Human Settlements Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report
Meeting Summary
Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR)
The Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements met in a virtual meeting to consider its Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) for the human settlements portfolio.
Members complained that they had received a copy of the report very late, which had prevented them from analysing it thoroughly, and asserted that this might have been a deliberate ploy, considering the poor quality of the contents. They cited numerous examples where recommendations made by the Committee had been omitted, as well as several grammatical errors. They agreed that the Committee could not accept the report in its current form.
The Committee staff was directed to listen to the recordings of previous meetings, as well as the current meeting, reflect on what had been raised, and redo the entire report for adoption at a later date.
Meeting report
The Chairperson welcomed everyone, and asked the Committee content advisor to proceed with the Committee reports, which were based on the annual reports of the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) and its entities. The Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) also considered the findings in the Auditor-General’s (AG's) report on the DHS. If adopted by the Committee, the report would be further debated in the plenary. He apologised for sending the report to Members only yesterday, but this was a result of challenges faced by the Committee’s Secretariat.
Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements
The report gave an outline of the performance of entities owned by the DHS. It also included the AG's findings in relation to the Mpumalanga and Free State provinces, which had received unqualified audit opinions with findings on compliance-related matters. The AG also made the following recommendations to the Committee, which were included in the report:
- The DHS and its entities were required to measure and report on their actual service delivery performance against its predetermined objectives and targets.
- It should implement adequate consequence management processes, as the lack thereof has resulted in a culture of unaccountability within the Department.
The BRRR had the following recommendations.
- The Committee was concerned about irregular expenditure in provinces, especially in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). It recommended that all provinces should adhere to supply chain management (SCM) principles, and the Department must provide training and ensure adequate consequence management.
- The Committee raised concerns about the non-compliance of the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) and Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) boards. The PPRA board had determined their own remuneration without the approval of the Minister. The Committee recommended that the boards ensure the Minister's concurrence in determining and approving the remuneration of board members in all human settlements entities. The Department should also ensure entities are in compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) to circumvent fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
- The Committee also recommended that legacy issues identified in the 6th administration report should be analysed and addressed. The Department must provide a continuous update on progress on issues identified in the legacy report.
- The Committee recommended that all provinces receive the necessary support to submit financial material to the AG. The Department should adopt a strategy to ensure provinces remain compliant.
- The Committee also recommended that the Department ensure the protection of whistle-blowers in the human settlements sector.
- The Department should also ensure appropriate monitoring and evaluation instruments to ensure that funds were spent appropriately.
- The Department must ensure that the emergency housing programme is flexible, to cater for different emergency situations in all provinces.
- The Department should work faster to ensure discrepancies are solved in the housing needs register and the Housing Subsidy System (HSS).
Discussion
The Chairperson asked Committee Members to provide their inputs or objections to the content of the report.
Ms B Kegakilwe (ANC) said the report was of very poor quality and did not reflect the discussions during the meetings. The report had been deliberately sent late to Committee Members to ensure they could not go through it. She said page 1 was inaccurate, and had many spelling errors. There was a lot of repetition, and page 8 did not indicate what Members had advised. There were more spelling mistakes on page 11, and the reflections of the AG could not be understood clearly. The Committee had agreed that there was no consequence management being implemented, but the report stated it was adequate, or the Department must do more, which was not a true reflection of what had been said -- that there was no consequence management. She said the issue on page 18 was clarified, but it was still reflected in the report, and there were even more spelling mistakes on this page. This report mostly did not reflect what had been discussed in the meetings with entities and the AG.
She reiterated that the report was of very poor quality, and made it seem that Committee Members did not understand their work. The writer must go back and listen to what had been discussed in the meeting, as they had written their own recommendations and were very selective in what they included in the report. So many issues had been left out, and key recommendations were not in this report. It was an intentional move to send Committee Members the report a few hours before the meeting to ensure they did not flag these issues. This reflected very badly on the Portfolio Committee.
Mr L Mphithi (DA) agreed with Ms Kegakilwe's comments -- there were so many grammatical errors in this report, and it was a very bad report. He said the Committee needed to look at the types of reports it worked with and wanted to send to Parliament. Besides this report being sent very late, the language was also not clear. On page 6, there were sentences that did not make sense at all, and that was evident throughout the report. He said pages 6 and 16 must be fixed. On page 20, the input was on centralisation, and devolvement of the budget to municipalities that worked. The Committee had given a note to flag the underspending of this particular budget, and this was not included. The Committee had also asked how many inspections were done on the George building, and the Minister had said she would report back on this. This was not in the report, and should be added.
He said that on page 21, the Committee noted the quality of performance reports, and this was flagged for all entities, not only the NHFC, but particularly for entities where the AG had indicated that material statements were of such poor quality that they could not be assessed properly. A point has been raised on the block projects strategy but has not been reflected in this report. The National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) also had to undertake audits or lifestyle reports on all its inspectors, and these findings had to be made available to the Committee, but this was another point missing from the report. The Minister had also agreed to give feedback on the chief operating officer (COO) and the chief executive officer (CEO) of one of the entities, and this was not noted in the report. Members had also raised concerns about disbursements by the NHFC and flagged it as an area of concern, but the report did not mention this. The line on the whistle-blowers also did not adequately capture what had been discussed by the Committee.
The Chairperson said he hoped the Committee staff was taking note, and would go back to listen to what had been said in the meetings so this error did not repeat itself.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) agreed that this was a poor report and had a lot of grammatical issues. When he joined the Committee and the Content Advisor took Members through presentations as part of the orientation, similar issues were raised regarding poor content and poor grammar. It was unacceptable for a Portfolio Committee report to have so many grammatical issues. The Committee even gave advice at the time on using Grammarly or other computer programmes. This reflected on the person who was helping the Portfolio Committee, who should be very passionate about what he does.
He said the person who was the immediate supervisor of the content advisor should be taking note of this. Members of this Committee participated in other committees, and these issues did not present themselves in those committees. This report fell far short compared to other BRRR reports. There were quite a lot of points that had been left out, and a written submission would be submitted to help the content advisor. The Committee had noted the issue of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the need for practices in the industry to be aligned with legislation to bring it into line with international standards, which was not included in the recommendation. The issue of disbursements had not been noted. There were a lot of recommendations discussed but not noted in this report. He said he would submit points in writing to the secretary.
What was important was that reports of the Portfolio Committee should not be of this poor quality, as it reflected badly on the Committee.
Ms S Frenchman (NCC) said the report did not reflect all the concerns raised, and some of the recommendations in the report did not come from any of the Members. Discussions that took place in the Committee were not reflected in this report. The Committee must have another meeting to provide their recommendations, or this could be done in writing. The Committee also needed the Ministry to conclude all investigations, report back, and provide all feedback reports from the 6th administration. None of these issues appeared in the report, although they had been raised.
She said if the Committee had an issue with providing Members with quality reports, then this should have been addressed a long time ago or brought to their attention. This was a matter of urgency because it made the Committee look incompetent.
The Chairperson said there would be a separate report on the oversight visits, which would be sent to the Committee again.
Ms Z Abader (MK) said she was very disappointed with this report, and agreed with what all the Members had highlighted. Discussions and recommendations had been made on underspending and audit outcomes, and they did not appear in this report. Issues such as the Department being unable to meet its housing delivery goals, its capacity to achieve its targets, and several provinces receiving material misstatements on their audit outcomes, did not appear but had been discussed at length by the Committee. The persistent irregular and wasteful expenditure by the Department and its entities, which suggested there were no adequate SCM management principles in place, was not covered --the Committee could go on and on. She said if help was needed, the staff should have consulted the Chairperson or the rest of the Members. Going forward, this must be considered unacceptable. She said there needed to be a way forward on the quality of reports produced by the staff.
Mr C Poole (DA) agreed with previous Members, and said this report was disappointing. It had captured nothing of what had been discussed in the meetings, and this was very disturbing. The Department did not achieve any of its targets, and that was not even mentioned in the report. The report did not take note of problems raised with almost all the entities. There was no mention of the appointment of contractors or projects not being completed. This was unacceptable.
Mr T Gamede (MK) said he just wanted to add emphasis to what Committee Members had already said about the quality of the report. He gave examples of the contents of the report not matching the headings. The Portfolio Committee could not be seen to be involved with reports of such quality. This report had to be redone, and it was unfair that Members had had engage on such a report.
The Chairperson asked if there was still an opportunity to redo the report before the submission.
The Content Advisor said he would rectify all the mistakes mentioned and redo the report.
The Chairperson asked Members to submit their points in writing. The Committee staff should go back and reflect on what had been raised and redo the entire report. The content advisor must correct these mistakes and fix them in time. He said Members had received the report late and had been unable to read through it properly, and were also not satisfied with the content of the report.
The Committee staff had to go and fix these issues, and listen to the recordings of the previous meetings, as well as the recording of this meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
-
Seabi, Mr M A Chairperson
ANC -
Abader, Ms ZS
MK -
Dithebe, Mr SL
ANC -
Dlamini, Ms M
EFF -
Frenchman, Ms S
NCC -
Gamede, Mr T I
MK -
Gana, Mr M
RISE Mzansi -
Kegakilwe, Ms BM
ANC -
Magagula, Ms TE
ANC -
Mphithi, Mr L
DA -
Poole, Mr C
DA
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.