Department of Public Works Budget and Strategic Plan

Meeting report

Department of Public Works (DPW): Strategic Plan and budget
The Chairperson asked, at the outset, why most Departmental officials were still performing their duties on an “acting” basis.

Mr Sam Vukela, Acting Director General, Department of Public Works, informed the Committee that it was unusual for most staff to have continued in acting positions, as the Department of Public Works (DPW or the Department) had carried out all the requirements needed to fill the positions and had made submissions to the Cabinet in December 2009. He noted that a response from Cabinet was still awaited.

Mr Vukela then informed the Committee that the strategic plan that had been circulated was not yet finalised and still needed some ‘cleaning’. He suggested that this draft nonetheless be presented while the Department continued to work on the final version.

Discussion
The Chairperson reminded Mr Vukela that there were stipulated deadlines that needed to be followed. He asked if there was a capacity problem within DPW. He asked whether Mr Vukela was expecting the Committee to look at the draft, or whether he was suggesting that the presentation stand over until another day.

Mr Vukela replied that the Department would prefer a situation where the Department was permitted to finalise the version and then make the presentation. Some of the information was missing from some ‘sections of the document.

Committee members agreed that a final version could be presented later on. Several, however, complained about not having been informed of this earlier, as they had spent a considerable amount of time studying the document.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) said that there was incompetence in the Department. Its inability to meet the requirements of the Portfolio Committee begged the question of whether it could then serve the larger community.

Mr Vukela replied that the Department had taken note of the concerns raised. He gave a commitment that the document would be finalised the following day.

The Chairperson said that the Department should have communicated with the Committee prior to the meeting about the incomplete document. He asked how much time the Department would need to complete its work.

Mr Vukela apologised for the non-communication and committed himself to finish all the work within one week.

The Chairperson directed that the meeting should then focus on DPW budget.

Department of Public Works Budget Briefing
Ms Lydia Bici, Deputy Director General: Policy, Department of Public Works, presented the budget, in the form of a breakdown per programme, in terms of the Medium term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), and set out the economic classifications. The different programmes in the DPW were highlighted (see attached document). The Department had been allocated R6.4 billion for the year 2010/11, R7.9 billion for 2011/12 and R8.2 billion for 2012/13.

Ms Bici said that about R1.1 billion had been budgeted for year 1,  which was an increase from the current budget of R1.02 billion, to the tune of about R100 million. The total covering the MTEF period was R3.5 billion. Under Goods and Services the budget was R921 million, but 40% of the amount would go towards property management to pay for the accommodation that DPW was occupying. This amount would increase over the MTEF period.

Ms Bici then said that, in respect of Transfers and Subsidies, R3 billion was budgeted, of which R1 billion would go towards property rates and the remaining amount of R2 billion would be put towards the Expanded Public Works Programme. The infrastructure budget was included under the payments for capital assets, and the breakdown of the capital budget, in relation to projects that were going to run in the Department, would be shown in the strategic plan.

Discussion
Mr Kekana asked what the main priorities were in the strategic plan.

The Chairperson replied that this issue would be discussed the following week, when the DPW presented its complete strategic plan.
The Chairperson asked what the pitfalls were in the budget.

Ms Bici replied that the capital budget was not adequate to cover the rehabilitation of all of DPW buildings so as to enable these buildings then to generate the required level of revenue.

Mr Kekana asked if the budget adequately covered the programme of asset register management.

Ms Sasa Subban, Acting Deputy Director General: Asset Investment Management, DPW, replied that the structure for the asset register management programme would be increased.  A Chief Director had been appointed and the posts of Chief Director and Director had been funded.

A Committee member asked if there was any allowance for Independent Development Trust (IDT) as they had complained about funds running out.

Ms Bici replied that the Department of Public Works had not received any funding for IDT.

The Chairperson asked what job would be carried out by the students hired for asset registering, noting that there had been some appointments already at senior level. This would help the Committee understand how big the problem was.

Ms Subban replied that the asset register that DPW was responsible to maintain, in order to ensure data integrity and quality, was currently at 108, 562 items. The Department’s assessment of the situation revealed that the extent of the problem was quite vast. An example was the land parcel which required to be vested. This was extensive and there was a whole process required to have it fully vested. Therefore the Department would require assistance. In order to have a qualitative register, a conditional audit was required. However, the Department’s request to National Treasury for funding had not been granted. Therefore the DPW had had to use students to assist. The portfolio was being apportioned and then there was focus on these properties.

Mr Kekana questioned the consistency of the Department’s responses. Earlier, DPW had reported that the problem with asset registration was related to Information Technology.

Ms Subban replied that the DPW used the Property Information Management System (PIMS), but the problem was that it was in fact using two different systems – the asset register of PIMS and the Work Control System (WCS). PMIS was not linked to the WCS, and that was one of the audit queries that the Auditor-General had raised. It was this aspect that was earlier communicated to the Committee.

Mr S Masango (DA) asked if the students hired would deliver an acceptable standard of work.

Ms Subban replied that there was no problem with the work done by students, because it was supervised internally. Where there had been a problem was in connection with the work done by students with service providers.

Mr M Rabotapi (DA) asked why DPW was using students when it could use the unemployed and those with work experience who had recently lost their jobs. He pointed out that using these people would help them feed their families, as opposed to helping students that were probably being supported by their parents.

Ms Subban replied that the point was noted. The target of the Department was unemployed graduates, as their rates were cheaper, which would allow the limited budget to be stretched further.

The Chairperson noted that since more time had been granted, the Committee would then meet the Department again next week to discuss the strategic plan and its alignment to the budget. There was a concern raised by other portfolio committees such as those dealing with correctional services, defence and home affairs, about the lack of performance of DPW. The Committee needed to deal with the issue of the services DPW was providing to sister departments and what the dynamics were.

The meeting was adjourned.