Postponement of Meeting with Minister on Public Protector Reports; Discussion on Eastern Cape Oversight visit & Planned International Trip to China

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson informed Members that the agenda had changed, following an apology from the Minister of Public Works, Ms Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde. The Committee would therefore only deal with the outstanding minutes and discussion on the Eastern Cape oversight visit.

The Chairperson welcomed the new Member to the Committee- Mr John Steenhuizen (DA). She explained that the Committee was like a family and worked towards a common purpose. She added that Mr Steenhuizen was welcome to raise any issues (privately and in the Committee) and that they would exchange contact details later.

Mr Steenhuizen queried if the Committee had received a written apology from the Minister and if she had indicated reasons for her absence. 

The Chairperson replied that a written apology had been received and proceeded to read it out aloud. It stated that the Minister could not appear before the Committee in order to allow the current processes initiated by the Speaker of the National Assembly to be concluded.

The Chairperson informed Members that there was an agreement with the Portfolio Committee on Police that the Public Protector reports, on SAPS leases in Durban and Pretoria, would be dealt with simultaneously by the committees. The second report had not been referred to the Committee as yet but only to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) as per the Announcement, Tablings and Committee (ATC).

Mr Steenhuizen accepted the fact that the Minister was not present but wanted clarity on how the Committee planned to deal with the reports. The Committee would have to engage with these reports at some stage because they pointed to some serious institutional failings of the Department in terms of processes. Would there be a special session on the reports? How would the Committee proceed to deal with recommendations made in terms of oversight and procedures that needed to be implemented?

The Chairperson replied that the reports would be presented for consideration. She added that the Committee needed to make a follow-up on the resolutions it had taken.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would move on to the other items on the agenda.

Outstanding Minutes
The Chairperson tabled several outstanding minutes for consideration. These were dated 1, 15, 22, 29 March 2011, 31 May 2011 and 28 June 2011.

Members approved the minutes dated 31 May 2011 with no changes. The Committee made minor corrections (relating to spelling, sentence structure and acronyms) to the remaining minutes before adopting them.

Draft Programme for Oversight Visit to Northern Cape
The Chairperson tabled the proposed draft programme for the oversight visit to the Northern Cape for consideration. The visit was scheduled to take place from 5-9 September 2011.

Members were asked to make comments.

It was noted that not that all Members had received copies of the programme. Therefore, the Committee Secretary was instructed to forward it to all Members.

The Chairperson advised Members to look into the programme and then communicate all suggestions to the Committee Secretary, Ms Akhona Busakwe.

Discussion on Eastern Cape Oversight Visit
Mr L Gaehler (UDM) noted that during the oversight visit to the Eastern Cape, there were issues that had been raised by the stakeholders. These needed to be tackled, particularly those concerning the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). Otherwise, the Committee would be seen as not doing anything.

The Chairperson informed Members that a written apology had been sent by the CIDB for not attending the stakeholders meeting in the Eastern Cape. The organisation had subsequently invited the Committee to their offices in Pretoria for meeting. The Committee needed to look into this and consider whether it would rather be better to invite them to the Northern Cape visit or to Parliament. The Chairperson further alleged that the CIDB was avoiding answering questions from stakeholders in the Eastern Cape. The memorandum that had been presented to the Committee by the stakeholders had been forwarded to the Department of Public Works as per their request. The Committee should do a follow up to find out what the Department was doing on the issue. The Committee had been given a deadline by the stakeholders to resolve their concerns.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) voiced unhappiness concerning the CIDB and accused the organisation of not taking the Committee seriously. This was illustrated by the fact that the CIDB had not sent its apology before the Committee went to the Eastern Cape. Members only discovered there that they were not present to answer questions. The fact that they wanted the Committee to go to Pretoria should not be considered. Instead, she supported the suggestion that should be invited to the Northern Cape to answer the questions that would be raised by emerging contractors. She further queried whether the programme made provision for the Committee to meet with stakeholders as was the case in the Eastern Cape. Such an engagement was crucial because the Committee did not know what was happening in municipalities on the ground. Lastly, she complained that the CIDB did as it pleased.

Mr Gaelhler agreed with his colleague that the CIDB should be invited to the Northern Cape to respond to the stakeholders. However, he emphasised that the Committee also needed to have a joint session with the CIDB and the Department in Parliament concerning the letter.

A Member commented that the Committee should advise the CIDB to prepare a presentation on its mandate. He was concerned about the manner in which the CIDB did things and believed that it moved at a slow pace. There was no platform for emerging contractors to lay complaints against the CIDB, hence the anger and demonstrations that the Committee saw in the Eastern Cape.

The Chairperson agreed with all that was raised and instructed the Committee to write a letter to the Department indicating that they must brief the Committee on what steps it was taking concerning the CIDB. This meeting should happen before the Committee visited the Northern Cape. The Department had promised that it would take drastic action. The consequences could be severe if this did not happen.

It was agreed that the Committee would discuss the Eastern Cape visit in greater detail once Members had received the report. The Chairperson expressed concern about what was happening in that province.

Discussion on planned International Visit
Mr Gaehler asked that Members be briefed on the Committee’s planned trip to China. What was the current status?

The Chairperson replied that this was a “thorny” matter. She explained that a delegation from the Committee had visited the Chair of Chairpersons some time ago to discuss the issue. The Committee was scheduled to make the trip next year around November/December. It was not clear what the issues were.

The Committee had wanted to go on the trip before it dealt with the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA), which needed to be amended. Sadly, the Committee was not given an opportunity but she was determined to raise the issue again before dealing with the GIAMA Act. That was the situation currently.

Ms Ngcengwane believed that the Committee was not being taken seriously. Some Members had visited the Chair of Chairs, Mr Cedrick Frolick (ANC), and explained the Committee’s position. The main concern was that the country’s assets remained unknown. The asset register was not ready and did not look like it would be ready anytime soon. The delegation had raised their concerns and were informed that the trip might be possible before the end of this year. However, all committee chairpersons were subsequently called and given the latest developments on international trips. Lastly, she echoed earlier comments that the Department was not taking the Committee seriously.

A Member recalled that there had been a request that research be done to check how many times all the committees had gone overseas. Some had made more trips than others and this research would assist the process.

Other Matters
The Chairperson noted that the Independent Development Trust (IDT) wanted to have a session with the Committee (on their transformation) but this was rejected as this was the mandate/competency of the Department. This matter needed to be followed up.

The Chairperson said that Members should not be disillusioned. It was important that the Committee’s findings made an impact.

The meeting was adjourned.