Committee Report on Public Works on Budget

Meeting report

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on Budget Vote 11, Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans 2016-2017 of the Department of Public Works and entities

Mr Shuaib Denyssen, Committee Content Advisor, took the Committee through the document paragraph-by-paragraph, pausing where he needed to elaborate.  He pointed out that the Recommendations were not final and subject to change.

Discussion
Mr M Dlamini (EFF) was not sure whether to look into this draft as there were a lot of things that did not make sense, and said the Minister of Public Works should be removed before moving further with this programme.  On job creation, he saw no improvement as people only got short-term contracts like 3-months and that did not make sense.  He further asked what was meant by “Job Opportunity” and wanted to know where the R4 million came from. He said he saw this as a waste of time.

The Chairperson thanked the Member for his views and said he respected them.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) thanked the presenter for an in-depth presentation. He requested that his office add an extra page where acronym meanings would be detailed, as there were a lot of them.

Under page three, sentence number 2, the plan:

Mr K Sithole asked if there was a plan for 2015-2020.

Under page five, second paragraph, the sentence read: with the inclusion of sub-programmes…

Mr Sithole asked the presenter to explain in detail what that meant. He also wanted to know about the issue of cutting costs, travelling costs were still high; and what the Findings were, suggesting that in future they be added before Recommendations.

Under page ten, the sentence read: the Department is spending R28.8 million on foreign governments and international organisations.

Ms S Kopane (DA) needed more clarity on that.

Under Programme three on page fifteen, the sentence reads: funding for turnaround projects is R66 million.

Ms Kopane requested the presented to also give clarity on that, as she did not understand.

Under programme four, the sentence read: the Department will offer user-friendly accommodation for all clients.

Ms Kopane wanted to know what the Department meant by that.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) noted with concern that on several occasions the presenter did not mention the Rands and requested that he do so on all pages.  On the Expanded Public Works Programme, she commented that this programme assisted a lot of unemployed people, and that workers such as electricians should receive guidance to able to sustain them once the programme was finished, by means of entrepreneurship in order for them to create more jobs.

Under page twenty-one, the sentence read: the Chief Financial officer was fired and twenty odd others fled the department before they could be fired.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) commented that more needed to be highlighted there.  On the Asset register, Operation Bring Back was launched and thousands of assets were being investigated, not hundreds as the presenter put it.  She requested that the number be altered to thousands. 

The Presenter concurred with the Member around the issue of an extra page for acronyms and promised that it would be added.  In response to the question of high travelling costs, he admitted that the travelling subsistence had increased but it decreased as the programme went on.  If it increased in programme one, it decreased in programme two as it adhered to the requirements of the State of the Nation Address (SONA). He urged Members to look at that fact as it did balance itself out.

He made a note on the issue of findings and promised that it would be sorted out.  On the point raised about “user-friendly” accommodation for clients, he explained that this had more to do with each specific department’s needs. On the question of foreign governments and international organisations, he mentioned that the amount was used for war graves memorials and the Gardens, which the Department would double, check on this and make the necessary changes. 

Under page four bullet three, the sentence read: reducing wasteful expenditure…removing Parliament from Cape Town to Pretoria”

Mr Sithole wanted to know what the Department meant by this.

The Chairperson responded that this had been a statement by the President during the State of the Nation address.

In response to Mr Dlamini’s concerns, the Chairperson responded that his views were political views and were not to be addressed through the Committee, as they were not a part of the report.

Mr Dlamini responded that the Minister was the man who dealt with the report; therefore, his view had to be addressed.

The Chairperson said the report had been canvassed and refinement had been suggested. He requested that the Presenters amend the report and send it to Members by close of business that day.

The report was adopted as amended.

The meeting adjourned.