; either into a more lucrative private sector position or a loftier one somewhere else in government. This, by the way, is among government’s most pressing challenges – the rapid mobility of its staff, often outwards at a rate in direct proportion to the person’s competence.
Among the Chamber’s recommendations was the establishment of a public sector training institution. I’m pleased to say that this has been done. The former ‘Dokkies’ in Durban is now exactly such a facility. When the Premier announced its establishment we enjoyed a moment of self-congratulation, but this soon passed with the recognition that it was not so unique an idea that it might have escaped someone else’s thinking. We have become quite accustomed anyway to the reality that government is disinclined to acknowledge the merit of a suggestion emanating from the private sector.
The reason for our suggestion was that contemporary business practices are not easily transferable into the public sector arena. It seemed to have become standard practice for the public sector to seek to emulate private sector techniques and methodologies. This implies a far greater similarity between the private and publics sectors than is actually the case. Yes, management techniques, and quite a lot of others, I daresay, are interchangeable between the two, but the essential rationale which drives the motivation of the staff and the way in which services are delivered is not common to both.
Consider, for example, that in the private sector there is considerable scope for flexibility. This applies particularly to smaller companies which have not grown to a size where they become bureaucratic, almost in the mould of a government department. Innovative ideas can be implemented quickly. Decision-makers can be gathered at short notice and strategies can be altered in one session. In dancing parlance, any step is possible – from quickstep to cha-cha-cha. Government, however, is stuck with a slow dance to a ponderous and constant rhythm. Decision-making is usually remote from the action and, above all, implementation requires foresight and planning that must be undertaken considerably well in advance. Even if this is accomplished, the various statutory demands present an obstacle course which, maze-like, may obscure the way through.
Two specific cases come to mind. The Demarcation Board addressed the metropolitan issue at a time when only one decision was realistically possible. This is the decision that it made. If it makes any change, following the statutory thirty-day period for public comment, the IEC’s deadline for the next elections will be missed and the change will not be accommodated. The question is: why was this matter not addressed in good time? After all, it has been pending since 2000.
NERSA has granted increases to Eskom. These include higher rates for municipalities that purchase Eskom energy and sell it on to their own customers. By the time the changes were announced any municipality worth its salt had already finalized its budget for the new financial year. This, honoured often in the breach rather than the observance, requires municipalities to consult and once this process has been done, tariffs, which require public announcement, may not be changed. Who would be a municipal leader? The Municipality will have to pay Eskom significantly more for the electricity it receives but lacks the legal capacity to pass this increase on to its own customers. This dilemma has prompted discussion within the SA Local Government Association (SALGA) which has recognized that the convolution of statutes and strategies have led to a blind alley.
Lest Msunduzi consumers think that this might save them from tariff increases, I give the assurance that a pragmatic way will be found to either circumvent, or trample over, the statutory problem. It will not be the first time – nor the last, I’m sure.
Andrew Layman: PCB CEO
This article appeared in The Witness on the 27 June 2008
