Housing Development Agency Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

Ms Phumelele Ngema (State Law Advisor), Mr Mziwonke Dlabantu (Chief Financial Officer: Department of Housing) and the Committee members went through the proposed amendments and the Bill up to Clause 23 as follows:
 
New Clause  Purpose of Act
The Chairperson stated that the new 2(c) was not clear, and that she was unsure of ‘landed property’.

Mr A Steyn (DA) wanted a broader 2(c) to cover a role beyond that of acquiring land.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) asked what ‘landed property’ meant.

Ms P Ngema explained that ‘landed property’ was defined as land where structures already existed on the land; she said she could prepare a definition.

Proposed Amendments  Clause 2
Ms B Dambuza (ANC) observed that the authority rested on the Minister who establishes the entity.

Mr Steyn proposed that ‘juristic person’ be defined. Clause 2(b) and (c) were certainly covered in the Bill.

The Chair stated that the Board was stipulated in the Act in Clause 8.

Mr M Dlabantu said we needed to be sure that this Agency complied with legislation.

The Chair asked if Ms Ngema was happy with the proposal that the section stayed as is.

Ms Ngema said she was – ‘public entity’ had been defined so there was no need to define it again.

The Chair was happy to delete 2(b) and (c).

Mr Steyn asked if they were still adding a definition of juristic person.

Ms Ngema said ‘juristic person’ gave an entity all legal rights, and would change the Agency to a person, but she would put the standing definition of a juristic person into the Bill.

Mr Schneemann asked members to keep their voices up.

New Clause 3  Objects of Agency
Ms Ngema stated that changes had been made to have a cross-cutting Agency, and to identify a project manager.

Clause 4  Role of Agency
The Chair said it had been decided to do away with Clause 4.

Ms Ngema did not recall they were going to do away with Clause 4. Only the words ‘by agreement’ had been removed.

Ms Dambuza remembered that they had decided to delete the entire Clause 4; it was contradictory. ‘May’ had been deleted, to be substituted by ‘shall’ or ‘must’. In Clause 2(a) the Minister was to ‘advise’, not ‘recommend’, and ‘direct’ not ‘request’ the Agency.

The Chair asked whether Ms Ngema agreed.

Mr Steyn thought it had been agreed that Clause 4(3) was to be deleted because it contradicted 4(1), and that the words ‘instruct’ replace ‘advise’ the municipality. He felt a bit lost

Ms Dambuza said they had all agreed to say that the Minister should ‘advise’.

The Chair said there were two areas where there was no agreement.

Mr Schneemann felt it a challenge that the departments had a pre-2004 mindset.

Ms Dambuza agreed. Central planning had to occur at the beginning; one of the primary objectives of the Act was that central planning should be observed.

The Chair observed that the issue of bulk infrastructure was central – who would do it if the agents could not do it?

Clause 5
Mr Steyn agreed that 5(4) was to be deleted.

Ms Ngema said 5(4) contradicted what the Agency could do. ‘May’ was to be substituted for ‘must’ in 5(1).

Mr Steyn asked whether the new Expropriation Act could be recognized in the Bill.

Ms Ngema replied they could not refer to what had not yet been legislated, but she could add to that clause to state ‘expropriation may take place in terms of any expropriation legislation which was not in contradiction’ – she would draft this.

Mr Dlabantu suggested a reference to ‘any other Act’ because the known Act would change.

Clause 6  Functions of Agency
Mr Steyn suggested another clause which would deal with the objects of the agency, so that Training, Budgets and such would all be talking to each other.

Ms Ngema asked that the Committee guard against bringing in issues already discussed.

Ms Dambuza said members wanted to see everything well-coordinated.

Mr Schneemann asked whether there was legislation that required such integrated action to take place, since the integrated development of schools, clinics and housing was not happening. How could they ensure that the legislation had the teeth to ensure that infrastructure such as a taxi rank and clinics were there when they built the houses.

Ms Ngema said the Housing Act told what part each stakeholder should play. She could draft a point to say what they were trying to keep integrated.

Mr Steyn hoped that in the new development, the various departments would coordinate the budgeting.

Mr Dlabantu wondered how this agreement among members could be accommodated in the Act. Although the Agency was responsible for coordinating, it was not responsible for central planning.

Mr Schneemann noted that the response to date had been that other departments did not cooperate.

Ms Dambuza agreed with Mr Schneemann that they did not want to fall into the same traps.

The Chair asked whether this appeared under Functions or Objects of the Agency.
She wanted members to spend more time on this section.

Ms Ngema responded it had been suggested to change ‘Functions’ to ‘Powers and duties’. Line 41 would read ‘The Agency must ….’ A developmental plan could be developed in consultation with the organs of State, but the Minister had the final say after consultation. Under 6(1)(b) ‘find’ had been changed to ‘identify’. In 6(1)(c) ‘municipality’ had been changed to ‘relevant authority’.

In response to Mr Steyn saying that some amendments did not appear in his document, Ms Ngema said members should have the final draft, not the initial draft of proposed amendments.

Mr Steyn said that he preferred to see it as ‘Objects’. The Chair agreed.

Mr Schneemann wanted the Department to go back to the Breaking New Ground (BNG) Comprehensive Plan of 2004 to ask them to say how to make sure they would get the desired results; this was a ground-breaking strategy. This piece of legislation would not solve the problem.

The Chair suggested the words ‘assist organ of state’, and again asked how to accommodate the question of bulk infrastructure, which was critical. If they were unable to deal with that issue, it would be ‘pie in the sky’.

Mr Dlabantu stated that the Agency had to ensure coordination of economic, social …..

Mr Schneemann asked if they were able to specify the type of infrastructure, and bring in a new (h) after (g).

Ms Dambuza raised the question of public participation; the municipality would have to facilitate that process. Skills transfer was very important.

Ms Ngema replied that the National Housing Council provided all the necessary information.

The Chair asked who funded bulk infrastructure.

Mr Dlabantu replied that it was in Midrand.

Mr Schneemann proposed that a 2(e) be introduced saying that the Agency must coordinate the provision of all the necessary infrastructure.

The Chair replied this would force each department to put funding aside for this purpose.

Clause 7  Mandate
Ms Ngema noted that questions had been raised that the mandate of the Agent was not clear. This mandate was found in the Preamble and the Objects of the Agency.

Mr Dlabantu said Clause 7 was really about the Minister’s authority over the Agency and governance issues.

Ms Dambuza asked what the difference was between subsections 3 and 5.

Mr Schneemann did not see a problem.

Mr Dlabantu replied that, in the Objects and the Preamble, the Minister articulated the specifics of what he did.

Mr Steyn asked whether ‘document’ in 2(a) was different from ‘contain’ in 2(b) and (c), and whether five years should be shortened to three years.

Ms Ngema replied that, for purposes of consistency, 2(a) should also read ‘contain’.

The Chair enquired what the normal duration was. Three years was too short.

Mr Dlabantu said five years was enough.

Clause 8  Governing Board
The Chair observed that it had been agreed at the previous discussion to omit ‘and’.

Mr Mabena said ‘and’ should come after (c) and before (d).

The Chair thought 8(3) was clear.

Mr Steyn observed that according to that clause, if both the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson were absent, the meeting would have to be stopped to get hold of the Minister, and the meeting would then have to be abandoned.

Mr Mabena suggested: ‘seven non-executive members including the following …’.

Mr Steyn suggested they add: ‘seven non-executive members which would include …’.

The Chair was glad Mr Mabena had raised this.

Clause 9  Persons disqualified from membership of Board
Ms Ngema thought nothing had been raised here.

Mr Steyn observed that ‘must’ had been changed to ‘may’.

Clause 10  Persons disqualified from membership of Board
An ANC member suggested that ‘ill’ should be changed to ‘mentally or psychologically unfit’; other people were to be respected.


Clause 11  Appointment and removal of members of Board
Mr Schneemann wanted clarity on 11(7). How long did the non-executive members serve, was it indefinite?

Mr Dlabantu replied that their term was employment-related – they were contract posts.

The Chair asked why three years and not 18 months in 11(7).
 
Mr Steyn suggested the Department look at this as 11(7)(b) needed clarity. It seemed to say that after a board member had built up capacity, whatever experience that member had, he/she could not serve again?

Ms Ngema explained that this was after serving two terms. They could not serve a third term.

Mr Dlabantu pointed out that this was to give other people an opportunity.

Mr Schneemann asked why a term of office was different to a mandate; the two should be tied up.

The Chair asked that the Department take this issue back since the Committee felt this was a resource.

Clause 18  Vacating of and removal from office of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Mr Dambuza pointed out that the Board did not have to consult the Agency on this matter.

Mr Steyn suggested the insertion of a clause where the Chief Executive and Financial Officers were not divested of their powers.

Due to time constraints, the Committee decided to finish the deliberations the next day, 19 March 2008.