Municipalities’ Financial Status & Budget Processes: briefings by Auditor-General & Treasury
NCOP Finance
09 June 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
FINANCE SELECT COMMITTEE
9 JUNE 2006
AUDITOR-GENERAL & TREASURY: MUNICIPALITIES’ FINANCIAL STATUS & BUDGET
PROCESSES: BRIEFINGS
Chairperson: Mr T Ralane (ANC Free State)
Documents handed out:
Auditor-General’s Presentation
National
Treasury Presentation
SUMMARY
The Auditor-General said that there had been some legislative reforms to
enhance transformation and improve service delivery. These included the Local
Government Municipal Demarcation Act; the Local Government Municipal Structures
Act; the Local Government Municipal Systems Act; the Local Government Municipal
Property Act and the Municipal Financial Management Act. Unfortunately the
municipalities used three different sets of accounting standards and the
Auditor-General’s office and the treasury were struggling to get them to use
one.
Some of the transversal issues that the top 50 municipalities reported on were
asset management; debtors; personal expenditure; internal audits; unauthorised
expenditure and other internal control issues. On average, 59% of
municipalities’ debts still had to be recovered. The total provision was R11.4
billion (out of 19.2 billion) with Johannesburg having to still recover R7,2
billion.
The treasury said that the Municipal Financial Management Act compelled
treasury to publish the 2003/04 and 2004/05 audit outcomes for all
municipalities and status of any outstanding AFS and audits. It had to publish
a list of municipalities not compliant with timelines for 2005/06 submissions
and encourage proactive support for improvements. Treasury’s implementation
priorities included making improvements in the Service Development Budget
Implementation Plan; improving in-year reporting and publishing out-turns;
finalising supporting regulations and guides; validation of training material
and building capacity.
MINUTES
Auditor-General’s Presentation
Auditor-General (AG) Fakie began by providing background information on the
status of municipalities. There were 284 municipalities. There were also 77
municipal entities, and 20 of them had to prepare consolidated financial
statements (FS). There had been some legislative reforms to enhance
transformation and improve service delivery. These included the Local
Government (LG) Municipal Demarcation Act; the LG Municipal Structures Act; the
LG Municipal Systems Act; the LG Municipal Property Act and the Municipal
Financial Management Act (MFMA).
Unfortunately the municipalities used three different sets of accounting
standards and the AGs office and the treasury were struggling to get them to
use only one. Absolute ordinances had to be repealed to enable a coherent legal
framework. There were also some macro challenges. The availability of
legislation did not automatically lead to better service delivery. It was only
a means to an end. The rate of urbanisation was rapid and there was inadequate
and deteriorating infrastructure.
National Treasury had its own classification of municipalities. There were 50
High Capacity Municipalities, 107 Medium Capacity ones and 127 Low Capacity
Municipalities. AG then analysed and audited the top 50 municipalities to get a
picture of what was happening in the lower rated ones.
In 2004, before the MFMA came into force, 17 municipalities (6%) had submitted
their FS by the end of August (which was the AG’s preferred submission date). A
further 83 (29%) submitted by the end of September. Then a further 144 (51%)
submitted after September with 40 (14%) not submitting by the end April 2005.
Over the same period 25 (50%) of the top 50 had submitted by end of September,
23 (46%) by the end of April and 2 (4%) had not submitted by the end April
2005.
As at 30 June 2005 (the period when the MFMA was in force), 133 (47%)
municipalities had submitted by the end of August. Between April and March
2006/07 124 (44%) more submitted their FS and 27 (9%) were still outstanding as
at March 2006. Only 95 of 284 audits had been finalised by the end April 2005,
mainly as a result of the late FS submissions. Only 23 of the top 50 audits had
been finalised by the end April 2005, with 58 (61%) being qualified (a bad
opinion), 3 (3%) being awarded disclaimers (extremely bad opinion) and ten
(11%) getting adverse opinions (the worst possible opinion).
Some of the transversal issues that the top 50 reported on were asset
management; debtors; personal expenditure; internal audits; unauthorised
expenditure and other internal control issues. The AG then analysed areas such
as the debt collection periods, the municipalities’ provisions for bad debt and
their liquidity.
For debt collection, 23 of the top 50 municipalities had an average collection
period of 136 days. The debtors owed a total of R19.2 billion. Nine
municipalities collected within 100 days, and 14 took longer than 100 days. The
average provision for bad debt was 59%. That is, on average, 59% of
municipalities’ debts still had to be recovered. The total provision was R11.4
billion (out of 19.2 billion) with Johannesburg having to still recover R7,2
billion.
Only 22 of the top 50 had had a Performance Audit done. This was unfortunate as
more emphasis was needed on performance management to determine if service
delivery was really being achieved. To encourage service delivery,
accountability arrangements had to be improved and capacity to improve the
municipalities’ financial positions had to be developed.
National Treasury Presentation
Mr T Pillay, Chief Director, Local Government-National Treasury, began by
describing the requirements imposed on the treasury by the MFMA with regards to
the Audited Financial Statements (AFS) of municipalities. Treasury had to
publish the 2003/04 and 2004/05 audit outcomes for all municipalities and
status of any outstanding AFS and audits. It had to publish a list of
municipalities not compliant with timelines for 2005/06 submissions and
encourage proactive support for improvements.
The MFMA was helpful in that it laid out the steps to be followed for
budgeting. There had to be planning; strategising; preparing; tabling;
approving and finalising. To further assist in, and to remind municipalities of
their tasks, circular 31 was issued on the 10th of March 2006. It
was meant to raise awareness and caution about exemptions. It contained
reminders of processes; timelines; requirements; the tabling and adoption dates
and listed the criteria with respect of credibility, funding, linking plans and
budgets.
More assistance was provided to provincial municipalities by having national
workshops with provinces and selected municipalities in 2005 and 2006. There
was support given for the budget preparation processes, reviews and evaluations
of budget documents, content and quality checks and reviews of resource
allocations, tariffs and other commitments.
Treasury’s implementation priorities included making improvements in the
Service Development Budget Implementation Plan; improving in-year reporting and
publishing out-turns; finalising supporting regulations and guides; validation
of training material and building capacity.
Discussion
Mr B Mkhaliphi (ANC Mpumalanga) said that at times it seemed as though
there was no real co-operation between municipalities and the treasury. This
was very worrying. In the future the Committee wanted information about how
long it took for the municipalities to settle their own debts with bulk
suppliers of water and electricity for instance.
Mr Fakie replied that the MFMA was explicit on how long the municipalities had
to repay their debts (30 days).
Mr Z Kolweni (ANC North West) asked why the bad debt figure (R11.4 billion) was
so high. Were treasury and the AG happy with the systems in place relating to
how this debt was managed?
Mr Fakie said that the AG’s job was to look for serious transgressions within
municipalities but when their debtors took 130 days to repay them it led to
liquidity problems within the local authorities. Some municipalities then
secured long-term loans to help assuage their short-term cash-flow problems,
which was never the ideal scenario.
Mr E Sogoni (ANC Gauteng) said that it would be useful if the Committee was
given municipalities’ quarterly reports to look at in the future. What was
being done to align the three different accounting systems? Were there municipalities
that repeatedly submitted their reports late? Did the AG attend any of
treasury’s workshops for municipalities to get an idea of the AG’s reporting
requirements? How long would it take to fully phase in the MFMA?
Mr Fakie replied that his office did furnish Parliament with municipalities’
quarterly reports and they were currently available on their website. The
different accounting systems did give them problems but they also had to be
realistic about the availability of capacity to use one modern system. There
was a plan to get all municipalities to migrate to one system. There were some
municipalities that were habitually tardy but the number had been coming down
as many of the municipalities got rid of their reporting backlogs. How many
municipalities were given exemptions about when they had to submit their
reports?
Mr Pillay said that the treasury invited people who would benefit most from
their workshops to the training. However, not everyone came and issues such as
the location of the workshops were an issue here. If competency levels were to
be raised, more test-based training was needed. The speed at which more
capacity was built would determine how long the MFMA took to be phased in. For
example, it would take about five to ten years before treasury’s graduate
interns would be in charge of the whole process.
He said 158 municipalities had been given exemptions the previous year as it
was the first time they were required to do so. More were asking for exemptions
but it would not be allowed this time. Sometimes the costs of sophisticated
accounting systems were prohibitive. For example, the Western Cape’s system
cost about R300 million while Gauteng’s cost R200 million. These systems may be
difficult to apply to the whole country, and in any case, the system would be
no good without the right people to use it.
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.