Committee Report on Uganda and Germany Study Tour

Meeting report

Committee Minutes adoption: 12 September 2013

The Chairperson asked the members if they could move for the adoption of the minutes of 12 February under the deliberations and resolutions sections on the last page of the report.

Mr D Bloem (COPE, Free State) believed that the sections were very ambiguous, especially the second point of the section “The Committee further resolved that all the sections of forensic investigation report be made available”. He informed the Chairperson that there were two reports of forensic investigations. The minutes should be clear and specific in order to avoid problems. There was a claim that these reports were too large, but he felt that it was important that they had them. He was aware that there was a summary of those reports on the forensic investigations.

Mr J Joseph (DA, Western Cape) recommended that the Committee should act on those reports and asked whether they were part of the resolution.

The Chairperson thought that the report would have been helpful to the members if the Committee had received it before it undertook the oversight visit.   

Mr L Nzimande (ANC, Kwazulu Natal) called for point of order and said that the records could be changed based only on what was agreed upon in a meeting. It was recommended that the forensic report should come through as large as it was, as indicated by Mr Bloem. The resolution in the minutes was captured and the records were accurate. He indicated that what was new in the minutes needed to be included before the Committee undertook the oversight visit.

Mr D Bloem added that in the minutes the Committee had further resolved that sections of both the forensic investigation reports of Nala and Matjhabeng Local Municipalities be made available to the Committee upon request.  

The Chairperson confirmed that the members were recommending that the reports should be in included in the minutes for consideration. He then asked if they could move for the adoption of the minutes of 12 February 2012.

Mr Bloem moved for the adoption of minutes with amendments.

Mr Joseph seconded the move.

The Committee adopted the minutes with amendments.

Committee Minutes adoption: 19, 26 February 2013
The Committee adopted the minutes of 19, 26 February 2013 with amendments.

Committee Report on Joint International Study Tour to Uganda
The Chairperson requested that the Content Advisor, Mr N Mfuku, should give the Committee the background on the report on the tour attended by the Select Committees on Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Petitions and Members’ Legislative Proposals, and Security and Constitutional Development.

Mr Mfuku told the Committee that the amendment recommended from the last meeting was included in the report. He reminded the Committee that the report was tabled as a draft and the members were given an opportunity to scrutinise the report and some amendments and suggestions were made in that meeting. He said that Mr Bloem was concerned that certain aspects about the United Kingdom were excluded; however they had since been included under the observations and learning points section. Suggesting that the report was no longer a draft; he also indicated that the observed lessons drawn from Uganda compared to the South African traditional affairs.    

The Committee Secretary informed the Committee that the local government accounts committee recommendation emanated from the Ugandan experience and the South African Parliament was asked to consider creating such a committee. However, it was advised to take into account other committees.

Mr Mfuku said that the report in the South African context intended Parliament to consider the inclusion of a separate committee devoted to public accounts in relation to local government sphere, as had been done in Uganda, with a hope that there might be more work that could be done.

Mr Gunda commented that the report should include the recommendation for it to be tabled in the House for consideration.

The Chairperson confirmed that the report contained the recommendation and if the House adopted the report, the resolution could be adopted as well.    

Mr Nesi sought clarification on what the National Council of Province’s role was on the creation of the proposed committee and if there would be any relationship between the two in that regard.

Mr Mfuku said the main purpose of the first committee in Uganda was to look at those issues falling under local government; while the second, local government committee, would look at the entire legislation governing it.  

Mr Nzimande passed a remarked that he was not aware that consensus was reached among Members after they came back from Uganda. Also that there was a full department with an accounting officer on traditional affairs, a house of traditional leadership and an intergovernmental framework which was already in place. He believed those models were not fully used, therefore the Ugandan model was not appropriate for South Africa. 

Mr Bloem, seconded by Mr Nzimande, recommended that the clause that dealt with the recommendations on local government accounts be excluded. In his view it would serve as replication of other Committees. Although he acknowledged that this was a lesson that they had learned.

Mr Joseph also agreed with the other members’ additions and asked what the role of the other established models would be.

Maboe Mokgobi, the Committee Researcher, also reminded the Committee that the Committee on Appropriation and the Committee on Finance should hold the Minister and MEC’s accountable.

Mr Bloem moved for the adoption of minutes.

Mr V Manzini (DA, Mpumalanga) seconded the move.

The Committee adopted the minutes with amendments.
                
The meeting was adjourned.