Department's failure to attend meeting deliberations & adoption of Committee Minutes

Meeting report

Committee Business
The Chairperson noted that there had been some confusion over the starting time for the meeting. The Chairperson of the Chairpersons’ Committee had said that all Committee meetings should start at 09h00. However, she felt that if there was not much business on the agenda then they could start later.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) said that transport was a problem, particularly for those Members living in Acacia Park who were sometimes delayed in the traffic for several hours. It was even worse in the event of an accident.

Ms M Borman (ANC) noted that some Committees regularly started at 09h30 or even at 10h00.

The Chairperson said that they were waiting for a delegation from the Department of Human Settlement (DHS) to brief the Committee on the regulations for the Housing Development Agency (HDA) and Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA). In the meantime the Committee could continue with other issues. Some apologies were tendered and she then asked the Members to consider two sets of minutes for adoption.

Consideration and Adoption of Minutes dated 08 July 2009
The Chairperson asked Members to review the first set of minutes from the meeting with Tubelisha on 8 July 2009.

Mr A Steyn (DA) noted that the minutes included a statement, indicating that the housing development was complete. According to his recollection, the Committee had been informed that the contractors were still busy.

The Chairperson said that the rectification programme was complete. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) was adamant that this should be the case.

Ms Borman thought that Mr Steyn was correct. The Committee had agreed to make site visits.

The Chairperson proposed that the minutes be adopted with amendments.

Mr Steyn said that resolutions in the minutes should be isolated. One could forget them if they were buried in the text. He felt that draft copies should be circulated to Members before the meeting.

Ms Borman agreed that it was difficult to remember what had taken place in the meeting. The minutes should be prepared sooner.

Members agreed to all the changes proposed and adopted the minutes.

Consideration and Adoption of Minutes dated 10 July 2009
The Chairperson asked Members to review the second set of minutes from the meeting with Servcon on 10 July 2009.

Mr Steyn pointed out a grammatical error on page 2.

Ms Borman said that on page 4, paragraph 2.2, there was a reference to a Committee Management Committee. This did not sound correct.

The Chairperson replied that there was in fact a Management Committee in place for the Committee.

Mr A Figlan (DA) recalled that the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Servcon had made an undertaking to report back to the Committee on the subject of Mandela Park.

The Chairperson said that the reference was to a capacity building programme.  A delegation had been expected by 17 August 2009.  It was a funding issue.

Mr Steyn noted that there were recommendations tabled in the minutes, but he was not sure if they were what the Members had asked for.

Members agreed to all the changes proposed and adopted the minutes.

Deliberations on the Department of Human Settlement’s failure to attend meeting
Mr Lerumo Kaleke (Human Settlement Ministry) said that there was no representative from the Department present despite assurances that had been made.

Mr Steyn said that Mr Kaleke should call the Department to find out where the representative was.  In the meantime, he asked if there was any feedback on the proposed visit to the Eastern Cape.

The Chairperson said that proposed dates for the visit were 6 to 9 October 2009.

Ms Borman suggested that the meeting should be adjourned in the absence of Department’s representatives. He was adamant that action needed to be taken and proposed that a strongly worded letter should be sent to the Department.

Mr Kaleke returned to the meeting. He reported that the Department official who would have addressed the meeting had been denied permission to travel.

The Chairperson read out the invitation that had been sent to the Department on 25 August 2009. She also informed Members about the sequence of events. At approximately 16h00 on the previous day she had received a message from the Committee Secretary, who reported that the Department had sent a letter stating that they could not address the Committee. The Department had been tasked to develop regulations in terms of proclamations issued on 5 November and 31 October 2008. These regulations were still being developed. The Minister first had to consult Parliament. The Department could only complete the regulations after this process had taken place. Once Parliament had been consulted then they would take advice from the State Law Advisor.

Mr Dikgacwi felt that the Department was undermining the Committee. It was unacceptable to send that sort of letter at such short notice. The Director-General and his team must be summoned before the Committee to explain their actions. When a government department was called to appear before a Committee they should put all their other work aside and comply with the request. People were protesting for houses and Members were being put into a situation where they could not provide their constituents with answers. A letter of reprimand would not be sufficient in this case.

Mr Steyn endorsed Mr Dikgacwi’s sentiments. It was an unacceptable state of affairs. He suspected that the Department had done some work but did not want to table it.  The Minster should be informed about what was happening.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) wondered whether there was some profound reason for the Department’s non-arrival. When a Department was summoned to appear before the Committee written notice should be given. This information must also be forwarded to the Minister so that he would know when and where meetings were taking place.

The Chairperson noted that the Department had received written notification well in advance. If they knew that they would not be ready to present at the meeting that day then they should have informed the Committee. The Committee had a long list of matters to deal with and the Department could have used the time to assist it with one of those other matters. The Department had accepted that they would appear before the regulations were promulgated. The Director-General was a political appointee. He had made an undertaking that an official would brief the Committee. Finally, she stated that she would take the matter further with the Minister in writing.

The meeting was adjourned.