Government Immovable Assets Management Bill: Department briefing

Meeting report

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
8 November 2006
GOVERNMENT IMMOVABLE ASSETS MANAGEMENT BILL: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr F Bhengu (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department of Public Works Government Immovable Assets Management Bill briefing
Government Immovable Asset Management Bill [B1-2006]

SUMMARY
The Department of Public Works briefed the Committee on the Government Immovable Assets Management Bill. The briefing included the objectives, guidelines, requirements, and the Immovable Assets Management Plan that encompassed user and custodian plans. The Department had consulted with the involved government departments and other stakeholders. Members’ concerns included the need to look at the Government assets that were managed by the State Owned Enterprises, illegal occupation of government property, and the future of state property outside the country and in the former homelands. Some Members felt that there could be problems with the implementation of the legislation at local government level.

MINUTES

Department of Public Works (DPW) briefing

Mr R Mosalo (Director: Policy) explained the need for the Government Immovable Assets Management Bill (GIAMA) saying that immovable assets should be utilised for the acceleration of service delivery. He mentioned the objectives, requirements and guidelines of the Bill. Mr Mosalo mentioned the Immovable Asset Management Plan, user management plan and the custodian management plan. In addition, he noted the extensive consultation that had been done with different stakeholders on the Bill. The Department had already implemented a pilot programme for User Asset Management together with the Department of Home Affairs.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the actual Bill would be dealt with cause by clause only after the process of public hearings had been completed. Members could only interrogate the Department’s presentation.

Mr T Anthony (ANC) said that the briefing was much more understandable than the previous one. The Department should inform the Committee about the discussions they had had with the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG)

Mr L Maduma (ANC) said that he foresaw problems with the implementation of the Bill at the local level. He added that the Committee would need guidelines for the local government level. There were a lot of government assets that were neglected in rural areas.

Mr S Mathobela (Deputy Director-General: Asset Management) replied that the Department would be working very closely with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) to formulate guidelines.

Mr J Blanche (DA) said that the Bill should also include the role of the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) that had properties at local government level, but did not maintain their assets. He cited an example of assets that were owned by Transnet in Ekurhuleni, which were badly neglected.

Mr A Meiring (Director: State Property Services) replied that SOEs should have an Asset Register for all properties under their own control and those they had given over as grants. He said a comprehensive asset register was the cornerstone of immovable asset management; one could not control something without the necessary knowledge.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) asked what would happen to state property that was in the former TBVC states and outside the country.

Mr Meirng replied that the Constitution stated that ownership of property should be clarified. The country needed comprehensive land and property audits. GIAMA would empower the Minister of Public Works to define the requirements needed for property to be known as Government Immovable Assets.

Mr S Huang (ANC) asked for clarity on the difference between users and custodians and for the financial implications of the Bill for Departments.

Mr Meiring replied that the state would have proper control and could even derive financial benefit when the properties were properly utilised. Custodians were responsible for the management, while users utilised such assets to give effect to their functions.

Mr N Magubane (ANC) said that a lot of people were benefiting financially by charging rent to the occupants of abandoned state property.

The Chairperson asked whether the Committee and the Department had to wait for the Bill to be passed in order to solve the existing problems. He added that even the SA Police Services (SAPS) had been illegally occupying some of the deserted buildings; some Government officials who qualified for housing subsidies were staying for free in Government property. Some municipalities turned a blind eye to the problem.

Mr Meiring said on the misuse of state residential accommodation that GIAMA required that all property had to be registered.

Mr Mathobela said that the Department was given R30 million by the Treasury for capacity building. The Department started by recruiting graduates in the built environment. They had also looked at granting immunity of prosecution to the illegal occupants of Government property. That would be done in co-operation with National Directorate of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Blanche asked whether school property belonged to the Department of Public Works.

Mr Meiring replied that primary and secondary education property was a provincial competency while the National Department of Education was the user.

Mr H Cupido (ACDP) enquired about the relationship between the provinces and communities that had been using the properties.

Mr Mathobela said that some of the issues would be discussed during consultation with communities. He said the Department would have to take a case-by-case approach and then link the asset register through a joint IT database. The Department would develop a document that explained all the details about Government Immovable Assets and would submit it to the Committee in two weeks’ time rather than explain it in piecemeal fashion.

Mr Magubane asked for clarity about the Ingonyama Trust Land that formed part of some Durban townships.

Mr Mathobela promised to investigate this issue and revert to the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would again meet with the Department in early 2007.

The meeting was adjourned.