CGE State of Shelters report: adoption

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

10 November 2020
Chairperson: Ms R Semenya (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee met on a virtual platform to consider, discuss and adopt a report commissioned by the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) on the readiness and state of shelters in South for the victims of gender-based violence.

The report compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers detailed that there remained inefficiencies in the provision of shelter to the victims of gender-based violence. It found that the Department of Human Settlements was not prepared and still had not defined what a shelter was.

The report incensed Members who wanted to ascertain how hard it could really be to define what a shelter was. They called on the Committee to call on the Department to ensure that they implemented all policies by June 2021. Members recalled that the Department (government) had the power to play a decisive role and that poor people relied on government to come to their rescue.

The meeting descended into acrimony later on when the various sets of minutes came up for discussion. The DA charged that the minutes submitted to the Committee did not reflect reality and that all views should be captured in these minutes. The DA also took issue with another set of minutes that did not detail that the Committee had rejected a presentation by the Department based on a lack of substantive information. They also highlighted that even reports from the Parliamentary Monitoring Group are generally more comprehensive and reflected the views of every party represented in the Committee. Opposition parties also called for greater participation in decision-making structures of Parliament.

This was rejected by the ANC majority, whose Members maintained that the minutes do not necessarily have to reflect every single opinion raised by each part.

The exchange culminated to the Chairperson requesting the staff to remove one of the DA Members from the meeting.

Meeting report

Opening remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting by welcoming Members. In her opening remarks, she noted that the Committee was also supposed to meet with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), who had indicated that they would be meeting with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) during this time. The Chairperson than agreed that the Committee would meet with CoGTA later, in the evening. She thought it important that the CoGTA report should be included as she did not want to lose the assigned slot.

She then turned towards the business of the day and indicated that that the report up for consideration by the Committee had been referred by the Speaker of Parliament. She informed Members that the investigative report had been compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), on behalf of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), on the status of shelters in the country.

Discussion

Ms E Powell (DA) wanted to ascertain why Mr Sabelo Mnguni, the Committee Content Advisor, did not conduct the briefing on the CGE.

Mr R Mashego (ANC) echoed Ms Powell’s comment. He said that the CGE was supposed to present the report. He added that there had been an ‘’element where the Department had a workshop’’. He stressed that it was confusing as he did not know what the Committee intended to achieve with the document in front of it. He called it a “general report without clear outcome areas” and said that the Department did not illustrate how it intended to meet the set objectives. He expressed his reservations about the Department being able to meet all obligations post June 2021 in the absence of the two parties finding common ground.

Ms S Mokgotho (EFF) concurred with the views expressed by Mr Mashego. She stated that it had been 26 years since the inception of democratic governance and yet still the Department did not know how to define shelters. She called on the Department to ensure that they delivered and provided gender-based violence (GBV) victims with shelter.

The Chairperson said the Committee Secretary had indicated at the start of the meeting that Mr Mnguni would be joining the meeting later. The Committee Secretary had offered her apologies as she only forwarded the agenda of the meeting to Members.

The Chairperson stressed that GBV was a cross-cutting issue that required a collaborative effort on the part of government and civil society that ensured better coordination on the matter. To date, these various role-players had not found each other. The only thing that the Committee could do was to interrogate the report as directed by the Speaker. The Department had to finalise the policy by June 2021.

She called on Members to adopt the report.

Ms N Mvana (ANC) moved to adopt the report.

Mr Mashego expressed his misgivings about the challenges of the Department to define shelters. He stated that the Committee should not be held back by “technical things”. The Committee should do a follow-up with the Department to ensure that the matter was finalised speedily.

Ms Mokgotho was also adamant that the Department (government) had the power to provide shelter if they so wished. She recalled that GBV was a problem in South Africa and would continue to be. She asked where poor people were supposed to go as the Department was their only hope.

The Members eventually adopted the report with the proviso that the Committee would engage the Department on the progress made on the policy.

Consideration and adoption of Committee meeting minutes

Minutes dated 31 July 2020

The minutes were unanimously adopted.

Minutes dated 27 August 2020

Ms Powell labelled the prepared minutes a “joke” that made a mockery of the Committee. She said that the minutes failed to mention that the Committee unanimously rejected the presentation by the Department. The presentation had been rejected as it did not include pertinent information. She added that she had a recording and dedicated meeting minutes to back up her claim. The Department, she said, omitted key information.

The Chairperson indicated that report did have a line that reflected the Committee’s opinion.

Ms Powell did not agree with the response by the Chairperson and informed her that the minutes were not an accurate reflection of what had been discussed in the meeting. Various discrepancies had been flagged such as Travel with Flair that sent an invoice that detailed the company had hosted about 2 000 people. She asked the Committee to be cognisant of the fact that this supposed event took place on 9 May 2020, right in the middle of a lockdown that prevented such large gatherings.

The meeting got more heated with Ms Powell questioning why the ANC did not want to discuss these ‘’obvious inaccuracies” and why it seemed as if the ANC was covering for these companies.

The Chairperson tried to intercede and asked Ms Powell to refrain from making certain remarks.

Ms Powell, however, continued insistent that the prepared minutes did not reflect reality and that the Chairperson could not stop her from making remarks.

The Chairperson responded that the minute’s summary contained all the issues that been raised by Members and that two meetings were already held on the matter.

Mr Mashego added that once Members compartmentalised their views, it would not be Committee minutes anymore per se. He took issue with the aspersions cast on the ANC by Ms Powell. He stated that Members should not politicise such matters.

Ms Powell stuck to her premise that the Committee rejected the presentation as it had been devoid of substantive information. She recalled that the Committee called on the Department provide all outstanding information before close of business in that week of 27 August 2020.

She reminded Members that they had also been specific about the information they wanted. The Department had been asked to furnish information on unit costs, the quanta, and the amount spent on land purchases and spending on temporary structure per province. The Committee also requested information on the contract agreements. She also added that Members had chastised the Director-General (DG) of the Department. This led to the DG issuing an apology.

The Chairperson indicated that the minutes did indicate that Members expressed their displeasure with the inadequate report. In her view this had been the same as “rejected”.

Mr Mashego agreed with the Chairperson’s comments.

The Chairperson then called on Members to adopt the minutes.

Ms Powell moved for the minutes to be adopted with the DA’s proposed amendments.

Mr Mashego seconded the adoption of the report with an amendment that stated that the Committee rejected the presentation.

At this juncture, Ms Powell withdrew her earlier decision to move for adoption. She explained that the minutes had to detail why Members rejected the presentation.

The Chairperson replied that Members’ concerns had been included in the minutes.

Ms Powell interjected and disputed the Chairperson’s comments. She called it a “whitewash”.

The meeting got heated and Mr Mashego called on Ms Powell to respect the meeting.

The minutes were eventually adopted with the DA abstaining.

Minutes dated 23 October 2020

Ms Powell, on behalf of the DA, also expressed her exasperation with these set of minutes. She informed Members that a parliamentary monitor of the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) normally sits in on Committee meetings and also recorded these meetings. A verbatim report was then drafted. She said that the PMG minutes proved to be illuminating – especially with regards to the section where the DA and the EFF requested that opposition parties should be part of the Committee that approved Committee reports.

She reminded the Chairperson that the letter had indicated that she would come back to the Committee regarding the DA and EFF’s request.  She stressed that the succinct minutes by PMG provided much more detail than the minutes presented to the Committee.

She called on Members to acknowledge that the minutes presented had been insufficient and lacked substantive content. She said that she would be happy to submit the DA’s amendments in writing for consideration.

She also reminded the Chairperson that Mr Mashego chaired this meeting. She reiterated her stance that the minutes should reflect why the DA and the EFF offered a blanket rejection. The minutes did not provide the real picture. She once again referred to PMG’s more substantive minutes that indicated why the DA had rejected the minutes. She stressed that it was important to indicate this. Otherwise, it might seem that the DA was trying to be belligerent.

Mr Mashego disagreed profusely with Ms Powell. He stated that if Ms Powell read the minutes correctly she would see that it included her views as well. He added that PMG had its own style of writing reports. In the meeting under discussion, the DA’s and EFF’s concerns and subsequent proposals had been put up for a vote (to provide verbatim minutes). Their proposals had been rejected by majority Members. He thus failed to fathom why Ms Powell would bring up the same issue when it was already rejected. According to Mr Mashego, Members would consistently differ with the posture that the Committee should have minutes that detailed what every Member said.

The Chairperson noted the comments by Ms Powell and stated that Parliament was not a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and that Parliament wrote minutes in the interest of Parliament, whereas NGOs write for their respective constituencies or “for the interests of others”. She noted that she wanted “collectiveness” in how the Committee dealt with Committee minutes. She thus also agreed with Mr Mashego’s comments and also added that Hansard captured Members verbatim.

Ms Powell was not happy with the replies by the Chairperson and Mr Mashego. She stated that she never said that minutes had to be verbatim. She merely asked that minutes be substantive and included the views of all political parties. She reminded Members that parliamentary rules allowed for minority views to be included and respected. She advanced that Committee minutes were continuously subjected to a whitewash.

She called on the Chairperson to ensure that the reasons advanced by opposition parties should be included. She once again reminded Members that PMG also provided verbatim recordings of all meetings from which they transcribed their reports. The minutes provided by PMG were completely different. She asked that her objections be noted.

Mr M Tseki (ANC) cautioned Ms Powell to avoid what she was doing and be specific. He pointed out that Ms Powell might wish to challenge all future minutes on the basis that it did not include all the comments by individual Members. Mr Tseki did not agree with this. He recalled that the Chairperson did indicate that she would furnish opposition parties with a reply regarding their request to be part of the committee that approved all Committee reports.

He reminded Ms Powell that the minutes always reflected the views of all political parties.

The ANC Members unanimously rejected the DA’s proposals and adopted the minutes.

Minutes dated 3 November 2020

The Chairperson called for the minutes to be adopted.

Mr Mashego proposed that the Committee had to deal with this set of minutes in the same way it dealt with the minutes related to the CGE. According to him, the minutes were a true reflection of the meeting. He moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mvana seconded the motion.

The minutes were adopted.

Request by opposition parties to form part of management committee

On the matter of opposition representation on the Committee’s management committee (manco), the following issues were raised by the Chairperson.

She explained that the management committee in question did not approve Committee Reports as alleged. Parliamentary procedure dictated that all Committee Reports had to be submitted to this management committee for its perusal. The department was a combination of two departments, namely, human settlements as well as water and sanitation. According to the Chairperson, it was important to merge the two. Otherwise, there will be conflicting interaction, as the Committee dealt with programmes and the management thereof. She stated that “we had to bring them together so that we could be able to share and deal with the programme and reports as well as the minutes of the Committee”. She was at pains to explain that no decisions had been taken at this management committee that were filtered down to the Committee she chaired.

She further added that Mr Mashego formed part of the management committee, as the Whip of the majority party – the ANC. He was there to ensure that whatever policy decisions had been taken did not run afoul of the ANC’s manifesto. The ANC was the governing party in the country and led Parliament. This gave the ANC the mandate to implement its manifesto. This system did not cater for opposition parties as Mr Mashego was there to ensure that the policies of the ruling party were implemented. That is why he was invited. She stated that the Committee had to align to the ANC’s policy decisions and that this had nothing to do with party representation.

Ms Powell reminded the Chairperson that the meeting was being recorded and that she was genuinely stunned about the Chairperson’s comments about Mr Mashego’s role on the Committee in question. She recalled that the Chairperson just told parliamentarians that the ANC Whip sat on a structure that was supposed to only comprise of parliamentary officials. She then reminded the Chairperson that parliamentarians were not there to implement government policies. Parliamentarians represented the interests of those who voted for them and to hold government to account. The committee in question dealt with the programme and agenda of meetings by impartial civil servants. She wondered whether the Chairperson realised what she just said.

Ms Powell recalled that Mr Mashego had just read from a set of minutes that she did not receive. According to Ms Powell, Committee minutes had been edited outside of the Committee. She accused the Chairperson and Mr Mashego of editing the minutes of 23 October 2020 without the input of the Committee.

In a heated exchange, Ms Powell exclaimed: “don’t come to this Committee and say decisions are not taken outside of the Committee; that impacts the work of the Committee.”

The Chairperson said Ms Powell had twisted her words. She asked Ms Powell to stop making further remarks. She then called on Mr Mashego to comment.

Mr Mashego said that the ANC was the governing party and Parliament had to implement the governing party’s manifesto.

Ms Powell interjected.

Mr Mashego took issue with Ms Powell’s posture and reminded her that he listened to her when she commented. He asked her to allow him to finish as well.

He reminded Ms Powell that the ANC won the election and that it is not co-governing with the DA. It is also correct that minority views had to be catered for. This did not mean that the minority view would carry the day. The ANC is the governing party until the next round of elections.

Ms Powell replied that the Committee was derelict in its duties and failed to fulfil its enshrined mandate. She charged that the Committee had violated rules and she was not swayed by the ANC’s comments.

The meeting descended into a shouting match between Ms Powell, Mr Mashego and the Chairperson.

The Chairperson ruled Ms Powell as being out of order.

Ms Powell indicated that she would like the DA’s objections to be noted. She continued to express her displeasure.

The meeting once again descended into near chaos.

The Chairperson eventually asked the staff to remove Ms Powell from the meeting.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their 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: