Government Immovable Asset Management Bill: Discussion; Complaint about Committee Section Support; Plettenberg Bay Visit Report-

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
20 September 2006
GOVERNMENT IMMOVABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT BILL: DISCUSSION; COMPLAINT ABOUT COMMITTEE SECTION SUPPORT; PLETTENBERG BAY VISIT REPORT-BACK

Chairperson: Mr F Bhengu (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Government Immovable Asset Management Bill [B1-2006]

Relevant documents:
Letter from Minister Mufamadi to Minister Didiza (see Appendix)
Parliamentary Research Section: Overview of Maintenance of Fernwood and SAA Women’s College

SUMMARY
The House Chairperson of Committees and the Head of the Committee Section were invited to attend the meeting to address administrative and budgetary issues that impacted on the Committee's ability to fulfil its oversight role. Both failed to attend which led to a committee member's remark that the Committee had the power to request Ministers and MECs to appear before them yet the Head of the Committee Section and the House Chairperson failed to honour such a request.

The Committee noted and appreciated the Minister's input given on Government Immovable Asset Management Bill on the previous day. Members agreed that an international visit was necessary to inform them on international best practices for immovable asset management prior to making decisions on the Government Immovable Asset Management Bill. The Department of Provincial and Local Government should also play a role in the discussions on the Bill.

There was a report-back on the Committee's visit to Plettenberg Bay and the researchers' initial investigations into some of the dilapidated assets across the country.

MINUTES
Discussion of issues related to Committee Section
The Chairperson explained that the Head of the Committee Section, Ms Zanele Mene, and the House Chairperson of Committees, Mr Geoffrey Doidge, had been invited to discuss issues related to budgetary constraints as well as the administrative support the Committee received from the committee section. Budgetary constraints made it difficult for the Committee to undertake the international oversight visits that would assist them in performing their duties. The issues needed urgent attention yet neither Ms Mene (who had sent an SMS to the Chairperson to request that the meeting be postponed) nor Mr Doidge was present. Mr Albert Mamabolo (Unit Manager) and Ms Nthuthu Nonkelela (Control Committee Secretary for Public Services) had been delegated to attend the meeting. This was despite the fact that due to the seriousness of the matter and the urgency with which it needed to be addressed, the Committee had specifically requested the heads of the respective sections to be present.

Mr H Cupido (ACDP) asked whether the Chairperson had had an opportunity to speak to the relevant people and to raise the Committee’s concerns.

The Chairperson assured Members that Mr Doidge was aware of the Committee’s concerns since the issue had been raised at the Committee Chairpersons’ meetings. The Committee needed clarity as to whether they could use the balance of their R500 000 budget for an international visit. Members also wanted to raise the possibility of changing the manner in which the consolidated fund, which made provision for all committees’ international trips, was administered. The difficulties experienced with the functioning of the Committee Section raised key issues about the section’s capacity to provide administrative support, its work ethic, the communication between it and committees, its understanding of budgetary functions and the support it provided to Committees.

He felt that these shortcomings impacted negatively on the work Parliament and its members did. It made it appear as though Parliament and Members, rather than the systems that were supposed to support them, were ineffective. Chairpersons discussed these issues at their meetings but due to other issues this matter had not always enjoyed priority. He thought it best that entire committees met with the section so that they could raise their specific concerns.
 
Mr Cupido wondered whether the two representatives present would be in a position to answer the Committee’s questions.

Mr L Maduma (ANC) was concerned because it appeared as though the relevant officials did not take the matter seriously. He felt that there was nothing the Committee could do in the absence of the Chairperson of the House. He proposed that the Committee should draft a letter requesting him to meet with the Committee at his earliest convenience though it happen only after the parliamentary recess. Should the situation continue, the Committee would have to explore other avenues. The Committee had specifically invited Mr Doidge and Ms Mene so that the matter could be finalised. Some questions could be raised with Ms Nonkelela directly but he feared that Mr Mamabolo might not be able to give direct answers to other issues.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) agreed that the Committee specifically requested those two people to be present in the interest of speedily addressing the matter and getting straight answers. He did not feel that the item could be discussed any further. He was disappointed that Mr Doidge was not present. The Committee should decide on what further steps should be taken. He felt that in addition to the Chief Whip of the ruling party, the chief whips of minority parties should also be “roped in” to address the matter.

Ms D Ngcengwana (ANC) found it unacceptable that the head of the Committee section had sent an SMS about her inability to attend the meeting. She could at least have written a letter of apology.

Ms T Nwamitwa-Shilubane (ANC) said that their failure to attend the meeting brought the Committee’s powers into question. The Committee had the power to request Ministers and MECs to appear before them yet the Head of the Committee Section and the House Chairperson failed to honour such a request. The Committee should write a letter stating its dissatisfaction to the relevant authorities.
 
Mr J Blanché (DA) said that the situation could not be allowed to continue. The Committee was the “guardian of the biggest assets in the country” and they could not tell the Committee that there were no funds when the Committee had important duties to perform.

Mr Maduma said that it appeared as though parliamentary committees were being undermined. It would be necessary to “jack-up” the committee support system so that Parliament could work. The current administrative and budgetary constraints jeopardised committees’ oversight responsibilities. He pointed out that the House Chairperson was directly responsible for committee performance. He felt that the matter should be referred to the Chief Whip of the majority party and that other avenues could be considered thereafter.

The Chairperson said that the decision to call the meeting had been taken three weeks earlier. The Committee Section had now twice been unable to attend. The situation was very worrisome. Mr Doidge had submitted no letter of apology and Ms Mene had requested the Committee to postpone the meeting. He said that only the Committee could call for a postponement. The relationship between Parliament and the Committee Section needed to be considered very carefully. He wondered whether the administrative staff who were supposed to give assistance to Parliament understood what Parliament was all about.

The Committee would write letters to both Ms Mene and Mr Doidge, copying to the Chief Whip. He emphasised that the Committee was not attacking individuals but rather a system that did not function effectively and that members’ disappointment and dissatisfaction should not be taken personally. These issues cast uncertainty around the Committee’s programme. The Committee needed to undertake an international tour. The matters would have to be addressed within the following two days before the Parliamentary recess.

Mr Maduma said that the Committee had R162 000 of its R500 000 budget left. He wondered what all the money had been spent on considering that the Committee had undertaken only two provincial trips.

Minister Thoko Didiza’s remarks on Government Immovable Asset Management Bill
The Chairperson said that he had been very surprised to see that MECs were present at the previous day’s meeting. The MECs had received a letter inviting them to the meeting, yet the email he had sent to the control secretary made no mention of inviting them. The matter had required input from the Department of Public Works (DPW), the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), National Treasury and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) but not from the MECs. The situation had been embarrassing. Even Minister Didiza was surprised and said that she had not called a MinMec. The control committee secretary, Ms Nonkelela, explained that she had thought that the Chairperson had meant to include MECs in the invitation.

The Chairperson expressed concern at the expense of flying MECs to Cape Town unnecessarily and then having to ensure their safety. In addition they had had to suspend any work that they had been doing in their provinces. This confusion was another indication of “what was going on in the Committee Section”.

He said that Mr B Radebe (ANC) had expressed concern about what the proposed guidelines or framework for facilitating the implementation of the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) would entail. The Committee’s position centred on policy issues and it would not undermine the separation of powers. The key concern related to the wholesale disposal of land. This issue needed to be investigated. They knew that DPW had at no stage of the drafting of the Bill communicated with DPLG so that they could identify the issues, which were now being identified. Although public hearings had been conducted on the GIAMA Bill, more hearings might be necessary so that issues related to the DPLG could be included. He said that the last paragraph of the letter sent by Minister of Provincial and Local Government, Mr Sydney Mufamadi, to Minister Didiza had clearly indicated that DPLG had not yet applied its mind to the matters the Committee had raised.

Mr Radebe said that the Committee appreciated the good work Minister Didiza had done to address the issue. Nevertheless DPW had failed in its consultation processes. He pointed out that DPW was running four million square metres’ of property worth billions of Rand and the Committee could not take a decision on the Bill without having visited other countries to see what measures they had put in place. Members could not approve anything until if they had not considered international best practices. The Bill could not simply be approved because billions of Rands were involved. The Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) put a standard in place but operation remained up to municipalities. The Government Immovable Asset Management (GIAMA) Bill should make operational plans clear so that municipalities had clear guidelines. Members should also not forget that state owned enterprises (SOEs) were also part of the portfolio. He felt that an interdepartmental committee between public works, public enterprises, land affairs and provincial and local government would also assist. He emphasised that an international exploration trip would be imperative because if an ill thought through Bill were passed, the damage would be irreversible.

Mr Maduma reported that MECs were very impressed with the progress and were taking the GIAMA very seriously. The Western Cape MEC had started addressing issues related especially since many properties that were being lost to international buyers. The Victoria and Alfred Waterfront in Cape Town had been sold to a UK-based company for R7 billion. The GIAMA Bill also looked at issues around land and he agreed that it would be important for the Committee to consider international best practices.

Ms Ngcengwana said that at a local level there was much corruption but the Committee never heard of this. She agreed with other members that an international tour would be vital because if the Committee had no benchmark, it would be difficult to proceed with the Bill. She added that the Portfolio Committee for Provincial and Local Government also needed to be involved in the process.

Mr Blanché said that ineffective and outdated systems needed to be challenged. The systems that were used by DPW dated back 100 years. DPW owned the biggest assets in South Africa and if one were to change the country, one would have to change the way the Department managed its assets. DPW had to demand that the necessary changes be made so that the assets could be protected and DPLG also had to come on board. One could no longer use a colonial system where departments told Committees and the people of their plans instead of discussing options and coming to an agreement. The Committee had to ensure that they were satisfied with the legislation that was passed because they and future members would have to exercise oversight over it.

Ms Nwamitwa-Shilubane said that issues around assets had been on the agenda for a very long time. Now that Minister Didiza was driving the matter, she felt that the issue might get somewhere. It was important to do oversight and to listen to the issues raised by municipalities. She agreed that without being able to make comparisons with other countries, it would be difficult for the Committee to make informed decisions. She agreed with Mr Blanché that assets were very important to the country and said that South Africa would work if Public works worked.

Mr Cupido said that in the light of the number of provinces being reduced and the possibility of asset transfer, the Committee and the Department would need to be aware of the assets it owned. It was important that officials had the right tool to be able to determine what these assets were and systems needed to be put in place to value the properties owned by the country. He added that at the recent People’s Parliament in Oudtshoorn, the Committee had been praised for how it did its work. He said that the Committee needed to be more assertive in putting issues to the Department.

The Chairperson said that the situation in Plettenberg Bay was very similar to that of the V&A Waterfront. After 1996 the land in the area had been privatised and was now still in the hands of the rich. The municipality was now faced with breaching the gap between the first and second economies. They had asked the Committee to assist them so that state-owned land in the area could be released AND the process of breaching the gap could be realised. Many municipalities were in need of land.

He too was impressed with the work Minister Didiza had done in a short space of time. The Committee had to go abroad to consider what other countries had done. If Parliament rejected the Bill and referred it back to the DPW, the Committee would have no Bill before them and would not be allowed to "do what they want to do". If the Bill was still “below the line” [returned to the Department] the Committee could use its rights to make certain amendments. He said that the Bill was now at its second reading stage and he requested that the researchers find out how a Committee could get a bill that it had rejected but was not yet before Parliament, referred back to them. He emphasised that the work had to be completed in 2006 and wanted the Committee to move for the Bill to be referred back to them.

Feedback on Plettenberg Bay Visit
Mr Maduma gave a report-back. He said that during the recent People’s Parliament in Oudtshoorn, the Committee had also undertaken a trip to Plettenberg Bay. The Committee had met with the Council there, held a public hearing and visited a local informal settlement. The interactions had been very productive. He said that the Committee had noted that while the Council’s programme was very “fancy” it did not clearly identify priorities and did little to assist the Committee in understanding how it would address issues of poverty and unemployment.

The Plettenberg Bay council had to deal with a number of challenges. The Western Cape and the town had to deal with an influx of people from the Eastern Cape. There were land challenges because land in that area was largely privatised. There was much privately owned land that could be used in development programmes. Service delivery also remained a challenge. The informal settlement was in an appalling condition with no sanitation, floods during rainy season, no facilities such as clinics. Health services were also not up to standard since people often had to wait for up to two hours for ambulances to take them to a hospital in Knysna and often there was no transport to take them home upon discharge. Tuberculosis was prevalent. There were also complaints about abuse suffered at the hands of the police.

Mr Maduma said that the Council did not say that they did not have enough money yet job creation was a challenge and there was no indication that the Council had made any efforts to try and create employment. While there were extended public work programme initiatives there was no clear programme for how to use them effectively. Racism was an on-going challenge with the local coloured community seeing black people who migrated from the Eastern Cape as intruders who were using the meagre resources that were not enough to provide for the needs of locals. The Committee felt that the Council should do more to integrate communities. The Committee had undertaken to return to the area in November. Those things that could be addressed immediately would be addressed.

The Chairperson said that a summary of the Committee’s visit had been tabled at the People’s Parliament and that the Committee would produce a consolidated report. He agreed that the Council’s plan was well presented but that they had no implementation plan in place. Integration would be the best thing that could happen in the area.

He commented that many people in the area still had an old mindset that discriminated against people on the basis of ethnicity. People were protecting their own interests and still had the mindset of a people not yet liberated. They still did not see that “we are one”.

Researchers' feedback on preliminary investigations into dilapidated state of certain assets
Member of Parliament, Mr Blanché (DA), had over the past three years, submitted petitions complaining about the dilapidated state of certain public buildings, ranging across state properties in Johannesburg, Durban, George and Cape Town. The Committee’s researchers, Ms Stephney and Ms Ndumo, gave the Committee a brief summary of the progress of the investigations they had done to date on how the SAA Women’s College in George and Fernwood in Cape Town are maintained.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

APPENDIX

12 September 2006
From: Mr F S Mufamadi: Minister for Provincial and Local Government

To:         Ms A T Didiza: Minister of Public Works

EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IMMOVABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT BILL (B1-2006) TO INCLUDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Thank you for your letter dated 30 June 2006 regarding the above matter.

After investigations by the Department of Provincial and Local Government (the DPLG) in collaboration with Department of Public Works, it was established that adequate legislative provision is made within section 63 of the Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 56 of 2003) to ensure that the municipal assets are adequately planned for and managed.

It should also be noted that the redrafting of the Bill with the introduction of the additional chapter on local government would be a duplication to existing legislation and could delay the finalisation of the Bill considerably due to the provisions in section 154 (2) of the Constitution and section 4 of the Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act NQ. 56 of 2003).

The current legislation can be strengthened with the introduction of guidelines on asset management, which will assist municipalities to implement existing legislation. The guidelines will be drafted by the DPLG in collaboration with sector departments.


The discussions between the two departments also revealed that the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and relevant sector departments should be consulted first before we meet to discuss the way forward to this matter. I also recommend that the chairpersons of the Local Government and Public Works Portfolio Committee, as well as SALGA, should be invited to attend our meeting.

Kind regards