Committee Report on 2021/2022 Consolidated Local Government Municipal Audit Outcomes

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson said that the meeting was for the Committee to consider its report on the local government audit outcomes, following a report that the Committee had received from the Auditor-General on the 2021/2022 Consolidated Local Government Audit Outcomes.

Committee Report on 2021/2022 Local Government Audit Outcomes

Mr Moses Manele, Committee Secretary, read through the observations and recommendations of the report.

Mr C Smit (DA, Limpopo) said that he did not support the recommendation that the Committee proposed for implementing the District Development Model (DDM) because of serious issues with that model.

The Chairperson noted Mr Smit’s reservation about the District Development Model. He said there was no way that the Committee could omit the recommendation for the institutionalisation and implementation of the DDM. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the DDM.

Mr R Badenhorst (DA, Western Cape) agreed with Mr Smit. He said that the DA could not support the report if it called for the institutionalisation of the DDM. The DDM is against the Constitution.

Ms B Bartlett (ANC, Northern Cape) said that she heard the concerns of the DA Members, but the Chairperson had correctly clarified that the DDM was a government policy. She moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms M Dlamini (EFF) said some municipalities are of grave concern. She suggested that the Committee should conduct an oversight visit to Joe Morolong local municipality in the Northern Cape because it was concerning that it had received a disclaimed audit opinion for seven consecutive years. She understood the Committee’s urgency to conduct oversight visits at metropolitan municipalities, but the Committee should not ignore the rural municipalities that continue to have unfavourable audit outcomes. She also felt that the Committee should prioritise municipalities on the verge of breakdown, such as Emalahleni local municipality in Mpumalanga.

The Chairperson agreed with Ms Dlamini in principle. He reminded the Committee that it had already planned to go to Gauteng, which will include an oversight visit to Emfuleni local municipality – which has problems with its wastewater treatment system. He said the Committee’s programme would also include oversight visits to the Northern Cape and Eastern Cape.

Mr E Mthethwa (ANC, KZN) agreed with Ms Dlamini’s comment that the Committee should prioritise oversight visits to the municipalities that continue to have unfavourable audit outcomes, especially municipalities that continue to have a disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion. He seconded the adoption of the report.

Mr Smit suggested that the Committee conduct an oversight visit to the Midvaal local municipality, which was an example of good practice. He recalled that the Auditor-General had indicated that the Midvaal local municipality has a very good practice of implementing the Integrated Development Plans (IDP).

The Chairperson replied that three municipalities were examples of good practice. He agreed that the Committee could learn from such municipalities.

Ms S Shaikh (ANC, Limpopo) supported adopting the report. She noted her objection to the comment that the DDM is unconstitutional.

The Chairperson said that the report should indicate the DA’s reservation on the recommendation to implement the DDM because it is not the policy of the DA.

Mr Smit clarified that he did not say that the DDM was not the DA’s policy. He said that the DDM is questionable in terms of its constitutionality. The DDM has not been approved in any structure of government.

The Chairperson said that Mr Badenhorst implied that the report was institutionalising the DDM, which is against the DA’s policy.

Mr Badenhorst clarified that the DA could not support institutionalising something that has not passed constitutional muster.

The Chairperson disagreed that the DDM did not pass constitutional muster. The Constitutional Court did not make a ruling to say that the DDM is unconstitutional. He said that the DDM is a government policy. However, the report will note the DA’s objection on the basis that the report recommends the implementation of the DDM.

Mr Badenhorst clarified that he was not against the report. He agreed that the report contained some very good recommendations, but he did not agree that the Committee should institutionalise something not tested in the Constitution. He supported the report but did not support the recommendation to institutionalise and implement the DDM.

The Chairperson said he understood what Mr Badenhorst said, but the DDM is a constitutional government policy – the Constitutional Court has not challenged it. The Committee has a responsibility to oversee the implementation of the DDM. He understood that the DA has reservations about the implementation of the DDM.

Ms Bartlett said that the Chairperson had clarified everything. She urged for the adoption of the report.

Ms Shaikh agreed with Ms Bartlett.

The Chairperson noted the adoption of the report, with the DA’s reservation on the recommendation to institutionalise and implement the DDM.

The meeting was adjourned.