Asset disposal policy and report on disposed properties: department admonished

Meeting report

Ms Sasa Subban, Deputy Director General, Asset Investment Management of the Department of Public Works (DPW), said the purpose of the meeting was to report on the disposal of properties within South Africa for land reform, human settlement, other socio-economic development imperatives and servitudes, and to brief the Committee on properties abroad which had been disposed of in the 2011/12 and 2012/13 years. An update would also be provided on the Immovable Asset Disposal Policy.

One of the key strategic objectives of the DPW was to participate in the building of a developmental state through a comprehensive rural framework and the use of state assets. This was done by releasing land for land reform purposes, human settlement, agricultural purposes and rural development. Land was also made available for socio-economic development programmes and the provision of infrastructure.

Ms Subban then gave a brief description of five properties disposed of in 2011/12, which covered a total area of 11 9202 ha.  Two were located in the Free State, and one each in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape. In 2012/13, two properties – both in the Western Cape, and totalling 9 4261 ha – had been disposed of.

Turning to foreign disposals, she said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was responsible for acquiring and managing South African properties abroad.  When it no longer needed a particular property, DIRCO would request the DPW to dispose of it.  Although no foreign disposals had taken place during the 2011/12 period, or so far in the 2012/13 period, DIRCO had requested the disposal of 13 Namibian residential properties in 2010/11, and so far six had been disposed, using tender methodology.

Discussion
The Chairperson disputed the information regarding the number of Namibian properties, and said the names of those who had purchased the properties had not been disclosed. She added that a memorandum had been submitted to the Committee by the DPW in June last year, identifying the properties to be released, but this information had not been reflected in the presentation.

Ms N November (ANC) said the provincial breakdown of properties released did not correspond with the Committee’s information, and no details had been given on the extent of the disposed Gauteng property.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said the information which had been presented to the Committee was not the same as that submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA).  The DPW should be asked to return with the correct information.

Ms A Dreyer (DA) said she could not believe only five properties had been disposed of in 2011/12, and wanted to know how many requests had been made, so that the disposal could be seen in context. She also wondered whether the fact that the DPW had released only two properties in 2012/13 – both in the Western Province – was a response to pressure.

Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC) said the information which had been presented did not assist the Committee. Why was there a delay in the disposal of the balance of the Namibian properties?  The figures presented were not consistent, and confusing.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) said a disposal policy had been drafted in 2006, but had not yet been approved by Parliament, so what policy was being used to guide the disposal process?

Mr M Swathe (DA) said only six of the 13 Namibian properties had been disposed of, which raised the question of the time-frame allowed for the process. Could disposals overlap into the following financial period?

Mr L Gaehler (UDM) agreed that the presentation did not match the information given to SCOPA. Furthermore, the delegation had appeared before the Committee last week and had not provided the full information required. He felt the Committee was being taken for granted, and not being respected.

Ms N Madlala (ANC) said there needed to be clarification on the relationship between DIRCO and the DPW over the disposal of foreign properties.

The Chairperson supported the views of Members, and instructed the delegation to come back with the correct information.

Immovable Asset Disposal Policy
Turning to the Immovable Asset Disposal Policy, the Chairperson said this had been drafted in 2006. There were big gaps in the policy, but nothing had happened since then.

Ms Lydia Bici, DPW Deputy Director General: Policy, said the Department was currently finalising a comprehensive policy framework. While the policy was still in draft form, the DPW was not operating “in a vacuum,” but was guided by various existing directives, such as the Property Management Manual of 1994, the Principles of Asset Management in the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA) 2007, the Property Management Business Processes of 2007, and the applicable Treasury regulations. It was realised, however, that a consolidated policy was needed.

Four Ministers had been involved with the draft since 2006. It had been drafted in collaboration with the Department of Public Enterprises and submitted to the Cabinet for approval. As the Department of Land Affairs had objected that it had not been consulted, the draft had not been approved.  It had been submitted to subsequent DPW Ministers, except the current Minister, as the Department was finalising life-cycle immovable asset guidelines for alignment with GIAMA.

The Chairperson interrupted to say it was embarrassing to listen to the rationale being offered for the fact that six years down the line, there was still no policy in place.

Mr Gaehler said the fact that four Ministers had come and gone at DPW should not be an issue, as public servants remained in their positions, and it was they who should have taken action.

Ms Dreyer referred to the “effective date” in the draft document, which stated that the strategy and policy “comes into effect immediately upon approval by the Top Management Committee of the relevant custodian department,” and asked for the committee to be named, as they were responsible for the situation.

Ms Bici said the revised draft referred to the Minister as being responsible.

Ms Dreyer responded that it was “totally unacceptable” that a document could be distributed to the Committee, and then when an issue was raised, Members were told there was another document giving contradictory information. She suggested the Committee should express its strongest possible disapproval.

The Chairperson said the delegation should return to Pretoria and return with the “proper information” required by the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.