Social cohesion & nation building; Mvezo Site & Nelson Mandela museum; Infrastructure / Legacy projects; Capital works project challenges: DAC & Public Works

Meeting report

The Chairperson emphasised that the DAC were the custodians of the infrastructure of government. The unit within the Department that was dealing with infrastructure was not doing well. The Committee was there to provide support and advice as it was only someone on the outside of the DAC that could alert it to some things happening on the inside. The Committee wanted to hear how the DAC worked together with the DPW and other government departments and also what challenges it faced.

DAC on the Infrastructure Programme: State of legacy projects and infrastructure maintenance projects

Mr Ralebipi said that he would give an overview of the state of legacy projects and infrastructure maintenance projects within the DAC and the DPW would speak about the specific projects that they are involved in. The purpose of the presentation was to brief the Committee on the state of the infrastructure programme in the DAC.

The DAC had an Infrastructure Development Unit (IDU) that oversaw construction, maintenance and payment of municipal services of the DAC infrastructure portfolio. The IDU was faced with the challenge of limited capacity: it consisted of a Director and three appointed Project Managers to implement the infrastructure programme. Further challenges were under expenditure; poor project management; and limited monitoring and verification of work done.

Allocation and Expenditure as of 31 July 2016

Programmes included Arts and Culture Promotion and Development; Heritage Promotion and Preservation (Heritage Institutions Infrastructure work); and Institutional Governance (Legacy Projects).  Up until 31 July 2016, nothing had been spent on Arts and Culture Promotion and Development.

Funded Maintenance and Upgrading Projects 

The Acting Director General went through each project for each programme, the details of which were as follows:

Within the Arts and Culture Promotion and Development programme:

Artscape was allocated R14.7 million, there was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage.

The Market Theatre Foundation had been allocated R24.6 million in total:

The upgrading of the Laager Theatre was allocated R1 million, there was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage.

Upgrading and refurbishment of the Windybrow Heritage House was allocated R20 million and the project was still at the design stage.

Installation of back-up generators was allocated R3.6 million and the project is at the planning stage.

The Performing Arts Centre of the Free State was allocated R30 million for the mechanical ventilation and air conditioning system. There had been zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage.    

The Playhouse Company in Durban was allocated R13.8 million for the installation of back-up generators, there had been zero expenditure to date and the project is at the planning stage. 

The State Theatre was allocated R4.8 million. The refurbishment of the foyer and ablutions was allocated R4.8 million, there was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the construction stage. The replacement of stage lighting equipment was allocated R800 000 (there was a mistake in the document here as it read R8 million). There had been zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage. 

The Incubator within the Polokwane Performing Arts Centre was allocated R2 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the feasibility study stage.
The Community Arts Centres were allocated R23.9 million. The upgrading of the Community Arts Centres was allocated R12 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage. The construction of the Community Arts Centres was allocated R11.9 million. There had been zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage. 

The cultural precincts in Nelson Mandela Bay were allocated R12.5 million. The Red Location was allocated R2.5 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage. Other cultural precincts were allocated R10 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project is at the planning stage.   

The South African Roadies Association (SARA) was allocated R5 million. There had been zero expenditure to date and the project is at the planning stage.  

Upgrading of public spaces was allocated R3 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage. 

The total allocated to the Arts and Culture Promotion and Development programme was R134.5 million and there was zero expenditure to date.

Within the Heritage Promotion and Preservation programme:

The Afrikaans Taal Museum en Monument was allocated R2 million for the construction of the workers' change room. There had been R228 971 expenditure to date and the project is at the tender stage.

Ditsong Museums of South Africa was allocated R5.1 million and there had been R575 786 expenditure to date. The repairs and maintenance, mechanical and electrical work status quo report was allocated R2 million and there had been R575 786 expenditure to date and this project was still at the construction stage. 
Construction, renovation and upgrading of the Sammy Marks Museum was allocated R347 794. There had been zero expenditure to date and the project was at the construction stage. The civil and structural repairs and maintenance programme for Cultural History was allocated R2.6 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the construction stage.  

The Luthuli Museum was allocated R500 000 for the construction of a resource centre with an exhibition space, ablution facilities and offices. There had been zero expenditure to date and the project was at the tender stage. 

The National English Literary Museum (NELM) was allocated R50 million for the construction of the NELM building. There had been R22.4 million expenditure to date and the project was practically completed, the completion certificate will be handed over upon payment of outstanding invoices).

The Nelson Mandela Museum was allocated R6.7 million. There was R232 174 expenditure to date.  The upgrading of the Bhunga building was allocated R5 million (document reads R500 000 but it should read R5 million). There had been R232 174 expenditure to date and the project was practically completed, the completion certificate will be handed over upon payment of outstanding invoices). Facilities management and maintenance of the buildings was allocated R1.7 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was still at the design stage.

The Iziko Museums of South Africa was allocated R75 million. There had been R19.6 million expenditure to date. The installation of the integrated system was allocated R288 000. There was zero expenditure and the project was at construction stage. Construction of a storage structure in the courtyard was allocated R75 million. There was R19.6 million expenditure to date and the project is at the construction stage. 

The Robben Island Museum was allocated R15.4 million. The desalination plant maintenance and upgrade of the sewer reticulation was allocated R1.3 million. There had been zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage.  The main appropriation of the Robben Island Museum was restoration of the Blue Stone Quarry and Walkways, which was allocated R8.5 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage. The Harbour Precinct Project was allocated R5.5 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at design stage. 

The South African Library for the Blind was allocated R1 million for the upgrading and refurbishment of the Josie Wood Building and the Hemming Street House (which includes site clearance). There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage.

The National Library (Pretoria Campus) was allocated R16.8 million for a facilities management contract. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the design stage.

The total allocation for the Heritage Promotion and Preservation programme was R173 million and there had been R43 million expenditure to date.

Within the Institutional Governance programme: 

The National Archives was allocated R93.9 million. Remedial work to the OLD Building of the National Archive in Pretoria was allocated R48 million. There was R17.1 million expenditure to date and the project was at the construction stage. The upgrading of the fire protection system of this building was allocated R45 million. (expenditure to date not listed in the document) and the project was at the construction stage. 

Regarding various heritage sites:

• Archie Gumede was allocated R2.8 million. (expenditure to date not listed in the document). This project was at the procurement stage.
• Delville Wood was allocated R10 million. (expenditure to date not listed in the document). This project was at the construction stage. 
• The Gumtree Mill was allocated R180 000. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was in the planning stage.
• The Ingquza Hill Museum was allocated R7 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was in phase 1 of practical completion.
• Enyokeni Cultural Precinct was allocated R29.1 million. There was zero expenditure to date and this project was in the planning stage.
• The OR Tambo Memorial was allocated R3 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was in the planning stage.
• The Raymond Mhlaba Statue was allocated R2 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was in the procurement stage. 
• The Sarah Baartman Centre was allocated R48.5 million. There was R9.9 million expenditure to date and the project was at the construction stage.
• Vlakplas was allocated R2 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was in the planning stage.
• JL Dube House was allocated R6 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was in the construction stage.
• The Liberation Heritage Route was allocated R29.1 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage.
• The Voortrekker Monument was allocated R1.5 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the infrastructure maintenance stage.
• The National Heritage Monument was allocated R5 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was under implementation.
• Isandlwana was allocated R6 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage.
• The Information Management System for Infrastructure (IMSI) was allocated R2.7 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage.
• The Khoe and San Heritage sites were allocated R3.5 million. There was zero expenditure to date and the project was at the planning stage.
• The total allocation for the Institutional Governance programme is R252 million. There was R27.1 million expenditure to date.

Challenges and interventions: 

The first challenge related to the fact that infrastructure projects were managed all over the Department; and roles and responsibilities amongst the programmes were not clarified. The intervention for this was the centralisation of the management of infrastructure projects so that those that were supposed to see to the management of projects knew what was their responsibility.  Progress to date was that the structure to centralise the infrastructure portfolio was being developed but not yet finalised and implemented. The draft Terms of Reference have been developed. 

The second challenge related to there being only two officials managing infrastructure and office accommodation projects worth more than R500 million and R100 million respectively; poor project management; and limited monitoring and verification of work done. The intervention for this challenge was to increase technical capacity to turn these problems around. The progress to date was that three construction managers and one property manager were appointed which meant that these problem areas were going to be much more efficient going forward. 

A third challenge related to the escalated estimates and increased scope of work by implementing agents such as the Department of Public Works (DPW); and a lack of determination of value-for-money. The intervention had been the establishment of the OMNIBUS for the Professional Service Providers so that there could be built in expertise within the DAC to overcome that particular challenge. The Terms of Reference were approved by the Bid Adjudication Committee and the advert would go out by 30 September 2016.

A fourth challenge related to delays due to unclear processes. The intervention for this challenge was the development of the infrastructure policy. To date the infrastructure policy had been approved and the Terms of Reference were attached.   

A fifth challenge related to the draw down schedule and necessary documentation required before transfers were processed, as stipulated by DAC policy, were not submitted in the first quarter. The intervention for this challenge had been workshops conducted on required documentation and templates were developed. The progress to date was that Artscape; the War Museum; the Robben Island Museum and PACOFS, which all have outstanding documentation, were visited. All transfers which were due in the first quarter would be completed before the end of the second quarter.

A sixth challenge related to the approved infrastructure plan for the MTEF period to avoid delays on implementation, under spending and ad hoc funding. The intervention for this challenge was the development of the User Immovable Asset Management Plan (UAMP). Progress to date was that the MTEF UAMP was approved and allocation letters approving funding for the three years were forwarded to the institutions. 

A seventh challenge related to a lack of functional structure in the DAC to oversee the implementation of infrastructure programme. The intervention for this challenge was the establishment of the Infrastructure Committee with members at executive level. Progress to date was that Terms of Reference were developed and approved by the Infrastructure Committee.

An eighth challenge related to the lack of an Integrated Technology System to manage and monitor the budget amongst the Programmes and Finance Directorate. Intervention for this challenge was the development of the Information Management System. The progress to date was that specifications for phase 1 were developed. 

A ninth challenge related to the DAC not being able to transfer funds committed for IDT projects pending the completion of the financial reconciliation which was received on 22 July 2016.

Intervention for this project was the appointment of Rubiquant Quantity Surveyors to assess the IDT expenditure incurred on all DAC legacy projects. Progress to date was the Rubiquant submitting a preliminary report indicating possible overcharging on professional fees and materials. The ADG engaged the IDT's CEO on the preliminary report, requesting access to project sites and documents by Rubiquant to finalise the investigation. Lawyers of the two entities met to finalise legal matters pertaining to court cases against IDT for non-payment of fees.      

Mr Ralebipi was sure the Committee was concerned about the areas where the DAC had not spent money but that under expenditure would be reduced by the end of the third quarter. The DAC had identified projects which would not spend as envisaged and shifted funds to projects which require additional funding. These virements would be approved by National Treasury on completion of the adjustment period in October 2016. Infrastructure projects oversight was strengthened with new capacity brought on board. 

Discussion

The Chairperson said it was obvious from the presentation why the Committee was not happy with the DAC’s performance as there were projects budgeted for but still in the planning stage or procurement was still being done. In the meantime, money allocated for those projects was just sitting there waiting to be spent. This was totally unacceptable, and why the Committee had said to the DAC that all of the planning for these projects should have been completed last year so that by 1 April they would be ready to start running. The Committee had committed itself to the DAC from day one, saying it was prepared to support and advise the DAC.

The Chairperson asked about the use of the word “competition” on page 27 of the presentation document and whether this was supposed to read “completion”. She reminded the DAC that whenever it brought a document to be tabled before the Committee that it first needed to quality check the document because the minute the document landed on the Chairperson’s desk it was a public document and for public consumption. The DAC therefore needed to check that every piece of information in a document was correct before it was given to the Committee. She asked about the confusion over the word “competition” used in the presentation document on page 27 and whether this was supposed to be “competition” or “completion”.

Mr Ralebipi replied that it was supposed to be “completion”.

The Chairperson asked if the National Liberation Heritage Route programme was a programme of the DAC or of the National Heritage Council (NHC). Did the DAC budget for it or the NHC, or if both entities budgeted for it. She asked the DAC to please clarify this for the Committee.

Ms S Tsoleli (ANC) said in future it would help if the DAC included the location of the projects that it spoke of because the Committee needed to know where these projects were so that it could do oversight and see for itself how well the projects were faring. The Committee knew where some of the projects were but not all of them so needed to be informed of where these projects were and in which provinces they were located.

She reminded the Committee that it had in the past spoken to the DAC about the lack of projects in certain provinces and that some provinces did not get a chance to have DAC projects implemented in them. She specifically wanted to know if there were any DAC projects implemented in the Free State other than those connected to the Performing Arts Council of the Free State. She did not even know the names of some of the DAC’s projects. She also did not know the location of the Gumtree project.

Regarding the issue of only two officials working in the unit, that was not enough people to be running such a large unit, especially as this was a project management unit. There needed to be more than two people working in this unit so that the work of the unit could be broken down. Two people could not run the national unit by themselves; this would not even be enough people to run such a unit within provincial government.

She said administration was not functioning properly in the DAC.

She also wanted to know about Provincial infrastructure as she was familiar with Provincial infrastructure and Provincial government.  

Mr J Mahlangu (ANC) complained that the way in which the DAC had presented the information in the document was confusing. As an example he pointed to page nine and the fact that there was a ‘dash’ under the Expenditure to Date and Status Columns of the Market Theatre Foundation and one was not informed about what was happening with the R24 million allocated to the Market Theatre Foundation. He asked if the ‘dash’ meant that there had been no expenditure. The DAC needed to provide clarity on how it presented the information. For example, did the ‘dash’ have two different meanings? The information in the presentation document was supposed to tell the Committee what was happening with regard to each of the projects. For instance, if R24 million was allocated to the Market Theatre Foundation, the Committee needed to know what was going to happen there and what was happening with the money. This had to be clear to the Committee so that it could perform its oversight function.

Mr Mahlangu asked about the Voortrekker Monument and if the DAC had given money to this private entity because there had previously been an argument about whether the DAC should fund the Voortrekker Monument as it was private property and did not belong to the State. As a private entity he wanted to know why the DAC was allocating money to it.

He complained that the total expenditure to date for the Arts and Culture Promotion and Development programme and the Heritage Promotion and Preservation programme were not listed in the presentation document. He was shocked by the lack of expenditure. He understood that towards the end of the financial year money was allocated to other projects so that the DAC was seen to be spending all of its allocated money.

Mr Mahlangu said it was unheard of that the owner of a project should not be able to access a site.

He noted on page 27 of the presentation document that there was an error which read “DAC couldn’t transfer funds committed for IDT projects pending competition of the final reconciliation” and that this should read “pending the completion of the financial reconciliation”. He also asked which projects the DAC referred to here.

The Chairperson chastised the DAC saying that the manner in which it had packaged information about the infrastructure projects in its presentation was very confusing.

Mr T Makondo (ANC) said he did not want to see money allocated to different projects in the last half of the financial year, where it could be spent more easily, so that it would look as though the DAC was doing a good job of spending the money allocated.

Mr G Grootboom (DA) asked which sites the DAC was referring to when it mentioned the Khoe and San heritage sites as the committee did not know what these sites were.

Mr Ralebipi said that the Gumtree project was in Ficksburg.

As of 31 July there were only two officials within the IDU but there had been an improvement in that regard because technical staff had since been employed within that unit to assist. There was still only one property manager and the DAC recognised that this was not adequate but there had been improvement in this regard. These two officials were supported by staff within the higher levels of the DAC, such as the Deputy Director, the Director and the Deputy Director General who were assisting in overseeing the projects. However, the DAC recognised it was not enough and apologised to the Committee for this. But the addition of extra staff to the unit, would make a difference to how things were happening within the unit. So the DAC sought to make improvements all the time.

In the presentation the DAC should have indicated which projects are dealt with by the IDU and which are dealt with by the DPW because they deal with projects separately.

Ms V Mogotsi (ANC) said if the IDU was not functioning as it should, none of the projects that the DAC was supposed to be implementing would happen. Equally, if the administration of the Capital Works Project was not functioning, then none of the projects that fell under the Capital Works Project would happen. It was necessary for the Committee to first look at this unit to be able to determine if progress was being made on projects or not. It was not sufficient for there to be only one property manager within this unit as property management was a very big portfolio. She asked the DAC to come clean about its administrative problems. The rate of unemployment was high so why could the DAC not hire more people for this unit. If nothing were being done to remedy the problems within the IDU then the DAC would not be able to achieve what it set out to achieve and would not make an impact on people. The situation must change as the unit was not working well and all the projects that it was supposed to be implementing would therefore take a long time to be implemented.

Mr Ralebipi said he understood the Committee’s concerns regarding the fact that there were only two officials working in the unit but some improvement was actually taking place in that regard.

He had indicated right at the beginning of his presentation that there had been no expenditure in some of the DAC’s programmes. It was not as if the DAC sat back and folded its arms and did nothing, it was doing things to remedy the situation.

On the question of money allocated to the Voortrekker Monument, he this money was not just for the Voortrekker Monument per se, but was also for other projects started by the government, such as the road between Freedom Park and the Voortrekker Monument and for the Blood River site. The Voortrekker Monument requested help with funds and in the spirit of reconciliation the DAC looked at what it could actually do to support the Voortrekker Monument and allocated R1.5 million to assist and to stop the bickering between the Voortrekker Monument and Freedom Park concerning what was happening on the other side of the river and such things.  

On the question of the DAC’s access, the problem was not about the DAC’s access to sites per se but rather access to the project managers and to information from the project managers. Project managers needed to be accessed to find out more information from the sites than the DAC was able to collect visiting the sites without the project managers. The DAC had been striving and fighting to get this information from project managers as they had information that covered all the aspects of a project and it had been asking the project managers to assist with this information.

The storage structure being constructed for Iziko Museums of South Africa is a storage structure for the storage of heritage objects.  

On Isandlwana, it was true that Isandlwana started as a Provincial project initiated by the Premier’s office and the DAC was then approached with requests for a memorial wall that would have the names of the people that fell in this battle printed on it, especially from the African side. This would require a lot of research and talking to communities to determine who actually participated in the Battle of Isandlwana. That project related to inscribing the names of the individuals that fell in that battle on the memorial wall. It also related to King Cetshwayo who was the reigning king then as one cannot separate Isandlwana from King Cetshwayo and that when one spoke about Isandlwana they were also talking about King Cetshwayo.

Mr Mahlangu said that the Samora Machel project was missing from the document presented and asked why it had not been included.  

Mr Ralebipi said things were going to be different in the third quarter and the presentation indicated what was going to be done in the third quarter. However, the DAC could not transfer money not given to it. He reminded the Committee that he was reporting on the situation up until 31 July and that things had happened in the last month that were not recorded in the presentation document. When the DAC reported on the second quarter it would be able to tell the Committee about those things that had happened in the last month.

On the Luthuli Museum, construction had already taken place. This presentation only looked at work done up until 31 July and did not consider work done in August and September. Work might have taken place in August and September but he could not speak about this work as it was not listed in the presentation document.

A concern had been raised about the lack of expenditure to date as it was already half-way through the year. The DAC was busy building this capacity and there would be a remarkable change in the next presentation to how it performed previously.

The Chairperson reminded Mr Ralebipi that the Committee had declared under-expenditure a crime against our society and against the people that need - not want - the services that the DAC should be providing.

Mr P Moteka (EFF) said the DAC had to provide measurable details of projects, it was not sufficient to just say that there will be change. He referred to the omission of the Samora Machel project in the presentation document and asked how much had been planned for the project. He also asked if the DAC did oversight on construction to ensure that it was completed correctly.

Mr Ralebipi said some of his colleagues would answer questions related to specific projects and would provide details on these projects.

The Chairperson said the DAC had known the Committee for a long time and should know by now that the Committee wanted specifics. The Committee had always said that it did not want to hear promises, hopes and dreams but specifics about the what, how and when of projects so that the Committee was in a position to do its work efficiently and assess whether the DAC has actually done what it said it was going to do. When entities gave the Committee information it must give the tiniest of details. This allowed the committee to do the work that it was paid to do. The Committee wanted to assist and support the DAC to do its work as much as possible.

Mr I Langeveld, Director, DAC, said the Samora Machel project, restoration and an upgrade was being done and an amount of R2.5 million was allocated for the first phase of that project. This would be completed in time for the commemoration of the death of Samora Machel in October.

On the Khoe-San heritage sites, he apologised to that they had been rather loosely described in the presentation. It was not actually Khoe and San heritage sites as loosely as that, and the project was a National Legacy Project known as the Khoe-San heritage route which sought to conserve, highlight and promote the heritage of the Khoe-San. The heritage route would represent the five main groups within the Khoe-San: the Khoi-san; Griqua; Khoi; Great Korana and Little Korana. As a first step to developing this Khoi-San heritage route the DAC undertook a baseline study. This baseline study culminated in a list of projects around the country that could form part potentially of the Khoe-San heritage route. The baseline study also made specific recommendations. Those recommendations and the detailed outcomes of the baseline study, including a list of potential sites, were currently being presented to Cabinet for approval of the recommendation and implementation of the recommendations. The entire project, the baseline study and its recommendations had been approved for recommendation to Cabinet by the Social Cluster and is being taken to Cabinet for final approval.

The Chairperson said that she would then allow the Department of Public Works (DPW) to give their presentation and asked it to keep in mind the issues raised by the Committee. She hoped that the DPW would be able to give the Committee more information on these issues. She asked the DPW to try to give the committee specifics. The Committee was asking for this information nicely but warned that there were other routes it could take to ask for this information and that the Committee did not want to take these routes.

She asked about the issue of accessing managers and not being able to get information from them. She asked how this happened. If managers were employed to these projects, then it was their duty to give the DAC information on these projects. She asked who was accountable for these projects if not the project managers. She asked the DAC to address this issue in its next meeting with the committee as she could not understand how managers could simply not provide the DAC with information on the projects that they are managing.

Mr Mahlangu asked the DAC to explain the total for the NMM on page 15 of the presentation document because when the individual allocations are added up they do not total R6.7 million.

The Chairperson asked the DPW that where it lists different amounts allocated to projects to those allocated by the DAC to explain these differences as it presents.

Mr Makoto Matlala, Chief Financial Officer for the DAC, on the amounts for the two activities listed for the Nelson Mandela Museum on pages 15 and 16 not adding up to the total allocation, said that there was a mistake in the document on page 15 and that the R500 000 listed under the budget for upgrading of Bhunga should read R5 million. If the amount were changed to R5 million, then adding up all of the allocations gave the total of R6.7 million.

The Chairperson said the Committee was tired of telling the DAC the same thing over and over and asking the DAC to quality check its documents.

Mr Moteka suggested that the DAC go away and edit their document and come back and present to the Committee again when it was correct and complete.

Mr Mahlangu agreed with Mr Moteka, the presentation document was a public document that must be filed as part of the archives of Parliament. As such they needed to present a quality document and the Committee could not be associated with this document. He had expected the CFO to start with an apology for the many mistakes and omissions in the document. The Committee should in fact send the DAC away and tell them to fix the errors and omissions in the document before it returned to the Committee, but the Committee was trying to be humane.

The Chairperson urged the DAC to take itself seriously, because taking others seriously started with taking itself seriously and that it could not take others seriously if it did not first take itself seriously. The DAC was paid to do a job, just as the Committee was paid to do a job. She asked the representatives of the DAC to please go and do the job that they were paid to do as the Committee could not keep asking the DAC to do the same thing over and over. The committee had been asking the DAC from day one to do simple, straightforward things like quality check their documents and check the figures in their documents. The fact that it was not doing these simple things iwa totally unacceptable.

Department of Public Works on the Overview of DAC’s Services and the Infrastructure Portfolio

An official from the Department of Public Works stated that in terms of allocations, the DAC portfolio contributed almost 12% of PTME Capital Programme in the 2016/17 financial year. The financial analysis for 2016/17 showed that the budget allocation for Arts and Culture in 2016/17 was R262.1 million. Expenditure as of end of August 2016 was R97.8 million (representing 37% expenditure of budget allocated against 41.6% time lapsed). The committed funds (projects on construction stage) were R217.4 million, with expenditure of R75.2 million. Three projects in planning (Status 4) with allocation of R4 million and R98 000 expenditure (2%) as of end of August 2016.  

The expenditure portfolio status as of end of August 2016 per office is as follows:

• Special and major projects had 9% expenditure
• Cape Town had 9% expenditure
• Port Elizabeth had 53% expenditure
• Pretoria had 18% expenditure
• Umtata had 0% expenditure
• The total expenditure was 37%.

The stage, allocation, expenditure and status of each project were detailed in the presentation document.

Challenges relating to infrastructure delivery were:

1. Compliance process to heritage legal and regulatory requirements.
2. Complex nature of the works requires specialized architectural security and heritage designs.
3. Nature of the work requires specialist constructors.

That concluded the overview of the Infrastructure Portfolio.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to exploit the fact that the DPW was in the meeting and should get it to show the Committee figures for each of the projects as the Committee had said many times in the past that the DPW was ‘playing the committee’.  This was the case with the issue around the NMM as the project had been completed but the money that the Committee was supposed to pay has still not been paid because the DPW had not informed the Committee that this money needed to be paid.

Department of Public Works on the Challenges on Capital Works Projects

The DPW reported that it had direct involvement in the following museums and memorials:

• In Mozambique: The Matola Raid project
• In South Africa: The Sarah Baartman Centre of Remembrance; the Nelson Mandela Museum; the Samora Machel Museum; and the Grave of the Unknown Soldier
• In France: The Delville Wood Memorial

Regulations were set up in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act no. 25 of 1999.

The DPW had indirect involvement in the following:

• Assisting with setting up policy on heritage properties by the Department
• Assisting with heritage buildings in the Prestige ambit (Union buildings; Houses of Parliament; Tuynhuys; Groote Schuur; JL Dube House; and various other heritage properties such as the DPW offices in Durban) and
•  Building relationships with heritage authorities such as SAHRA; AMAFA; HWC; and PHRA-G.

Challenges related to the complex nature of the work and the requirement of specialists in the field of architecture, security and heritage; the need for specialist contractors and; lengthy and drawn out procurement processes.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the DPW for the very interesting presentation. She asked what was being done about the shortage of skilled artisans and skilled contractors as it was not sufficient to complain about the scarcity of skills, something needed to be done to draw young people into these specialised skills. She thanked the DPW for their presentation and said that the committee highly appreciated its presentation.

 

Mr Mahlangu asked about the different amounts allocated to Delville Wood by the DAC and the DPW as the DAC listed the allocation as R10 million and the DPW listed the allocation as just under R4 million.

He said that the National Library had a problem with flooding in its basement and asked what was happening with regard to this problem as it is one of the education buildings that the DAC is in charge of.

A further issue related to repatriation of citizens’ remains. He had been approached by someone who said that one of his family members died in World War One and wanted the remains of his loved one repatriated. This was an important issue for the Committee and the DAC to consider as they were taking care of the heritage space of the country.

Regarding restoration and refurbishment of heritage sites and buildings, this required specialists and very few people that participated in that area technically.

The issue raised by the DPW in its presentation, about what to do when restoring a heritage building and parts of older buildings were found underneath the existing building, was very important. Such an incident had happened in Germany a few years ago where a rail was found underneath part of a building and it had been embedded there for years.

The Chairperson asked the DPW why it had situations of under-expenditure.

Relating to pages three and four of the presentation document which listed the differences between allocation and expenditure, Mr Grootboom wanted clarity on the budget allocation for arts and culture. Some of the amounts allocated for specific projects in the Infrastructure Portfolio document presented by the DPW were different to those presented by the DAC. He asked if the two entities were working with different budgets.

R20 million was allocated for the upgrading and refurbishment of the Windybrow House. He was aware that the DAC gave a presentation about the forensic investigation done regarding the investment of funds at Windybrow, an amount of about R54 million. He asked if the R20 million allocation listed in the presentation document was an addition to the R54 million already allocated to Windybrow.

The Chairperson asked what type of project the Umtata project was and why the DPW had not spent anything on the Umtata project. She reminded Mr Ralebipi that he also had some questions from Members that he had to respond to.

Response from the Department of Public Works

An official from DPW addressed the question about the Umtata project first. Page five of the Infrastructure Portfolio document explained that the new expenditure for this project related to the consultants finalising the tender documents for the facilities maintenance contract. Money was not spent on this project yet as the project was still out on tender. The Chairperson of a woman’s group was brought in to the tender. Work would commence on this project shortly.

In terms of budget for the National Heritage Route, part of the budget was allocated by the National Heritage Council (NHC) and part of the budget allocated by the DAC. So the DAC was accounting for the projects and the allocation.

The DPW was only falling behind on projects where there have been complications.

The problem of the flooding of the National Library had been identified and would be dealt with as the DPW’s branch was a construction branch.

On the issue of the lack of specialists, the DPW has a Young Professionals programme, and it was coupled with a mentorship project where retired professionals worked with young people to teach them these specialist skills. The DPW also had a team of architects that worked on the heritage projects and the DPW developed its own norms and standards for heritage projects. The DPW approached the IDT, which was the DPW’s agency under public works, and it was helping the IDT to do its work. The DPW was working with the IDT closely so that when the IDT experienced problems it could approach the DPW for help.

Mr Moteka said in the Kwadukuza Municipality in KwaZulu-Natal that there was a problem with the naming of a stage after King Shaka but it was spelt incorrectly. This stage concerned all the surrounding communities.

Mr Ralebipi, on the money allocated to the Delville Wood Memorial, said this was allocated to complete the work started there. The exhibitions there were about the battle of Delville Wood.

On the question of repatriation of the family member that had died in World War One, the DAC did not currently have a policy on repatriation but it was working on this policy. There had been repatriation of remains that had happened going all the way back to the repatriation of Sarah Baartman’s remains, but these instances were special cases that had to be done. There had also been repatriations of the remains of struggle stalwarts such as JP Marks and those were done at the behest of families. But there were complications with these repatriations and the DAC was working on a policy for repatriation but this was not an easy matter.

On the issue of the allocation for Windybrow, work needed to be done to restore the Heritage House. This was a new budget that was budgeted for in 2016/17.

He had noted the issue around the King Shaka name.

The Chairperson said that repatriation was something that people had been talking about since 1994, and now it was 2016. Nothing happened in the DAC without it thinking about policy and it was therefore necessary to have a repatriation policy. Whether someone’s remains were repatriated or not should not depend on that person’s status or the DAC’s mood but on policy. The Eastern Cape had a repatriation policy, without the National Department having a policy. But whether a person’s remains were repatriated seemed to depend on how the DAC felt that day, if it were in a good mood then the remains would be repatriated. This should not be the case and a policy should be consulted. She was aware that developing this policy would not be easy and that a lot of consultation would go into developing this policy but there needed to be a policy that would help families to know if the remains of their loved ones could be repatriated and how. There needed to be answers for families that asked, for example, could my cousin’s remains be repatriated? They need to know if the remains of their loved one would never be repatriated. This was very important and she asked the DAC to give the Committee a timeframe for when it would have a repatriation policy. Mr Ralebipi needed to go and consult in the DAC so that the DAC could provide an answer to this question in the meeting that it would have with the Committee the following Tuesday. The Committee needed to know when the DAC was going to have this policy as the Committee did its work by being able to track things that the DAC said it was going to do. The Committee therefore needed to know when the DAC would have this policy. There was no way that the DAC could run away from the Committee as the DAC and the committee are “relatives”.

Presentation on Social Cohesion and Nation Building

Mr Ralebipi said that the National Strategy for Developing an Inclusive and Cohesive South African Society was approved in 2012.

The National Development Plan (NDP) envisioned a type of society in 2030 that would embrace its diversity rather than reify phenotypical human differences. Such a society, as envisioned in the NDP would have a common set of values, an inclusive economy, and increased interaction among the different racial groups. The current policy and legislative mandate also emanated from consistent commitments to social cohesion and nation building by the governing party, particularly, the 2009 and 2014 election manifestos.

Consistent with the commitments in its manifesto, the ANC-led government developed by a Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2014/2019, with 14 very clear strategic outcomes.

The Chairperson said the Committee was aware of all these things but what they wanted to hear from the DAC was what programmes it was implementing and the impact its programmes had on communities, because issues like racism, language in schools, and racist rules concerning pupils’ hair in schools were all still thriving and should be leading the DAC to the work that it should be doing. The problem the Committee had with the presentation was that it did not indicate any movement or progression on social issues such as these or what impact its projects had on these issues. There did not seem to be any progression from where the society is to where it was going. The Committee wanted to know what the DAC’s programmes were doing to change and transform society as these programmes did not seem to exist in society anywhere. The Committee wanted the DAC to be able to show that it had implemented specific projects in specific areas and the impacts of those projects. She asked the DAC to assist the Committee in this regard.

The fourteenth outcome of the current MTSF was “a diverse socially cohesive society with a common national identity”, i.e. social cohesion and nation building.

The scope of the work on social cohesion and nation building

The 2014/2019 MTSF set out the agenda for social cohesion and nation building. The MTSF also provided a framework within which to develop a Programme of Action for Outcome 14. As part of the framework, five sub-outcomes provide the basic architecture of the MTSF:

• fostering constitutional values
• equal opportunities, inclusion and redress
• promoting social cohesion across society through increased interaction across race and class
• promoting active citizenry and leadership
• fostering a social compact.

The presentation document detailed the Outcome 14 Plan of Action and samples of key strategies and programmes per sub-outcome of the MTSF. 

Mr Ralebipi said it was necessary to look at the nature of the problem and understand the nature of the problem. Through its programmes the DAC was going to change this country and eradicate issues such as racism and tribalism. It was important to understand the roles of different role players. For instance, on the issue of racist school policies relating to black learners’ hair, the DAC could not fix this problem alone and had to work with other departments such as the Department of Education.

The Chairperson said the Committee wanted to know if there were a structure for co-ordinating with other government departments. When the DAC said it could not achieve social cohesion and nation building on its own, that it needed the help of other government departments, that it then needed to have a structure for co-ordinating with other government departments. This was necessary so that the DAC could talk about the programmes that it had implemented with other departments in different provinces and the results of those programmes, wherever they happened, so that it could say for example that it had implemented programme XYZ with the Department of Education, in these areas, and these are the results. Or that it had invited the Pan South African Language Board to be part of the discussion on the marginalisation of language. These issues were happening on the doorstep of the DAC and needed to be dealt with if the DAC were to achieve the outcome of social cohesion.

Mr Ralebipi said that there are various players assisting with that particular kind of work.

The Chairperson asked if the DAC did follow-up and monitored the projects that it implemented. This was necessary so that when the DAC reported to the committee it could say exactly what programmes had been implemented and what results they had. Her problem with the DAC’s presentation was that they had not included such details. The committee wanted to know all the ingredients for projects and for the DAC to give the Committee concrete information about projects and say what projects they were implementing, how much was allocated for each project and what the results of these projects were as it was not easy for the Committee to currently measure the DAC’s impact immediately. She asked the DAC if it would assist the Committee in this regard.

Mr Ralebipi said sub-Outcome 1 was about fostering constitutional values. One of the key strategies and programmes within this sub-programme was:

To make the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic made accessible to learners and recited in school assemblies.

• The Preamble of the Constitution had been widely distributed by Basic Education through its normal Learner and Teacher Support Material (LTSM) distribution channels
• The Preamble was also recited at major events on the co-curricular sphere organised for learners by the Department of Basic Education
• However, it could not be ascertained that all schools do the recital at assembly as there existed no monitoring mechanism to test this

He hoped that the description of sub-outcome one provided answers to some of the questions that the Chairperson had raised. The DAC was of the view that if recital of the Preamble of the Constitution was actually being done by each and every school and if each and every school was playing a role in social cohesion and nation building that it would change the mindset of the country.

Sport was an integral component of sub-outcome 3. The following strategies recorded progress in terms of the sub-outcome:

• 60 national federations met their transformation targets and were thus eligible for financial support by SRSA.
• The SRSA continued to support the national sports tournament for schools hosted in December in Gauteng.

There had been an issue around rugby and the rugby federation’s intentions to host the World Cup. This was denied until such time as the rugby federation could reach its transformation target. Similar things were happening to other sporting federations. The Department of Arts and Culture hosted a number of arts and culture seasons in the previous financial year including Asia and Europe. The focus of the season strategy was now on the continent (Africa), while continuing with existing relationships. The DAC also wanted to remove the stereotype of South Africa not being seen as part of Africa and as such these were designed to ensure that there was interaction with the continent.

The presentation emphasised the point that the approaches must be informed by common policy as different government departments had different approaches towards building a cohesive society. It was in the area of common policy that the DAC made a real impact in this regard. South Africa did have skills when it came to overcoming a divisive past and although it was taking a long time to overcome this past, South Africa did not experience some of the problems that countries with similar histories experienced.

Discussion
Ms Tsoleli said the DAC did not seem to understand what the Committee wanted to hear about as the report did not tell the Committee what it wanted to hear about. She referred to the issue of racist policies of schools regarding the hair of black school children. There was an incident in another part of the country and recently there had been another incident at a school in Cape Town in which a black child was told to go and cut their hair. If black learners had hair like her natural hair, then they would be told that it was too bi’ and to cut it . It was solutions to issues such as these that the Committee wanted to hear about.

Ms Tsoleli said government institutions were not being used effectively or sufficiently in the interests of social cohesion. For example, one never saw anything on SABC about social cohesion. Government radio stations like Lesedi FM should also be used in the interests of social cohesion. These radio stations usually only broadcast in one language but other languages should be included, such as Venda.

Mr Moteka mentioned that in its presentation the DAC had said that South Africa would not host the Rugby World Cup until the national rugby team had transformed and that sports teams were not eligible for financial support from Sport and Recreation South Africa until they had met their transformation targets. Preventing the hosting of international sporting events until national teams met their transformation targets should be applied to all sports federations in order to push for transformation in sports.

He thought that the Chairperson was asking for the DAC’s projects and actions to be measurable.

Ms Mogotsi said the DAC should bring civil society and other departments in to assist on issues of social cohesion. For example, the Department of Social Development could assist with issues related to arts and culture if they were brought on board.                      

Mr A Serote, Director, Social Cohesion for the DAC, said on holding discussions with communities, the DAC engaged communities in these discussions and cited the discussion with the communities around Vuwani as an example. These discussions were held as a direct response to the matter of social cohesion. There were a number of issues in Vuwani, some of them were intergenerational, some of them specific to youth, but in total eight important issues were identified in these conversations. Various people were asked to come and facilitate the conversations and some of these were people that the DAC worked with in the Social Regeneration Movement. But the DAC did not want this to become a matter in which outsiders came and told the community what to do. It therefore canvassed support from leaders in those local communities to assist with finding people to help facilitate the discussions. These discussions started on 8 June and finished on 13 July.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to know about the work that the DAC was doing so that it could look back at projects that were implemented and determine which ones worked well and which ones needed to be strengthened.

Presentation on Mvezo

Mr Ralebipi said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide a briefing to the Committee on the Mvezo site and its position in relation to the Nelson Mandela Museum (NMM).

Mvezo was the birthplace of Nelson Mandela and was the second of three components of the NMM. According to the original departmental concept for developing the site, the first phase was to develop an open-air display and Interpretative Centre aimed at preserving and displaying the remains of President Mandela’s homestead in Mvezo where the President was born, for visitors and tourists. A letter of consent was obtained from the Rural District Council representing the Sitebe Tribal Authority on 26 August 1999. Approval for Permission to Occupy (PTO) the site for both planning and building purposes was obtained from the Provincial Department of Land Affairs on 4 November 1999. The Mvezo site was originally envisaged to be part of the declared cultural institution, the NMM, administered under the Declared Cultural Institutions Act 1999 and a Schedule 3a public entity in accordance with the Public Finance Management Act. As the site contained the physical remains of President Mandela’s homestead where the President was born, Mvezo was also a heritage site with possible archaeological material administered under the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999.    

After the installation of Chief Mandla Mandela, a grandson to President Nelson Mandela, as Chief of the Mvezo Traditional Council, the Chief proceeded to establish a Great Place on the Mvezo site. The first phase was completed and the museum was in the process of implementing the second phase which would have entailed the establishment of cultural performance space, traditional food and historic tours and hikes as the core activities of the envisaged cultural village. Funding from the National Lottery was sourced by the Museum for the development of the infrastructure. The Museum also made a funding application to the then Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and an amount of R5 million was promised from the Environmental Affairs’ poverty alleviation programme. Chief Mandela constructed five rondavels to the right of the ruins of the six original rondavels where President Mandela was born and spent his early formative years. Construction had further been done at the time at the top of the ruins of two of six rondavels. The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), as the authority responsible for issuing relevant permits, had instructed the NMM to immediately stop the developments at Mvezo because no permit was issued and that the development be viewed as unlawful. SAHRA advised that the five rondavels did not comply with the initial infrastructure of the entire architectural structure of the building. Chief Mandela was of the view that the Museum and SAHRA had no legal authority over the development of the site which led to tension with the SAHRA and Museum management. 

The then Minister of Arts and Culture, Minister Pallo Jordan, coordinated a meeting with the then Chairperson of the NNM Council and Chief Mandela to collectively resolve this matter, unfortunately the meeting did not yield positive results. On 1 August 2008, after considering the situation at Mvezo and the continued inability of the museum to operate there, the museum council resolved to review Museum expenditure regarding Mvezo, recall the caretaker, withdraw all operations from Mvezo, and refrain from discussing the matter with the media who had taken a keen interest in the site. On 24 January 2009 the Council confirmed its decision to withdraw operations from Mvezo, resolved to remove Mvezo from promotional material, resolved to avoid dragging Mr Mandela’s name to the courts or media around the matter, to accept that it could no longer operate at Mvezo. On 19 September 2009 the Council reiterated its disengagement from Mvezo and resolved to rescind the Museum’s application to the National Lottery without prejudice to any of the Museum’s future applications or collaborative arrangements. This decision was taken since the Council determined that there was a breakdown in communication and it no longer controlled the site. The last attempt at a solution was when Minister Lulu Xingwana convened a meeting with all the relevant stakeholders: the Chief; the ANC Eastern Cape, the NMM and the National Lottery to resolve this matter. However, the meeting was cancelled.

The DAC spent an amount of approximately R11 million on the development of infrastructure through the DPW for the first phase of Mvezo before Chief Mandela occupied the site. The infrastructure included an outdoor exhibition; viewing deck; pathway to the homestead ruins, septic tank; borehole and water tank for use by the Museum and the village; ablutions facilities; fencing; and landscaping.

Discussion

The Chairperson, on the Museum Council withdrawing all operations from Mvezo, asked the DAC to follow up on this because on its website the Museum Council still claimed that Mvezo was part of its sites. She asked what this meant and why the Museum still counted the Mvezo site as one of its ‘legs’.

Mr Mahlangu said he understood the DAC no longer had anything to do with the Mvezo site.

He said although it might just be a matter of procedure, the country should really have a policy for how it referred to people like Nelson Mandela and other former presidents and that the DAC would probably be crucial in determining this policy. People were not sure whether to refer to people like Nelson Mandela as former President, or President Mandela. He was not sure if the DAC had given any thought to this matter and it was an issue for a country as new as South Africa. Maybe the DAC could refer to American or United Nations (UN) policy in this regard as America referred to all its former presidents as president, for example President Lincoln; and the UN referred to Nelson Mandela as President Nelson Mandela, not the late Nelson Mandela.

Mr Ralebipi said he had noted all the issues that had been raised. He had mentioned that Mvezo was not one of the DAC’s sites anymore and was not sure why the NMM was still referring to it as one of its sites although he could imagine that the NMM was having trouble letting this site go as it was such a significant site.

The Chairperson asked why only a week ago in the newspaper the NMM had said that Mvezo was one of its three ‘legs’.

Mr Ralebipi said he had taken note of and would look into the matters raised by the Committee Members, and would report on the Samora Machel Museum, but that what he had just responded to specifically was why the Nelson Mandela Museum was still referring to Mvezo as one of its sites in its publications.

The Chairperson thanked the DAC and the DPW for their presentations and said that when the Committee met the following Tuesday, that these departments would have ample opportunity to address the issues that the Committee had raised in this meeting.

Adoption of minute
Minutes of the proceedings of the committee’s meetings of 23 and 30 August 2016 were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned