Ministry & Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation on First Quarter Expenditure report

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

20 August 2019
Chairperson: Ms M Semenye (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Human Settlements appeared before the Committee to present its first quarter expenditure report and described how R31.7bn of its R33.9 billion budget for 2019/20 had been allocated to grants – R18.8bn to the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG), and R12.9bn to the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG).

The Committee commented that while some areas had been allocated funds, no expenditure had been incurred during the first quarter. Members said it was understandable for the Department to shift money from poor performing areas or programmes to good performing ones. However, the worry was that the communities concerned may not be pleased with that mechanism owing to their lack of knowledge regarding government processes. They asked the Department if they could come up with another mechanism that that would complement the current one.

Other areas of concern for Members were the cost of temporary residential areas, the inadequate delivery of housing units for military veterans, the 30% portion of the budget which should be ring-fenced to support women in construction, the living conditions in former mining towns and the lack of a Departmental human resource plan. They also wanted to find out more about the Department’s future plans for informal settlements, as previously there had been reference to a human settlements eradication programme, but today the upgrading of informal settlements was being talked about. Had it been accepted that informal settlements were here to stay, or did the Department still have a plan to do away with them?

Meeting report

Mr Mbulelo Tshangana, Director General (DG): Department of Human Settlements (DHS), apologised for the absence of the Deputy Minister. She could not be present as she was attending a conference on "Women in Construction" in Mpumalanga.

Ms L Arries (DA) was displeased with the fact that the Committee Members had received the presentation only a day before the meeting and had not had time to go through all the documents.

The Chairperson agreed that the DG should ensure that documents were submitted in good time. However, the Department would be forgiven this time, as the Committee was also supposed to submit its plan to the Department in time, because it was expecting to have to work during the week.

Ms M Mohlala (EFF) questioned the reason for the Deputy Minister's apology.

The Chairperson explained that the Deputy Minister had a conference on "Women in Construction" in Mpumalanga, and added that the Committee would be sitting the following Tuesday, so any appointment that could be avoided should be avoided.

Ms E Powell (DA) expressed the DA's dissatisfaction that the Deputy Minister had failed to attend the meeting. The Deputy Minister had prioritized her attendance at a conference for a limited sector of South Africans, while the Department for which she was the Deputy Minister was presenting its performance report to Parliament,

DHS: First quarter expenditure report

Ms Funani Matlatsi, Chief Financial Officer (CFO): DHS, and Mr Joseph Leshabane, Deputy Director General: Project and Programme Management unit, briefed the Committee on the first quarter expenditure report. The purpose of the presentation was to describe the Departmental budget structure, the allocation over the 2019 medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) period, and the financial and non-financial performance from April to June 2019.

The Department’s budget structure was divided into four programmes.

Programme one was administration. The purpose of this programme was to provide strategic leadership, management and support services to the Department.

Programme two was human settlements policy, strategy and planning, and aimed to manage the development policy and compliance with human settlements sector delivery and intergovernmental relations frameworks and oversee human settlements strategic and planning services.

Programme three was programme delivery support. The purpose of this programme was to support the execution, monitor and evaluate the implementation of human settlements programmes and projects, to manage the building of capacity and skills in the sector, and provide oversight of public entities.

Programme four was housing development finance. This programme funds the delivery of housing and human settlements programmes, manages all matters related to improving access to housing finance and developing partnerships with the financial sector.

The 2019 MTEF proposal submission was in line with the national budget guidelines. In the current financial year baseline, Cabinet had introduced further budget cuts of R2.2 billion, from R107.8 billion to R105.7 billion.

The Department’s current year’s (2019/20) budget allocation was R33.9 billion, and consisted of the following:

  • R31.7bn of the budget was allocated to grants (93.9%). The Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG) takes R18.8bn, while the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) had been allocated R12.9bn;
  • R1.2bn was allocated to human settlements entities (3.6%);
  • R843.3 million of the budget funded the Department’s operations (2.6%);
  • R14.9 million was for other transfers (0.04%).

The operational budget allocation of R843/3 million was composed of:

  • Compensation of employees, which takes up 48.1% of the total operational allocation;
  • Goods and services (51.5%); and
  • R3.4 million for capital assets (0.4%).


Ms Powell commented that only 49 informal settlements had been assessed, and asked why only Mpumalanga, North West and Gauteng had been considered. Were there other provinces that were not reflecting in the presentation? In Mpumalanga, a Msukaligwa councillor had refused the Professional Resource Team (PRT) access to the settlements for assessment. What had been the Department's reaction to this issue? Why had they been refused access?

Could the Department provide the Committee with a breakdown of the different outcomes per metropolitan municipality regarding the USDG consolidated non-financial information?

Mr M Mashego (ANC) said there were areas that had not been allocated any money. He wanted to know the after effects of not allocating money to good entities, who were not implementing projects in those areas.

Mr Mashego was worried with the statement that the Department would continue doing the "housing job" until Cabinet approved the responsibility for this function, as this might cause a delay over several issues.

He was concerned about the lack of a human resource plan. Its absence would make it difficult for the Department to employ people or fill the positions and the posts that had been left hanging.

He referred to people living in old mining towns, and said some were residing in houses without electricity and water. He asked if the Department had plans to assist people living in areas like that.

Ms Arries asked why only seven houses for military veterans had been delivered. She said that for a number of Municipalities, an amount of R5.3 million had been allocated for temporary shelters, and wanted to know what type of shelters were being referred to in the presentation.

Mr M Tseki (ANC) commented that while the Mangosuthu University of Technology had been allocated R3.5 million, no money had been transferred to the institution yet, and wanted to know why not. He also asked why it had been the only institution that had received an allocation out of all the other institutions in the country.

Regarding the Housing Development Grant expenditure, the Free State, Northern Cape and Limpopo had all under-spent by more than 50%. What were the reasons, and what was being done to ensure that they caught up with the other provinces?

He observed that the Department had transferred R41.8 million to the Mtubatuba Local Municipality for the provision of temporary shelters because a “disaster incident” had occurred. What was the disaster, and where did it take place?

Mr M Mabika (DA) asked for clarity on the issue of expenditure per quarter. Was the Department expected to spend 25% per quarter to reach 100% in four quarters, or did it transfer funds according to what the need was?

He pointed out the need to fast track the bills. This included the bylaws, the Prevention of Illegal Evictions (PIE) bill, and the correction of the Human Settlements names and descriptions.

Regarding the Finance-Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP), the Department should be following the money. There was someone who had received R83 000, but the Department had not followed that money. The person had bought a house, but the house was already occupied, and the estate agent was refusing to evict that person. If the Department had been following the money, they could have seen that there was a problem with that house. The Department should either give out the money when there was no person living in the houses, or ask the beneficiary to look for another house.

Mr Mabika said that according to the presentation, there had been construction by civil engineering services and the design of top structures in John Dube. However, he disagreed with that claim and asserted that there were no built structures in John Dube. The Department should ask whoever was responsible for the project to follow up.

Ms Mohlala (EFF) said that in Kwazulu-Natal (KZN), an amount of R237 million had been allocated for disaster management, and the presentation had also indicated that an additional R647 million had been allocated for the KZN Disaster Recovery Grant. However, the amount had not been reflected in the spreadsheet on slide 12 of the presentation. She asked for clarity as to where the R647 million had been allocated.

Ms Mohlala asked for more information on the R1.8 million that had been transferred to the Mtubabtuba Local Municipality for the provision of 649 temporary shelters.

Ms N Silhlwayi (ANC) was interested in knowing if the Department provided assistance where there was low expenditure and low performance in certain programmes so that they could intervene in good time. Did the Department have a plan to deal with the problems? What were the bottlenecks?

She said that there was confusion regarding the Municipal Emergency Housing Grant. Did a situation where a house got struck by a car qualify as an emergency? Were criteria used to assess the qualifications for the grant?

Why had R10 million been allocated to “households?” What was the "households" project?

Ms G Tseke (ANC) was impressed with the Department’s performance in their the payment of service providers, and commended them for their good work in that area.

She wanted to know the extent to which service providers had been used in the preparation of the Human Settlements bill. The Department was the custodian on human settlements, so why had the bill not been prepared by the Department?

She asked why there was only one catalytic project reflected for Mpumalanga. Did the Department have any other plans going forward?

She asked the Department to report on the governance relating to entities. The budget vote speech had indicated that challenges were being experienced in the entities, especially in governance.

Was the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) part of the Department's entities?

Ms Tseke asked why there was no budget allocated to informal settlement upgrading partnership grants for municipalities and provinces for the year under review.

The Chairperson advised that while the Department provided the Committee with information on the performance of the programmes, it should also provide an indication of how many jobs had been created. There was a need to describe how the sector was going to contribute to job creation. The issue could be deliberated at the workshop if the Department did not have the numbers.

She said that while the mechanism of taking a grant away from where it was not being implemented may seem like a good idea to Members of Parliament, voters may not be pleased with it. They expected government to deliver, but did not understand the challenges it faced in implementing service delivery. She asked if the Department could come up with another mechanism to complement the current one.

Department’s response

Mr Leshabane confirmed that the Department reported only on informal settlements assessed and the plans made, as they were completed. There was a much larger target – 2 200 – but it reported only on those that had been completed.

The incident in Msukaligwa was a common phenomenon when the Department gets to approach municipalities where there is conflict with local leadership. A lot of time is spent on agreeing and renegotiating when there is a misunderstanding.

The USDG output values were available, and the Department would make all the breakdowns per metro available to the Committee.

Regarding how the Department mitigates non-expenditure, under-delivery and under-expenditure, the Department first looks at the project pipeline to see which projects are ready and which ones could be funded and be implemented. However, there were many pieces that shift. Certain projects do not perform. That was why every quarter, the Department monitors the projects’ progress. Where there was a lag, it intervenes in the province concerned. In some cases it does involve having to re-prioritise projects, depending on the situation on the ground.

He referred to the consequences for non-performance, and said the Department was administering a system that included concurrence. The executive authority lay in the province - the Department administers a grant to a province, which then had to implement. The framework allowed for the Department to provide support, but intervention took a long time. It was rather better to deal with a soft intervention. As a last resort, because of the fiscal framework that says funding the funding principle is “spend it or lose it,” the consequence was that if they did not spend it, they would lose it as a province. By extension, if the Department did not intervene to make sure that that money was spent, that money was lost from the sector. That was why the Department had to intervene to make sure that the funds were shifted to support the programmes that were running. The consequences were the there. The reality was that the material under-expenditure becomes an audit concern. Therefore, the accounting officer, whether in the Department or in the province, had to meet those consequences as per the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

The Department was aware that in areas where mines had closed, there were assets that had to be distributed. There was need to investigate that on a case by case basis, because the closure of a mine was a highly regulated procedure. Working with the municipalities, the Department would have to deal separately with the occupants of those houses and see how best they could be assisted.

Regarding the temporary shelters that were the subject of the Emergency Housing Grant, there were minimum norms defined. There was a "Rolls Royce" option. They wanted to create a transitional development arm between the municipality and the province so that as they relocate families from disaster prone areas, they could then transition them through this mechanism. They tended to opt for more durable solutions, because it was facility that allowed for reuse over time. In other instances, municipalities or provinces would opt to say that while they were looking for a permanent solution, they should deliver a temporary shelter, given that the houses were damaged. It was a structure that was temporary by nature. The structure had to meet minimum requirements in respect of temperatures, and varied depending on whether they would be used by one family or a multiplicity of families.

In the case of Mtubatuba, houses had been damage by rainfall. They were traditional houses that tended to become weak over time. Therefore, the municipality, engaging with the province, had applied to access the grant. The numbers in the presentation referred to the response to those houses that had collapsed because of the elements.

Mr Leshabane said that there was need to draw a distinction between the Emergency Housing Grant and the Disaster Grant. The disaster management regime required that when there was an incident, the disaster management centres based in the districts or metros had to respond to deliver immediate relief. Whether it was classified as a local or national disaster, that process was time consuming. On the other hand, that same regime says that every sector must respond within its mandate. The Department had introduced the Emergency Housing Grant to be able to respond as a sector to the emergency housing needs of households following an incident. The two had to be seen as complementary. They were not one and the same.

With the KZN floods that occurred in April, while the process of declaring a provincial or national disaster was taking place, the Department had had to attend to the issue on the ground, document the families in order to work with the municipality and produce a grant to provide the affected families with shelter. That was how different the grant was, as compared to the disaster grant that was sitting with Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), which takes a long time to be approved. Because the grant could be accessed by municipalities and provinces, the focus of the Department had been to empower municipalities and provinces to know the requirements and how to access the grant.

As per the Minister's pronouncement in the budget speech, all the Members of Executive Councils (MECs) accepted the title deeds programme and the initiative. The Department was aware that the provinces and municipalities were handing out title deeds, especially now. At the end of the month, the Department would get the figures and make them available. The numbers would be tallied and the Department would be able to provide an update.

Mr Leshabane said that the informal settlement upgrading grant was intended to come into effect only in the next financial year. Currently, the upgrading of informal settlements was funded through the existing grant. The Department was creating that grant to focus specifically on upgrading informal settlements. At the moment, the grant was at the discretion of the provinces -- they could do other things. The Department was cutting out that option so that there could be a deliberate and sharper focus on the upgrading of informal settlements.

Regarding the catalytic projects, when the programme started all provinces had been invited to make proposals. At the point where time was allocated from Mpumalanga, that was the catalytic project that was being implemented. However, the possibility of opportunity had been there. There were other projects in the provinces as well, and while the Department was reporting on 50, there were other projects -- it would be declaring 94 priority human settlement development areas. Most of them contained different types of projects and programmes. In Mpumalanga, for example, there were about 12 priority settlement development areas. Different provinces had made different proposals. The Department was negotiating with municipalities and provinces. That process was envisaged to end by end of September, at which point the Department would work towards finalising it. Those projects would ensure that there was balance across the provinces.

In John Dube, the Department was implementing services on site. What was being reported was that work was being done on the design of top structures. It was not about construction. The Department was not there yet -- it was at the design stage.

Ms Matlatsi said that there were many reasons why the Department had not achieved the 25% quarterly split, particularly in quarter one. Some of the procurement processes delay the process of transferring funds until late in the quarter. The Department was trying to be conservative with the money because the more the money goes to the provinces, the more it generates interest for the province -- but it does not get spent for the purpose that it was intended for. The Department was trying to be cautious about that. There was need to come up with a method of not taking money away from the provinces. However, if money was in the province, nothing could be done about it. They had powers to use it, whether they spent it at the end of the year or not. Even National Treasury did not have the power, except in the case of rollovers, when the provincial treasuries were expected to send money back to National Treasury.

Regarding the Social Housing Regulator, the Department had not transferred money as far as institutional investment was concerned, as well as the structures in the capital grant. What happens is that money gets allocated in the first year. They would request funding and provide the Department with cash flow per quarter, but if the institution did not request any money in the first quarter, the Department was not able to transfer it. It could be transferred only upon approval and upon request, depending on the need of the entity within the quarter. This meant they could not request the money if they would not be able to spend it. Those were the processes that the Department follows.

Money that was not transferred was used for gearing up the capacity of the social housing institutions that needed to be accredited by the social housing regulatory authority. The process was usually very long, but at the end of the year, that R21 million tended to be a relatively small amount.

Ms Matlatsi said that the Department had a scholarship programme. The MOU with the Mangosuthu University of Technology was to enable the Department to fund some of the activities related to human settlements as a degree or a diploma. The MOU was between the Department and the University, but the funding could be transferred only upon request from the university.

Regarding the "houshold" economic classification, the amount in the presentation was R10 000, and not R10 million. Household was an economic item that was classified as an item related to the leave gratuity. If people resigned or went on pension, there were a number of leave days owing, so the Department compensates for those days.

The money transferred to Mtubatuba had been allocated to the areas that were affected. The Department had a list of all areas where the money was allocated, and could make it available to the Committee.

The Department was continuing with the upgrading of informal settlements grant programme. There was funding in this financial year which had been included in the HSDG. The Department had come up with a specific grant for the upgrading of informal settlements because it was realised that they were not being given the attention they deserved. It had been having meetings with the metros as well as the provinces in order to be ready by the time the upgrading of informal settlements grant became available.

Ms Matlatsi explained the additional R647 million that had been allocated specifically for KwaZulu-Natal. R247 million was for this financial year, and R400 million for the following two years (R200 million per year). These amounts were intended to cater for all disasters.

Ms Matlatsi said that the rationale for coming up with a cash flow forecast was to plan the budget appropriately. If the provinces or metros were to request money at random times, it would be a disaster for National Treasury. The Department manages the cash flow through National Treasury, which was why it had come up with a system of trans-payment, or payment schedule.

The Free State had a challenge with their reporting. In their reports, they would have money spent but would not have the performance indicated. The Department required progress to be reported when the sites had already been established. It had agreed with the Free State that when they report on their expenditure, they needed to provide information on the stage at which a project was, so that kind of anomaly was being sorted out. At the next workshop ,the Members would be provided with an understanding of how performance and financial reporting had been following each other.

Mr Neville Chainee, Deputy Director General: Strategy and Planning: DHS, said that the delay in completing of the human resources plan was that the Department was linking it to the 2019/2024 MTSF. The reason was that in the previous MTSF (2014/2019), there had been substantial amount of additional responsibility put on to the Department, particularly in relation to value for money, monitoring and evaluation and programme and project management, because there had been a substantial amount of poor performances. The plan would be presented by the end of October.

He said South Africa had adopted a comprehensive plan in 2014, and was one of the first countries to start the concept of integrated human settlement development. In 2009, there had been the move from the Department of Housing to Human Settlements. Now, the Department was retrofitting the legislative framework in order to be in line with the entire body of policy and legislation that the Department had been developing. It was important to note that the Housing Act had also been far reaching and forward thinking. What the Department was doing, together with the Presidency and COGTA, was retrofitting some of those issues because in the constitution, some of the responsibilities, particularly relating to water, sanitation as well as the human settlements integration, fell within the municipal state. As a result, a human settlements development grant had been developed  to allow metropolitan municipalities to look at the totality of human settlement development.

Mr Chainee said that  Department had a model that tracks and measures employment -- the direct, the indirect and the induced – and could report on that.

The Department had a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. On a monthly and quarterly basis, its planning and compliance units go out to undertake the monitoring measures, together with active investigation of what the provinces and municipalities do. It then prepares reports which were available for Members.

Ms Sindisiwe Ngxongo, Chief Operations Officer: DHS, said the Department did sign MOUs with other institutions of higher learning, not only the Mangosuthu University of Technology. However, these were based on their areas of expertise and the need for the Department to piggyback on their expertise. For example, the Department had an MOU with Nelson Mandela University, which was assisting it on education and research. The Department had a human settlement qualification which was done in consultation with this university, and short courses were already being offered. Other universities had joined in assisting it in offering human settlement qualifications. In the case of Mangusuthu University of Technology, the MOU was in line with innovative business technology, which was a focus of the Department. The university was expected to develop a curriculum and offer a post-graduate diploma in that area. The curriculum had already been developed, but it was going through the approval processes with the Department of Higher Education and the Council of Hgher Education.

Regarding the governance of the entities, the Department was and oversight on the governance matters of the entities in respect of the board appointments, as it was the responsibility of the executive authority to appoint the boards. The Department manages the governance aspects of all its the entities. On quarterly basis, the Department conducts a review session of its entities. The sessions cover all areas, such as governance, compliance, risk and performance. The entities also present their annual performance reports to the Portfolio Committee individually and the Department comes with them. More information would be provided in the coming workshop.

Mr Tshangana added that it was important for the Department to report on a quarterly basis on how the entities were performing from a governance perspective, and how they were managed. They were monitored on a quarterly basis. The Department received reports on a quarterly basis.

He said that the cost of a transit unit, or temporary residential unit, varied from one specification to the next.

He said that the bills would be expedited, especially the Human Settlements Development Bill. The intention was to pass it in the last term. The Department would expedite all of them at least within the first year or two of this term.

Mr Tshangana said that the the Department had taken note of the idea of keeping the money where it was appropriated within the provinces. Shifting the funds from poor performing provinces to good performing provinces was always employed as a last resort. The Department wanted the money to be spent where it was appropriated. At the same time, however, it wanted to make sure that the sector did not lose the funds.

Further discussion

Mr Tseki said that the catalytic projects were called “mega projects” in Gauteng. The naming of the projects was very important. The Department should look into that.

He said that it would be great see the realisation of the comprehensive approach to monitoring and evaluation. This administration was starting now. The Committee wanted to be on its toes, and the Department had already committed to responding in the same vein. There were many challenges on the ground. The commitment of the Department would bring back the confidence to in the government.

Ms Arries said she was not satisfied with the cost of temporary housing. The structures were being vandalised and a lot of money was being lost as a result. If money was put into temporary structures, the Department had to make sure that that structure could be used again by another family.

Mr Mashego asked if it was the responsibility of a service provider to develop the bills.

He said that over time, there had been an inter-change in the use of the word “informal” settlements. Some time ago, it used to be a human settlement eradication programme, but today there was the issue of upgrading informal settlements. He asked if it had been accepted that informal settlements were here to stay. Did the Department still have a plan to do away with them?

Ms Silhlwayi referred to women-owned entities, and said that it was a very progressive programme in the Department. How was this going to be mobilised among women and youths in all nine provinces? Had a strategy been developed to make women and youths understand that the programme was meant for them, thereby preventing having only a few individuals benefiting?

She said that the Eastern Cape had mining sites which had some problems. The presentation had identified programmes that attempt to normalise communities within a mining area. Recently in KwaZulu-Natal, people had identified a site for mining gold, where mothers and children wake up very early in the morning to get to it. One would like to know if the Department was involved in that. There was an influx that was causing huge conflict within the area

Ms Silhlwayi was concerned that about the seven housing units delivered for military veterans. It did not make sense to have only seven units, given the number of military veterans in the country. She asked if the Department was happy with that. Did it have a database of military veterans in the country so that it should develop a programme of intervention in different provinces?

The Chairperson asked about the 30% of budget ring-fenced for women developers. The Minister had said that there was no problem with 50%, and the Department was moving towards it. She asked for more information on the issue.

Department’s response

Mr Tshangana responded that at the beginning, the 30% was treated as a minimum, not the maximum. The Department had gone further to recommend that it should be in the Division of Revenue Act (DORA), because if it was not in the DORA, no one would take it seriously -- it would not be enforceable and the provinces would do as they wished. Unfortunately, it was not in the DORA this year, and that was the worrying part. When it was in the DORA, the provincial heads of departments (HODs) would feel the enforcement. If there was no Treasury instrument to enforce it, it was not going to be done. It could be seen that some provinces were doing well while others were not doing well. The CFO gets reports on a monthly basis. The Department names and shames the MECs that are not prioritisng this particular area. The way it worked was that a province was allocated a budget and 30% of it should be ring-fenced for women developers and contractors. Some provinces had been doing well. There was a time when Mpumalanga was sitting at 50% for women developers and contractors. Eastern Cape had also been doing well, but they had regressed in the last year or two.

He said the Acting DG of the Department of Military Veterans (DMV) was paying particular attention to the housing issue. The intention was to start with the non-statutory military veterans -- those coming from the former liberation movements. The administration of the database was the DMV’s job, and the construction of the houses was the DHS’s job. There had been a lot of changes in the database. The majority on non-statutory beneficiaries had been taken care of, and that was why the DMV was now struggling to find the real beneficiaries. Some of the veterans had benefited when the houses were 36 square metre units, and now they wanted to be accommodated in the 50 square meter houses. Some wanted to be deregistered, which was not a problem, as they could allocate the house to those who had not benefited.

Regarding the Informal Settlement Upgrade (ISU) grant, the intention of the Department was to prioritise a package of basic services, including water, sanitation and roads so that they could become habitable. The intention was make informal settlements habitable for people, even if they did not have a housing unit.

Mr Tshangana said the newly discovered mining site in KZN was not categorised as a mining town. For the areas that were categorised as mining towns, a decision had been taken in the previous term of government to prioritise them for human settlements development. For now, that excluded the new mining site in KZN.

He said the Department did not rely on service providers to write the bills. They were used as specialists who guided the drafting of them, but the actual drafting was done by the Department. The use of service providers was very minimal.

The cost of temporary residential areas (TRAs) was a valid concern. The way the Department had mitigated that risk was to make sure it did not demolish the structures. While building the settlements, the people had to be moved into the TRAs. Over time those TRAs had to be maintained and kept in good shape, and the Department refurbishes them.

Mr Tshangana said that social housing was the future of human settlements. There was a need to watch the administration and management of social housing institutions. There was pressure on social housing because people thought that social housing units were subsidised by the government, so they should not be paying. At the end of the day, social housing institutions had to manage their cash flows and its finances. If they could not manage them, they could not survive over time.

The meeting was adjourned.



Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: