Progress after SCOPA briefing; Housing Policies & ASGISA Alignment; Municipal Transfer of Residential Housing: Department briefi

HOUSING PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 August 2006
PROGRESS AFTER SCOPA BRIEFING; HOUSING POLICIES & ASGISA ALIGNMENT; MUNICIPAL TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING: DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS

Chairperson: Mr L Modisenyane (ANC) [Standing in for Ms Z Kota]

Documents handed out:
The Department of Housing presentation on the
- Progress on SCOPA
- Farm Worker and Farm Occupier Housing Assistance Programme (FHAP)
- Housing Framework Legislation: Proposed Amendments of Sections 10A and 10B of
Housing Act No. 107 of 1997
- Update on Municipal Transfer of Residential Housing to the Department of Housing.

summary
The Committee was briefed by the Department on the progress made after the report given by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and updated on various housing policies.

Members were concerned about the systems in place to monitor irregularities amongst staff and administration; measures taken to counter corruption; and the systems used to compensate farm workers.

MINUTES
Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) Report
Ms B Dambuza (ANC) asked the Department to give their definition of ‘cases’ as mentioned in the SCOPA report, and enquired further as to the duration of the investigation of said cases. She also asked them to clarify the policy issue in cases where a beneficiary spouse died and highlighted the question on the resulting rulings using the example of AIDS prevalence in communities and what would happen to the children remaining in those households. She also questioned the provinces’ capacity to carry out the programmes.

Mr B Steyn (DA) queried the Department on whether all the systems put in place would pick up irregularities concerning government employees. He said that the manual overrides on the computer programmes were one of the problems as the point of input which, although it has to be attended by a superior, was an opening for fraud to take place. He stated that specifically during that part of the process where the human element was present, if fraud was intended, it could be perpetrated successfully.

Ms N Ngele (ANC) said that the Department had not send the documents the Portfolio Committee had requested on a previous occasion, and further mentioned that at briefings like the present one, they tabled all of the documents “on the spot” and that the Members did not have time to study the material properly due to the volume of material. She also asked what happened to potential beneficiaries whose files went missing.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) said that the Department had mentioned previously that there were problems and asked why they were only acting now on it. He mentioned that the Portfolio Committee saw the computer systems that were put in place only on paper, and suggested that it would be more beneficial if the Committee could physically view the system in use.

Mr D Mabena (ANC) said that they were concerned about the statistics from each province and questioned whether the Department would be able to clear up the disorder before the stated goal of December 2006. He asked what they did about people who moved around, and said that he was also worried about people who have previously benefited and how the resulting complexities to do with cases of divorce were dealt with.

Mr Johan Minnie (Information Officer – Dept of Housing) responded that previously the person who applied was listed as the beneficiary and thus received the title deed to the property, but that that has changed and presently the married or cohabiting couple would share the title deed. In cases where one person died, the other would remain the beneficiary. The Department continued that the process was used to comply within the anti-corruption strategy, and that some provinces (Free State and Gauteng) had started to comply. They added that the other provinces were in the process of doing so, and that the plan was to investigate all housing cases at national level eventually. The Department stated that the information supplied by the provinces showed only what had already been done.

Mr Minnie then said that the system tagged every log-on to the system and that any change would be recorded. Those reports were permanent and could not be erased, resulting in a very secure environment. On the question of missing files the Department responded that a new file would be regenerated and that the only loss was the potential beneficiary’s signature, and that the electronic filing system ensured that a hard and electronic copy were synched. In Gauteng’s case the hard copy was stored off-site which was ideal, but expensive. The Department continued that the file’s regeneration was made possible once the people were identified and their identities were ran against the owners-and-deeds database from which, on a successful match, the information was then pulled.

Mr Minnie stated that Members of the Committee were welcome to view the programme. They also said that December 2006 was when they wanted the system to be in place. They continued that they would look carefully at proposals to track the workforce with information originating from the South African Revenue Services (SARS).

The Chairperson remarked on the issue of anti-corruption units, and enquired about the possible danger of having people who committed fraud in the very positions tasked with appointing the units.

Mr G D Schneemann (ANC) asked whether it would not make sense to have a uniform housing system that unified both the national and provincial level into one which would better handle cases where people moved to other provinces, insofar as those people would then just ‘slot into’ that system. He also asked where the information on applicants was captured.

Mr Minnie responded that the anti-corruption units were appointed on a national level from the Minister’s office, and on a provincial level from the Premier’s office. They also said that on the issue of a uniform housing system that there already was only one system, and continued that the developer was the municipality of that area, and that was where the information was captured and that the municipalities were responsible to keep track of houses, but that it was very difficult to get information from some of these municipalities. The Department added that if a person who applied in 1995 was earning an amount of money that allowed him to qualify to be a beneficiary, and in 2006 were earning more money they would no longer qualify, and that information from SARS would help with this issue.

Farm Worker and Farm Occupier Housing Assistance Programme
Mr J Minnie (Department on Housing, then gave a presentation on the Farm Worker and Farm Occupier Housing Assistance Programme (FHAP). (See document attached).

Discussion
The Chairperson pointed out that under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) definition farm occupiers had to live on a farm for ten years before they qualified, and that in practice this led to cases where farmers moved occupiers from a particular farm to another farm just before that period was reached.

Mr I W Kotsoane (Director-General - Department of Housing) pointed out that the situation was more complex than it seemed.

Ms Ngele (ANC) stated that empowerment of women on farms was difficult. She said farm workers went to work at six in the morning from where they went to the fields and came back at six in the afternoon, and would then buy some goods from a farm tuck-shop which substituted for pay.

Ms S Sigcau (ANC) said that a ‘dop-system’ did not belong in a democracy.

Section 10A and 10B of Housing Act No 107 of 1997
A presentation on the Proposed Amendments of Section 10A and 10B of Housing Act No 107 of 1997 was then given. (See attachment).

The Chairperson stated that the presentation only informed them of proposals that were still coming so they could not deliberate it and so the presentation on the Update on Municipal Transfer of Residential Housing to the Department of Housing was then given (Documents attached).

The meeting was adjourned.