Progress with Rental Housing Development Bill: Department of Human Settlements Report; Housing Development Agency Regulations; Progress report on government intervention in Lenasia

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

13 November 2013
Chairperson: Ms M Borman (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Human Settlements did not brief the Portfolio Committee formally on the Rental Housing Development Bill. Members felt that since the Bill had previously been withdrawn and was returning to Parliament, progress made with the introduction of the Bill was more important than the content thereof. It was asked if the Bill that was returning to Parliament included with work the Committee had done on it.  The Department informed the Committee that there was an original and new version of the Bill, and that both versions would be brought back to the Portfolio Committee after submission. A clause that the Committee had been concerned about had been deleted.

The consideration of Housing Development Agency (HDA) regulations did not take place. There was an unanticipated document from the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) regarding the regulations, which prompted the Chairperson and other Members to decide that the process could not move forward until SALGA had consulted with municipalities countrywide. It was discovered that municipalities had not been consulted on the regulations, and it was agreed that SALGA be granted sufficient time for that.

The Portfolio Committee was briefed on government interventions on Department-invaded properties at Lenasia South Extension 4 and Extension 13. The National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) conducted an audit and inspection according to a directive from the Ministry. There were findings on beneficiary verification and criminality. Intervention measures included status regularisation, and the opportunity to purchase stands. There was a move away from total demolition. Government provided support through the Finance Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP) for deserving occupants.

In discussion, there was interest in rectification and reimbursement. There had to be a land invasion strategy, as Lenasia was supposed to be a national model. There was a question about untransferred title deeds.
 

Meeting report

Report by the Department of Human Settlements on progress with the Rental Housing Development Bill
The Chairperson indicated that the Rental Housing Amendment Bill was returning to the Portfolio Committee.

Mr Khwezi Ngwenya, Acting Chief Director: Legal Services, Department of Human Settlements (DHS), noted that the Bill had been amended to bring it in line with the change from the former Department of Housing, to the current Department of Human Settlement. Section 1 of the Bill provided a definition of “arbitrary eviction”. Section 3 was amended to stipulate the duties of government with regard to rental housing.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Ngwenya to say that it was not possible to proceed without a copy of the amendments.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that the question was if there would be an update on the status of the Bill, or whether progress with it would be dealt with. The Bill had been withdrawn. A progress report was needed, not a clause-by-clause deliberation. The Department had to say what had been done to bring the Bill back to life.

The Chairperson agreed with that. She asked in what form the Bill would be brought back, and whether it would be in the form that the Portfolio Committee had completed work on. If there were no changes to what the PC had submitted, it was in order, otherwise there could be problems.

Mr Mokgalapa assumed that there would not be a vote on the Bill in the current meeting.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) asked if the fact that the Bill had been withdrawn meant that it would have to go for tagging again.

Mr Ngwenya replied that the bill still had to be formally referred by the Speaker and the Council. The Bill was on its way to be formally re-introduced. The Bill could be gone through clause by clause at a later stage.

The Chairperson asked if the Bill was in its original form.

Mr Mokgalapa asked that it be indicated where the process was.

Ms Bongi Lufundo, State Law Adviser, replied that the Department had come to her office to scrutinise the Bill before it went to Parliament. Only one clause had been deleted. The clause deleted was the same one that the Department had been concerned about, and which had caused them to withdraw the Bill.

Mr Ngwenya added that in every other respect the Bill was in the form it was in after the Portfolio Committee had worked on it.

Mr Ngwenya suggested that the Committee should read through the clauses. He proceeded to read through clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 16. A new clause 17(a) was added, concerning the appeal process against the Rental Housing Tribunal. The clause that posed a challenge was the section that stipulated the obligation of the national government to run housing programmes. Funding for such programmes could pose a challenge. It had to be reconsidered.

Ms Lufundo added that the clause that was amended was clause 2 of the Bill, which spoke to the responsibility of government to promote rental housing. Sub clauses (5) and (6) had been added. It gave additional measures for the Minister to enhance the process. It was unclear how the Minister was to implement the provisions. There had been questions about that during deliberations. When it came back to the State Law Advisers (SLAs), they were not willing to rubber stamp it. There were concerns about impracticality. The concerns were raised with the Department, who agreed that it was a problem. The Minister had to develop a housing framework. It was advised that the relevant clause be removed.

The Chairperson asked if the amendment to clause 2 was on page 4 of the document.

Ms Lufundo replied that paragraph (e) had been added. The version the SLAs had was the one where the clause had been removed.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said that everyone was more confused.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had been given the version that was to be submitted to Parliament. The original had been taken out. It was confusing when the SLA talked about one version and the Committee was sitting with another.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) noted that the Committee had the new version.

Mr Mokgalapa said that it would not help to have the old version. He suggested that discussion be concluded, and that the old and new versions be brought together after submission.

Ms G Borman (ANC) suggested that Members study the new amendments. The Bill had been withdrawn on the premise of the clause regarding funding. It placed too much responsibility on the national government.

Mr Ngwenya said that the Department would bring the original and new versions, once the Bill was submitted.

Consideration of Housing Development Agency (HDA) regulations
The Chairperson noted that South African Local Government Association's (SALGA's) concerns about the Housing Development Agency (HDA) regulations were included in a document. The Department had to say where they stood with regard to that. It seemed that there had been no consultation with municipalities.

Mr Ngwenya replied that the request had been to include what the Portfolio Committee had raised. It would be shown how it had been inserted into the draft regulations.

The Chairperson said that there was a bigger issue at stake. The SALGA document indicated that SALGA had consulted with municipalities.

Mr Mokgalapa said that the SALGA document spoke about Intergovernmental Regulations (IGR). SALGA still had to consult with the local authorities. Currently, it was not possible to move forward.

The Chairperson agreed that it was not possible to proceed. The issue had been coming along since May. The Department had been sent away about it. There had been a slipping up on the response from SALGA. She asked why it had been left so late.

Mr Ngwenya responded that there had been ongoing consultation with SALGA. They had wanted to engage at the policy level. What was raised in the SALGA document was the need for formal consultation. SALGA wanted to make a formal submission. A common understanding was needed. There had to be movement forward at speed towards an amicable solution with SALGA.

The Chairperson asked if the SALGA's concerns were problematic.

Mr Ngwenya replied that there were issues of interpretation, as well as implementation challenges. Municipal views had been solicited in writing.

The Chairperson said that SALGA would go for recommendations to municipalities, and would then consolidate their stance.

Mr Ngwenya replied that there would be a submission from SALGA in December, signed by the Chairperson.

Mr Mokgalapa advised that SALGA be given space. If the Committee proceeded, there would be new issues. The Department had to give strict time frames.

Ms Nellie Lester, HDA General Manager, said that there had been consultation with SALGA. SALGA had made presentations in the Eastern and Western Cape. SALGA wanted the municipalities to be central. The HDA noted that and reviewed their ideas. The ability of the Minister to declare a housing priority development area, was a problem. The Agency had to be able to declare. The financial chapter had to be boosted. There was concern about an unfunded mandate. There would have to be contributions from the Department and organs of state. The question was how to coordinate the funding initiative. It would not be a special fund. The HDA and the municipalities had to collaborate on a development plan.

The Chairperson said that a lot of work had been done. However, there were only two provinces consulted by SALGA, and seven to go. She asked about cooperation between the HDA and SALGA.

Ms Lester replied that dates would be coordinated with SALGA. The HDA was in the hands of SALGA, as far as dates of provincial structures meetings were concerned. There could be a formal comment from SALGA by December. There had to be a formal view on the housing priority development areas.

Ms P Duncan (DA) asked when the process had started.

Mr Ngwenya replied that it had started in May.

Ms Duncan said that enough time had to be granted for SALGA to consult. The PC would have to be satisfied that SALGA had consulted all municipalities.

The Chairperson said that there had to be a proper plan from SALGA for consultation. She agreed that matters were not to be rushed. She asked if the third week in January 2014 would grant enough time. The HDA could include its own comments with the process.

Mr Mokgalapa suggested the first term of the following year. The matter was not only in HDA hands.

Ms Sindisiwe Ngcongxo, Chief Operations Officer, DHS, agreed with end of March 2014 as the deadline.

The Chairperson said that the term came to an end on 13 March, which would be the big farewell day. It was necessary for the Portfolio Committee to conclude the process during its term. It had to be sped up.

Ms Ngcongxo suggested the end of February 2013.

The Committee accepted that date.

Progress Report on Government Intervention on Department-invaded Properties at Lenasia South Extension 4 and Extension 13
Mr Mbongeni Shabangu, Director, Special Investigating Unit (SIU), said that investigation into the illegal sale of land was being done in Lenasia as early as 2006. The National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) did an audit and inspections of the complete and incomplete houses in the affected areas, in accordance with a directive from the Ministry. Audit findings were presented for Lenasia South Extension 4 and Lenasia Extension 13, separately and combined. There were findings on beneficiary verification and criminality. Conclusions from findings included that incomplete structures under construction could only be late enrolled if they complied with technical requirements. Intervention measures included that households and/or individuals might have their status regularised on stands currently occupied, and might be provided with the opportunity to purchase stands currently occupied and/or where demolitions had taken place. There was a move away from total demolition. Houses had to be made safe for human habitation. Government provided support through the Finance Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP), to consider housing typologies to accommodate deserving occupants. There were 10 cases of illegal sale of land against various suspects.

Mr Mokgalapa commended the report. The word “rectification” had to be removed. It could set a precedent. People would think that the government would rectify, but those were private houses. He asked about untransferred title deeds, and the way forward.

Mr Shabangu agreed that words containing less promise had to be found. There were questions around the construction of transferred property. There would be a meeting on 22 November to consolidate the report and to finalise matters.

Ms B Dambuza (ANC) said that there had to be a clear insertion that there could be no reimbursement because transactions had been illegal. It had to be ensured that houses were habitable. She referred to page 16. When the report was drafted, there was no strategy on land invasion. The Department had noted that there currently was a strategy, which was critical since Lenasia was to be a national model.

Mr Shabangu replied that delayed reimbursement was a thorny issue because there was a criminal element involved.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
 

Share this page: