Oversight Committee Reports: discussion

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
22 March 2006
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORTS: DISCUSSION

Chairperson:
Mr F Bhengu (ANC)

Documents handed out:

Outcomes and Recommendations from Commission 1: Strategic Plan Workshop
Outcomes and Recommendations from Commission 2: Strategic Plan Workshop
Extract from Committee Report: Recommendations from the Provincial Oversight Visits
Committee Report: Bridge Building Programme of Philippine Government and Mabey Johnson
Department’s Budget Vote

SUMMARY
The Committee considered the recommendations stemming from the Department budget and strategic plan workshop held in Caledon as well as those recommendations stemming from their provincial oversight visits. Its main concern was how to improve the coordination of the Department at a provincial and local level to ensure that the Extended Public Works Programme and the aims of Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa were successfully realised. The Committee Report on the Department Budget 2006/07 needed to be finalised before the Budget debate on 29 March. The Committee would meet on 28 March to adopt the report. The Committee also considered its Committee Report on its oversight visit to the Philippines where it viewed a bridge building programme executed by international construction company, Mabey Johnson. As there was not a quorum, it did not adopt any reports.

MINUTES
Introductory remarks by Chairperson

The Chair raised concern with the non-availability of the Committee’s minutes of previous meetings. He stated that it was the responsibility of the Committee Secretary to ensure that Members received copies of the minutes of previous meetings timeously, so that they could go through them and be prepared for the next meeting. His concern would be included in the Committee’s Annual Report, as it was a clear indicated that the Committee section needed capacitation.

Committee Report on Visit to Bridge Building Programme in the Philippines
The Chairperson thanked Mr I Blanche´ (DA) for his suggestions that would be included in the report to Parliament. He reiterated and acknowledged the points raised by Mr Blanche. He asked for comments about the report’s recommendations that Members wanted to have included in the report.

Mr Blanche´ explained that he had somewhat disagreed with the original report because it had contained a lot of technical information, which was not a function of Members of Parliament. He noted some of the reasons why he had written a report differing from the original. The suggestion had come from the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) and DPW to look at how bridge building had succeeded in developing the economy of another nation. He felt they should rather write a report on why they had gone and what they had seen and the impressions gained, especially the wonderful opportunity of seeing what road systems could do for the economy. They should write a report on how bridge building in South Africa could enhance the rural communities and recommend a similar programme to that of the Philippines' presidential programme.

The Chairperson stated that the report concentrated on what was reported to the Committee in the form of briefings. The question of spin-offs was not relevant to the report. He continued that there was something missing in the report which was the initial briefing by DPLG's Mr L Buys (Executive Manager: Disaster Management: Department of Provincial and Local Government) telling them of the process that DPLG had followed in visiting provinces and establishing the need for reliable crossings across rivers. The question that came from members was whether the DPLG report covered all provinces and was this info gathered from the District Municipalities. The report that was then tabled to motivate was not enough. The question of desirability must not come solely from DPW but must also come from the local municipalities. Bridges were needed, apart from rain, sometimes people had to travel many kilometres to get to the nearest hospital that was just across the river. The committee must see to it that the relevant departments at local government, such as Transport, which the recommendations said had to refer these key issues to be treated by them, but at the end there must be a joint working together of these departments.

Mr Bhengu asked whether there were any other companies. There was money but no person to drive these programmes. There was the social responsibility, apart from the question of job creation and mandates. Something had to be done about these particular bridges. Part of the recommendation must sit down and had to have a report defining local government and then come up with recommendations as to how to generate and monitor and see that things were happening – oversight. Recommendations to be tabled in Parliament must be an action plan coming up with a time frame. There must be time frames so when undertaking oversight know that certain processes were happening. The team that worked together with members could make some recommendations as to how to define this process.
Certain critical issues were missing. The report, including all the issues, to be adopted at a special short meeting on a Tuesday before the next recess.

Committee Report on Strategic Plan Workshop: Outcomes of Commissions
The Chairperson reported that their strategic planning workshop last week had been noted in the Sunday Times. The media was monitoring the performance of the Committee as well as the performance of the Department and all departments. It was very clear they had an interest in the three-day workshop – they had not been excluded, but unfortunately for them, the workshop was held outside Cape Town in Caledon. He wanted the report on the workshop finalised and tabled by the end of that week. He asked members to look at the recommendations that were contained in the Outcomes document.

The workshop had dealt comprehensively with the Strategic Planning of the Department, but there was one thing missing and that was how to realign the strategic plan with the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA). The Department agreed that this needed to be done.

The Chairperson said a critical issue raised by the Minister of Public Works related to asset management and disposal and auctioneering of State property. He further recalled that there was the issue of devolution of responsibility in the Department. In earlier meetings with the Department they said they were devolving everything within the Department. The question was why it had taken so long to do this as the original decision went back to 1995/96.

The Chairperson stated that regarding the trading entity, the Minister had said the Department intended to appoint two Directors-General (DGs): one to deal with assets and accommodation and the other to deal with everything that related to other programmes. These were the key things to be looked into. The Department had an image problem according to the Sunday Times. Certain things were going to be done to turn the Department around. The question of disposal policy and the involvement of provincial departments would also need to be cleared up.

The Chairperson said the matter of Human Resources was also raised. Vacant positions and the rotation of Directors-General were raised by Members as serious concerns.

The Chairperson said the Committee Report had to be tabled before the Budget debate. The Committee needed to make recommendations, thus directing and assisting the Department to address some of its shortcomings.

Ms T Nwamitwa-Shilubana (ANC) commented on the DGs not staying long; apparently these involved contracts that expired. This caused a problem as far as continuity was concerned. It would be difficult for the Committee to formulate a recommendation to address this problem.

Mr D Lewin (DPW Parliamentary Officer) stated that officials were not accountable to the Director-General but to the Minister.

Mr H Maluleke (ANC) asked what influence the Committee could have. If the appointment of the DG was the prerogative of the Minister, he suggested that the Committee should influence the Minister.

The Chairperson said that DPW’s Human Resources section should plan better for DG succession. The main concern was that stability was needed within the Department. The post of DG had been advertised, but what was important was the performance of the Department and the Director-General should see to that.

Mr Blanche´ referred to auctioneering of State property and cautioned that some property could be developed by local authorities and sold off to individuals. The rich would develop and sell off the properties which would not be to the benefit of communities. In Marleyvale Gold Estate, the DPW had about 150 houses being auctioned as one property and one buyer would redevelop it and make a fortune.

Ms Nwamitwa-Shilubana agreed that preference should be given to previously disadvantaged people or to the local government.

Mr Lewin agreed. He said that not all properties would be auctioned, just those in a state of disrepair where it would not be beneficial for the Department to spend money on repairs.

The Chairperson agreed that they should look into this programme and who the beneficiaries would be. A main concern was the question of signing the Property Charter. The Committee had not been part of that development process and should investigate the Property Charter.

Mr L Maduma (ANC) observed that the crucial issue of funding had been omitted from the recommendations. He also proposed the Committee should make recommendations on the question of fronting.

The Chairperson proposed a general recommendation on the issue of corruption. He had asked for more information about fronting and hoped to receive inputs from the Minister shortly.

The Chairperson referred to the recent Auditor-General's report dealing with non-declaration of business interests by civil servants. The Committee had to know which officials had business interests in the public works field. For instance, it had been discovered that civil servants in the Eastern Cape were deeply involved in the Department’s procurement activities. This also related to fronting and had to be addressed urgently.

Mr Maduma agreed that officials were well placed to advance their own business interests in the tender process. Department officials had to disclose their business interests as property disposal by the State could be open to corruption if not properly managed.

The Chairperson asked Members to study the recommendations. Recommendations from both commissions had been circulated to Members.

The Chairperson commented, in relation to the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, that women had complained that they were being excluded from opportunities in the construction sector. When National Treasury had been questioned on this, it informed the Committee that "big business" felt that key construction programmes should not be given to empowerment groups.

The Chairperson asked for the Committee’s reaction to this. He proposed that a group of Members led by Mr Maduma should investigate the Act and its regulations and report to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked for comments about the concept of having two DGs for DPW.

Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) felt this was inconsistent with what was happening in other departments. There would be serious implications for accountability as there was a need to have someone in overall control. Perhaps the Department should rather be split in two.

Ms Nwamitwa-Shilubana agreed, but felt the Committee would not have much influence as the idea for two DGs came from the Minister who felt the Department was too large. The Committee should recommend that two DGs would add to the problems in the Department. There were already six Deputy Directors-General and the Committee should also avoid dividing the Department.

The Chairperson responded that the Minister was appealing for support. It would be better to have one hands-on Director-General than two that might encourage competition. The Committee agreed that it would not recommend two DGs in its report, but would stress the importance of one Director-General to pull the Department together. ]

Mr Lewin pointed out that the Minister’s position was motivated by the example of having separate departments for Agriculture and Land Affairs which had previously been one department. One part of the Department of Public Works would handle accommodation and operations, while the other would concentrate on construction.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee felt very strongly that this could happen without two DGs as one responsible person would be able to oversee these functions.

Ms Nwamitwa-Shilubana submitted that the main thing was to improve co-ordination within the Department. Two DGs might create problems with this.

Mr Lewin suggested the Committee should give the Minister a chance to motivate her reasoning and obtain more information.

Ms Ramotsamai stated that the Committee preferred one Director-General. There was a lot of conflict within the Department and a need to unite it. One person should be accountable. Perhaps there were historical reasons for splitting Land Affairs and Agriculture. The Committee had to be careful of people that wanted to do away with Public Works completely as certain departments wanted to take over public works functions.

The Chairperson referred to the question of devolution of responsibilities. A full time position of Engineer had already been advertised. There was the question of staff retention and the challenges the Department faced in preparing staff for other departments and not retaining them. The question was what was the Department doing about this?

The Chairperson added that it was unacceptable that a department complained of lack of co-ordination because the Constitution did not allow it oversight over local government. What then would become of ASGISA? ASGISA would fail if this attitude prevailed in the Department. Ultimately, the question of two DGs was political in nature. The Committee could only exercise oversight and determine whether the Department was doing its work.

Mr Maduna raised the question of the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP). If the DPW were the driver, it should provide the leadership. The Department continued to say they had communication problems, but the elements of the EPWP should be cross-cutting the entire Department.

Mr S Huang (ANC) said that the Committee had not received the Department’s Strategic Plan yet. It had to respond on the EPWP and a lot of issues still had to be sorted out. He suggested that a workshop on the Strategic Plan be held after the budget debate. Each Deputy Director-General would have to make inputs at this workshop.

The Chairperson stated that the Department already had six DDGs and an Acting DG. It was the Committee’s mandate to express concerns and make recommendations when looking at the functioning and performance of the Department and see whether it could assist the Department.

Mr Bhengu responded to Mr Huang that the Committee was trying to establish whether the Strategic Plan corresponded to the budget. He asked whether there were measurable objectives to see what the Department was going to implement, and also, if the policy locked into the Strategic Plan corresponded with ASGISA.

Mr Maduna said the recommendation that the EPWP budget should be transferred from National Treasury DPW to accelerate the objectives of ASGISA did not mention the question of coordination. This problem would remain if not addressed.

The Chairperson agreed that the recommendation needed refining. It had been felt that the Committee should do the coordination because the budget was spread over a number of departments. He felt very strongly if they had done the monitoring, the programme would be implemented.

Ms Nwamitwa-Shilubana asked whether the EPWP budget was transferred to the provinces. When she enquired about monitoring the provinces she was told that they did what they felt was right.

Mr Maduna added that it was a very complex matter to which the Committee should apply its mind. The Department had the "machinery" in its provincial or regional offices but it did not function effectively. The regional offices suffered because budgets were allocated to other levels. Municipalities did not have the necessary capacity. He had been assured municipalities understood the challenges of implementing the EPWP, but they were not receiving guidance. There was an overall lack of capacity. There was a need to ensure that municipalities used the budgets according to guidelines and to drive the projects. DPW had assured the Committee that guidelines were in place, but the Committee did not see this in practice. Officials did not know what was expected of them, but were getting paid nonetheless. A lack of coordination would "haunt" ASGISA as long as it was not addressed.

Ms Ramotsamai responded that there were guidelines; maybe they were not being used. According to the guidelines, because there was no special budget for the EPWP, some activities had to be redirected so that in the next financial year they could begin to pool resources. Provinces did not restructure their work and budgets to focus primarily on the EPWP. Proper coordination was needed to ensure that the national department and provinces followed the set guidelines.

The Chairperson had expected the DPW to ask for more funds to handle the coordination, but they had not. They were running away from the problem. It was time to take stock at national level to see what would work effectively. The Department had indicated that they were hoping to form advisory committees, but they could not force other levels of government to be accountable to them. ASGISA would require intervention to ensure progress. The Department should break perceived boundaries and discuss with the provinces how to coordinate the implementation of ASGISA.

The Chairperson added that DPW should refine communication and improve coordination with other departments that were involved with the EPWP for the sake of job creation and skills development. Once this had been done, the question of funding for coordination could again be addressed.

Mr Huang suggested that representatives of the nine provincial EPWPs, the National Department of Public Works and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) meet with the Committee and brief it on the budget and their understanding of the problems, especially with a view to accelerating the objectives of ASGISA,.

Mr Maduna responded that the exercise had already been done. It was important to try and restore the image of the Department, which could be done through coordination. The DPW maintained that it could not coordinate properly with the provinces because it did not have the constitutional powers. Yet, 20% of the national budget was allocated to the EPWP and implementation was just a question of coordination. The Department did not hold the budget, yet was asked to coordinate all the projects. This was problematic and had to be looked at.

Ms Nwamitwa-Shilubana felt as politicians with the role of oversight it might be necessary to call representatives from EPWP projects to explain their problems together with the national Department of Public Works. The Committee wanted to establish who was responsible for the programmes at provincial and local government, and report those who were not implementing them. The Department did not yet have a strategic plan for ASGISA but must see to it that the EPWP is accelerated.

Mr Lewin said the EPWP affected constitutional boundaries. He asked why politicians did not drive the EPWP so that it could be coordinated and implemented.

The Chairperson said it was not just a question of amending the Constitution. Who was the driver of the EPWP within DPW? Why were they finding it difficult? There were constitutional constraints but there were ways in which this could be overcome. Introspection was needed to change the image from a negative into a positive one. There were new ideas on coordination that could break down the barriers. ASGISA was one of them. The Committee would do an in-depth evaluation of the EPWP this year and would call all stakeholders to make inputs. During the last evaluation, the Department was not present but this time they would have to be. The workshop was useful but the Committee needed to assist the Department to link up with the provinces.

Mr Huang agreed to the proposal. He felt municipalities should drive the EPWP while the Committee exercised oversight. The Department must brief the Committee on how much funding went to the EPWP. He agreed that everybody needed to come together and link the EPWP to ASGISA.

Mr Bhengu concluded it would be necessary to table the Committee Report on the Department of Public Works (DPW) Budget by Wednesday as some Members would want to raise issues contained in it in the debate.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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: