Status of housing provision in Gauteng: National & Provincial Department briefing; with Deputy Minister

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

18 February 2020
Chairperson: Ms M Semenya
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The briefing by the Gauteng Department of Human Settlements was structured to give clear details of the issues faced by the province within the housing sector. The province was currently experiencing a housing crisis as a result of immigration and several other contributing factors. The influx of about 300 000 people each year was putting a burden on the Department, as the 1.2 million people who were seeking housing could not be catered for within the allocated budget. However, there were other interventions, such as social housing, and the aim was to release 100 000 serviced stands in the next five years as part of resolving the problem. The Department classified the housing crisis as both a historical and systematic challenge that could not be resolved timeously, and had created issues such as the accumulation of accruals, illegal occupations and housing projects which had been abandoned, mainly as a result of failed management.

The external problems faced by the province were those of illegal land invasions and house occupations, especially in the Tshwane and Johannesburg areas, which had been rampant since 2016. To tackle these problems, the Department in Gauteng had focused on evicting illegal occupants. Economic inequality between the provinces in South Africa would continue to contribute to the inflow of people to Gauteng. This would result in further pressure on the ageing infrastructure and government services. Not all migrants could find employment, and this placed an additional burden on the government programmes, as they needed to cater for indigent individuals.

Referring to the 300 000 people who migrated to the province each year, Members asked if the Department knew their identities, where they originated from, and whether they were South African citizens or foreign nationals. There needed to be a clear report on the measures put in place to stop invasions, both of completed houses and land. They wanted to know what progress had been made in reducing the title deeds backlog. An EFF Member asked why the Department was not persuading the government to conclude the process of land expropriation without compensation so that the crisis could be dealt with. The Department was also asked how it kept a check on people who had previously received housing in one province, and then sought a similar benefit when they migrated to another province.

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the meeting was a follow up to the oversight visit to Gauteng, as there was no presentation from the province because of a miscommunication with regard to the specific information that was to be given to the Committee. The Committee had visited the province during February and had not been welcomed by the residents, specifically the mayor. The action of violence by the community towards some delegates was condemned by the Committee.

The Department had been requested to present an update on the provision of houses in Gauteng. The Committee acknowledged that Gauteng was the most affected province when it came to the issue of housing, as it experienced a high population growth. This information would allow both the Committee and the Department to work together in managing the issues of integrated human settlements and infrastructure provision.

Deputy Minister’s opening remarks

Ms Pam Tshwete, Deputy Minister, Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation, announced that the Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) had lost his mother. However, he had availed himself for the meeting in respect for Parliament.

The National Department gave money to all the provinces and their responsibility was to monitor the activities in these provinces. In the previous years, a review had been conducted and from the indicated findings, the Department had so far built 4.3 million houses but there was still a backlog. Since 1994, the Department had tried its utmost best to ensure that houses had been built for those in need. There were still challenges in some areas, and these were being looked into.

She stressed that Gauteng received higher grants compared to the other provinces, mainly due to its escalating population. The previous year was a difficult year, during which she had a road show that visited four provinces, some of which were found to not have used the funds granted. In the Northern Cape and the Free State province, she had meetings with the premiers and the MECs in order to sensitise the provincial representatives around the issue of not using the grants supplied. She added that the Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal were some of the provinces that were in need of money, because they had used the grants provided.

The Department had taken a resolution to transfer the money which had not been used by certain provinces to those that were in need of funds. The provinces which needed funds for housing had been given R98.5 billion, and the reasons would be clarified within the presentation. The transfer of grants had been done because the money would be returned back to National Treasury, and therefore would not be available to the provinces in need.

Some of the challenges which contributed to provinces not using the grants included acquiring land for infrastructure, which delayed the Department in meeting the set objectives of supplying houses.

Gauteng housing situation

Mr Lebogang Maile, MEC, Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), Gauteng, said that the province was experiencing a housing crisis as a result of immigration, as well as many other contributing factors. In1994, the population in the province was seven million, but it currently stood at 15 million, with about 300 000 people coming into Gauteng each year. In the National Housing Register, there were about 1.2 million people who were looking for housing in the province, and the grant received could cater for only 20 000 houses. There were other interventions, such as social housing, and the aim was to release 100 000 serviced stands in the next five years as part of resolving the problem.

The biggest challenges that were faced by the Department were historical and systematic, and therefore could not be resolved timeously. In the last seven years, the Department had not been performing well as a result of under-spending which had accumulated accruals, which was a major current issue. As an example, the province had accruals on security which amounted to R500 million, and one of the major objectives was for the province to settle all accruals, as these were genuine services that had been provided, and the government had a responsibility to ensure that service providers were paid.

He said that the province had a commitment to pay service providers within 50 days, but there were invoices that were overdue and as result small businesses suffered. Another issue was around unfinished houses, and in order to resolve this situation the province needed a budget of R12 billion. However, the budget for the next financial year was R800 million less, and the province had around R5 billion, which meant that for two and a half years there would not be any houses being built.

He said that with time permitting, they would like to engage in in-depth discussions with the Committee to come up with resolutions to the current issue.

The external problems faced by the province were those of illegal land invasions and house occupations, especially in the Tshwane and Johannesburg areas, which had been rampant since 2016. To tackle these problems, the Department in Gauteng had focused on evicting illegal occupants, and in certain instances there were eviction orders which would permit such actions against those involved.

The Chairperson commented that the Committee had received the presentation a day before the meeting, which was an unwelcome practice, as the Members had not given been enough time to go through it and engage with its content.

Gauteng demographics

Migration patterns

Ms Phindile Mbanjwa: Head of Department (HOD): Human Settlements, said that for the period 2016 to 2021, Gauteng was forecast to receive the highest net inflow of migrants of approximately 1 048 440. There was an estimated of 548 456 who would be leaving Gauteng during this period. However, this number was far fewer than the 1 596 896 people who were migrating to Gauteng, which was currently the most populous province.

Effects of migration

Economic inequality between the provinces in South Africa would continue to contribute to the inflow of people to Gauteng. This would result in further pressure on the ageing infrastructure and government services. Not all migrants could find employment, and this placed an additional burden on the government programmes, as they needed to cater for indigent individuals.

Current state of affairs

The Department’s performance was low. This could be attributed to a myriad of issues which could not be resolved in a short space of time. To mediate the current state, critical vacancies had been filled.
 
Staff accommodation was an issue, and funding was required from the provincial budget to complete the process of the new building.

Legacy projects required an estimated R12 billion to complete, and there was not sufficient budget.

The Departmental priorities which were aligned with the medium term strategic framework (MTSF) were:

  • Economic transformation and job creation;
  • Economy, jobs and infrastructure;
  • Township revitalisation.

Priority programmes include legacy projects, the upgrading of informal settlements, mega human settlements, and rapid land release.

Ms Mbanjwa identified the following challenges and interventions:

Challenges

  • Contract management weaknesses;
  • Project management weaknesses;
  • The integrity of planning information to inform development readiness across spheres of government - integrated planning weaknesses;
  • Non-accountability by municipalities;
  • Bulk infrastructure, and the capacity of municipalities to handle infrastructure;
  • Title deeds: Service certificates clearance (due to subsidy quantum limitations on roads, stormwater and electrification), in order to finalise township formalisation and proclamation.

Intervention measures

  • Tightening of contract management and project management controls;
  • Putting strict measures on the monthly reporting by municipalities;
  • Withholding of 2019/20 transfers until all redemption claims were submitted, and in other cases, signing tripartite agreements and paying service providers directly for work done;
  • Entering into tripartite agreements and/or direct contracting with service providers for accounting on all transfers, to ensure that service providers were paid on time upon completing the work;
  • Multi-sectoral testing of readiness of projects prior to project execution;
  • Capacity of municipalities being elevated through various interventions, such as CoGTA support measures.
  • Engagement with the national Department on alternative ways of addressing planning milestones which had a negative effect on title deeds registration, linked to financial resourcing

Discussion

Mr M Mabika (DA) commented that the state of the province was as though the Department never existed, which was puzzling. Referring to the 300 000 people who migrated to the province each year, he asked if the Department knew their identities, where they originated from, and whether they were South African citizens or foreign nationals. In cases where these individuals were South African nationals, was the province able to obtain information on whether these people were beneficiaries in the provinces from which they had come, as some individuals abused the housing system by becoming beneficiaries in multiple provinces. 

What had the MEC meant when he referred to the accruals as being a historical problem?  Were there individuals who could be held accountable for these issues, and if there were, what corrective measures had been put in place to deal with those responsible?

Mr M Tseki (ANC) said there should be three catalytic projects identified in Gauteng, where the objective would be the integration of services implemented together with the projects. These services include sanitation, roads, electricity, schools etc. He added that there needed to be a clear report on the issue of engagement, and the measures put in place to stop invasions, both of completed houses and land. He said that when a house was being built, it was known to whom it belonged, and generally this should be a measure that inhibited illegal invasions, as the owners made efforts to protect their properties. He asked whether those awaiting houses knew the properties that belonged to them.

He addressed the HOD on the issue of management, and said it was not a challenge but a weakness within the Department. Managers neglected their duties, and this may be politically based, or the issue lay with the incompetence of HODs and/or Directors. To address the issue, there had to be consequences.

He asked how the issuing of title deeds would be programmed.

Mr L Basson (DA) said that he wanted to know more about the accruals, and what the reasons were that had resulted in the current accumulations. Were they the result of paying more for units that were already budgeted for, money being stolen, or a budget that had not been spent?

He added that migration to Gauteng, the Western Cape, North West and Mpumalanga was a problem, and the main reason was that jobs were not being created in other provinces. If there were no jobs in other provinces, people would migrate to where there were greater chances of employment, which resulted in the ongoing housing problem.

Ms S Mokgotho (EFF) said that there were officials who were responsible for the accumulation of accruals, and asked if there had been any consequence management taken against the implicated officials.

She added that the Department was struggling to obtain money to buy land, and at the same time struggling to acquire land to build houses. She asked why the Department was not persuading the government to conclude the process of land expropriation without compensation so that the crisis could be dealt with.

She referred to the presentation discussion on expenditure to date. During the financial years of 2018/19 and 2019/20, there had been no expenditure. She inquired if this was because of the unavailability of a set budget for housing, or was there money that had been put aside to pay accruals?

The presentation had indicated that municipalities were unable to be accountable for carrying out their duties, and currently the Department was still putting in place strict measures in order to deal with the matter. She asked if all the municipalities adhered to the measures which had been put in place and if not, what were the consequences they faced? Did the Department have programmes to capacitate municipalities, since they were aware that they were unable to handle bulk infrastructure, or other forms of infrastructure?

She added that there were large amounts of money spent on professional services during the financial years from 2018 to 2020. She asked who these service providers were, and why did the Department not hire permanent staff or officials, so that expenses could be reduced.

Ms L Arries (EFF) asked whether the professional services rendered were provided by consultants or engineers.  Was the low performance of the Department because of a lack of skills? Were systems in place to ensure that deviations were avoided, as these were largely the result of fraud and corruption?

She asked what role was played by the Housing Regulatory Board to ensure that the quality of work was up to standard, and how the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) worked.
 
She stressed that as long as municipalities lacked the capacity to handle infrastructure, there would be constant protests from communities, so it was not acceptable that municipalities could not handle bulk infrastructure.

Ms N Mvana (ANC) said that Mr Basson had asked for the reasons behind the accumulated accruals, but she wanted to get clarity on what the plan was to address the issue, and what targets had been set by the Department.
 
She said migration into certain provinces was a known phenomenon. As long as the Department did not have a system to capture people who were already beneficiaries, there would always be issues around housing, even in provinces such as the Eastern Cape, where there was no influx of people. She stressed that the Department needed to have a tracking system in place.

She asked what the plan was around the issuing of title deeds and whether there was a timeframe to complete the process. The issue around title deeds was still to be considered by the national office, and the Deputy Minister should clarify this.

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) said that the presentation should be structured clearly so the Committee could follow it easily. There was a problem with the organisational structure in Gauteng. She asked whether the province had an Organisational Development (OD) unit which was professional and addressed the stabilisation of programmes within the Department.

She asked whether the constructors were held accountable if houses were left incomplete. Were the serviced sites/stands that had been in existence were linked to a beneficiary list? How were these sites controlled? Were they invaded or not at present? Was there a land plan that would channel people in an orderly manner to avoid land invasions?

Mr X Ngwezi (IFP) commented that money had been spent, but there were houses which remained unfinished. He questioned if the Department was adhering to consequence management, and inquired about progress with this process. Was there a beneficiary list when houses were being built in order to avoid illegal occupations?

He reminded the Committee that the Minister had stated that there would be weekly issuing of title deeds, and therefore the government should state, at each level, what it was that was being done with regard to the issuing of title deeds.

He highlighted that there was a housing backlog in the entire country. In Nongoma municipality, there was a backlog of 15 000 units, and work had begun but had not been completed. He added that there must be action taken by the Department to deal with provinces not showing notable progress.

Mr M Mashego (ANC) said that in the previous year, the Minister had described the processes within the adopted plan of the Department of Human Settlements, and these had included dealing with accruals, unfinished housing, migration and litigation. Although provinces such as the Western Cape and Mpumalanga received an influx of immigrants from specific provinces, the challenge in Gauteng was that migrants were coming in from all over the country. It would take the Department three financial years to complete the unfinished houses, as indicated by the required budget. The main focus should be on completing these houses and halting the process of building new houses, so that there was visible progress.

The plans to move all sectors of the Department into a single building was a good idea, but if these plans meant that there would be large amounts of money spent from the budget, it was advisable that the Department consider discontinuing the plan.

Mr Mashego asked if, within the process of building houses, it was possible for the Department to build the total number of houses that it could financially manage rather than the number that it proposed, and report on the matter afterwards. His concern was around the incompletion of houses.

He asked about the issue of augmentation to level three of municipalities compared to the provincial building of houses, and how this created an impediment to building progress. What had been the impact of litigation on different people?
                                  
The Chairperson asked for clarity on how informal settlements were managed, while acknowledging that the influx was a problem. With regard to the issue of unfinished houses, she mentioned that there was a rectification programme in place, and wanted to know if it had a budget.

How was the province dealing with the matters that had been raised during the meeting, such as fragmentation of planning? How was the issue of beneficiaries from different provinces being managed to ensure that those who had benefited from housing projects in their own provinces did not benefit in Gauteng upon migration? This was not only a provincial issue, but a national one, so she wanted clarity on how there could be a change in policy formulation to deal with such issues.

Another issue was that of farmers who had ownership of vast areas of land and decided to use the land for accommodating people in shacks rather than using it for dual purposes, which increased the burden on the municipalities. Did the province experience some of these issues, and how were they being managed?

The Chairperson said that metros were getting grants for bulk infrastructure, and asked how growth population was managed while providing serviced sites for people. She added that one of the interventions that would assist Gauteng would be that of social housing.

Department’s response

Mr Maile said that the issue of migration was not only because of those who sought work in the province, but also as a result of the influx of students who came to the different tertiary institutions in the province. There was also 42% share of industrial production that drew skills from different areas, and many other additional reasons, and therefore the province faced more complex issues around population growth.

The province would not know who the people coming into Gauteng were, as it was a national function to have a population register. The Department did know that there were about 300 000 people coming into the province, and it was known where these people were, but not their identities. Whether they had benefited from their province of origin was known, because there was a national system that had that information in place, and the Department had introduced a biometric system in order to try and deal with the current issues.

He said that historical issues referred to those that had been occurring over the past seven years or more as a result of numerous changes that had been implemented within the Department. At present, the Department was trying to understand the cause of these issues and make plans on how to better address them. One of the major issues had been the leadership turnover -- in the last ten years, there had been three MECs and about four HODs, which had caused instability.

He said that the Department wanted to attract private investments.

Mr Maile said there were several measures which would be put in place to deal with the challenge of land invasions. Illegal occupants would be forcefully removed, and the reason why this process had not been fast-tracked was due to budgetary constraints. The second strategy was to prevent these illegal invasions by applying for a blanket court order. He pointed out that the people who had been affected by the floods in Mamelodi were illegal occupants, and the issue was not whether the Department fast-tracked the process of land expropriation without compensation -- there was land available, but it was not habitable.

He clarified that the owners of houses being built did know about the houses that belonged to them.

Mr Maile explained that accruals did not mean that money had been stolen, but referred to work done which had not been paid for, although it had been budget for. One of the reasons for this was that in some instances, work was done but not completed, and therefore the Department had a responsibility not to pay for services which had not been rendered. In dealing with the accruals, the money could be rolled over to National Treasury, who would then decide on whether they would grant the roll over back to the Department. Another reason which added to the accumulation of accruals was the incompletion of houses.

Officials involved in the hiring of security for the unfinished houses at a cost of R500 million without quotations, had been dealt with. The Department had also acted against the Deputy Director General (DDG) and Chief Director, showing that action was taken not only against junior officials.

He mentioned that land was not just purchased -- there needed to be a service plan in place.

In Gauteng, the Department of Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) and the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) were different departments, and this lengthened the time it took to deal with current issues, such as compelling municipalities to comply.

Acquiring professional services was necessary, as there were no other means of avoiding professional indemnity. In addition, there was the issue of acquiring interdisciplinary skills. 

Mr Maile said that the reasons for underperformance varied, and ranged from historical reasons, leadership turnover and project management.

He agreed with the Member who had referred to the reasons resulting in deviations and variations. However, there were additional reasons which may result from unforeseen circumstance, especially when in the process of construction. A decision had been taken to stop provisions for deviations and variations, as it was clear that these had been abused, and only under exceptional circumstances -- when approved by the HOD -- would provisions be made. 

The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) was an issue involving contractors, some of which would be released. Although houses had been built but not completed, this did not mean that money had been lost. The process was regulated, and the work was paid per milestone. One of the problems that had contributed largely towards the issue of unfinished houses was that the bulk of the money went to paying for the foundation and the roofing of the houses. Contractors had misused this process, in that they would focus on completing the foundations and roofing, leaving the houses incomplete.

An additional reason was the mismanagement of the contractors, which had led to depletion of funds, therefore inhibiting the completion of projects. Unfortunately, those businesses which had been implicated were black-owned companies. 

Mr Maile said that fraud and corruption were a major problem that the Department needed to address. One of the tactics in dealing with fraud and corruption was delaying contractors while they were on site in order to pay for the overtime spent, as this was part of the law and regulation referred to as “spending time.” Currently, there was a case where a contractor was demanding to be paid R55 million for “spending time,” and such cases had been frequent. 

He acknowledged that there was a lot of disorder, and they admitted that there was a problem, but there were plans in place to resolve such issues. Firstly, accruals would be paid off and cleared. Secondly, they would introduce good project management to prevent accruals. 

Regarding the structure of the presentation, the Department would appreciate it if the Committee supplied the template that they would prefer.

He said that the province did have an OD unit, but the failure was on the part of leadership, which led to failure in governance.

In dealing with the issue of unfinished houses, there was a budget set aside called “Legacy.” However, this would not solve the problem. The second mode of dealing with the problem was converting the unfinished houses into rapid land release, and those who had the ability to build for themselves could be given a title deed.

He would not go with the option of not building new houses, but would rather decide on who to build for, such as the elderly, the vulnerable and those with disabilities.

Mr Maile agreed with the Member who suggested that rapid land release should be used as a strategy to fast track and deal with the issue of land. The land plan was unclear, as it was not integrated. 

He said that the houses which were being illegally occupied did have owners.

There were reasons why the issuing of title deeds was slow. Some of them were related to family title deeds, where a house could be owned by all members in the family, and the new dispensation did not cater for such situations. In other cases, the estates were being contested, and there were conditions that made it difficult for the proclamation of townships. Without these proclamations, title deeds could not be issued. In other cases, the owners had sold their title deeds and cannot be traced.

Mr Maile emphasised that there was a plan in place which had seen progress in previous months, and in the next two to three years these issues should be fixed. 

He made mention that the accommodation the presentation had referred to was a place of work. They were the only department without a building, and workers were scattered all over. The money for office space did not come from the budget, which was mainly for houses, stands and title deeds. One of the problems was that the Department had too many sectors as a result of the process of de-regionalisation and decentralisation, which had impeded the physical execution of functions, as regions functioned in isolation. This was one of the factors which added to the accumulation of accruals and as such was not a luxury, but a need.

The accreditation had been premature, and should not have been done as it was among the many factors causing the Department’s the current problems. The system should be fixed to avoid a repetition of the same mistakes.

At the national level, there had been a categorisation of informal settlements. There were those that would not be relocated but developed, those that would receive partial services, and those that would be relocated. There was no comprehensive plan in place, as some functions were executed by municipalities.

Private land ownership was a problem. The Ekurhuleni municipality had gone to court to seek the eviction of people occupying privately-owned land. The issue around such cases was that the community demanded services from the municipality which could not be provided. The municipality wanted to relocate people to an alternative place were needed services could be provided, but the landowner was contesting this decision as he wanted the municipality to buy the land, and people were used in this regard.

In the law, there was a provision for the MEC responsible for CoGTA to reject the IDPs of municipalities. This had never happened, but would happen in Gauteng if there was a municipality that did not achieve certain objectives within the IDP, and the issue of alignment and planning would be enforced.

The MEC asked to be excused, as he had to catch a flight.

Deputy Minister Tshwete said that during the World Economic Forum in Abu Dhabi, the issue of migration was raised by several countries, and was a result of people looking for jobs.

She added that there was an informal settlement upgrading policy in the Western Cape, where the strategic plan was to upgrade the informal settlements and provide accommodation. There was a programme in place to inform the beneficiaries about their serviced sites, and this would be done so that the owners were able to look after their properties and stop illegal occupation. The title deeds would be issued once an individual received a site. 

She said that the district delivery model would help the Department to integrate, and not work with the municipalities.

She added that there was a rectification budget available.

Ms Tshwethe said there was a policy in place that was set at looking into low cost housing for all provinces, and this would in turn benefit the people.

The biometric system had been established to catch people who had previously received houses. The Department would explain the consequences faced by those who had benefited more than once from the housing programme.

The idea of inviting provinces to come to the national Department was helpful, because it assisted in fast tracking some of the things that were delayed.

Ms Sindisiwe Ngxongo, Chief Operations Officer: National Department of Human Settlements, said that the process of issuing title deeds would be done once the owner received a site. The importance of dealing with this matter was mainly due to the fact that there was no room for a backlog of title deeds, and the Department would have to comply appropriately with the new medium term strategic framework (MTSF).

Regarding the rectification program, she said there used to be a budget prior 2002, because at the time there was no National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), whose core responsibility was to take care of the quality assurance of the houses that were being built. The only rectification happening was if the houses were delivered prior to 2002, and for anything after 2002, the NHBRC was expected to provide the quality assurance. She added that the NHBRC had inspectors that were responsible for inspecting the built houses, and should it be discovered that a house was not of good quality, then the Council was expected to deal with the matter.

With houses which needed to be rectified but had been built prior 2002, the provinces were expected to seek the approval of the Executive Authority, as there was no budget for rectification. This meant the same allocations which had been given to the provinces would be used for such purposes. 

She agreed with the Members that the issue of social housing needed to be enhanced. On the budget structure that had been approved by National Treasury, there was a specific program that deals with social housing because it was a portfolio that needs to be elevated.

Programs such as the informal settlements upgrading have also been elevated, and there needed to be an alignment on how the Department would deliver on the set targets.

Ms Ngxongo said the national Department needed to work together with the province of Gauteng to see  how best the corrective implementation could be achieved.

Mr Johannes Makokga, Director: Grants Management, National Department of Human Settlements, said that the province had been allocated an amount of R5.1 billion for the period under review, which ended on 31 December 2019. Of the allocated amount, R3.5 billion had been transferred to the province, and R3.2 billion had already been spent, which was 93% of the transferred funds.

The funds had been spent on a number of programmes. This was still under discussion, and the performance that was expected from the province was being monitored. The Department was in continued engagements with the province on how the allocations would be used.

The Chairperson person asked if the Gauteng Department of wanted to add on to what the MEC had already shared. 

Ms Mbanjwa said that there was an organisational design team in place, but support was also received from the Office of the Premier. 

Further discussion

Ms Mokgotho said that the National Department and the municipalities had land, but the problem was that houses had not yet been built on the land since it had not been developed. She asked how long it took for a municipality and the National Department to develop the land and build houses, as there was a high need for houses in the province. 

Ms Arries asked the National Department if there were computerised data bases for beneficiaries so that the national and provincial departments were able to correlate the information.

She asked about the effectiveness of the national oversight on the use of grants, and how the national government was addressing the lack of transformation in the industry.

Mr Tseki asked for clarity on the budget of Gauteng, and whether the allocated funds would be used or not within the remaining months. He asked for the reasons why the province had not used the allocated funds as expected.

The mandate of Thuma Mina was to run a clean government, but the reality was that people were not performing what they had been contracted to do.  There needed to be consequence management in place, and people should be forcefully removed if they did not perform their duties. The project management issue needed to be dealt with.

Department’s response

Ms Tshwete agreed with Mr Tseki that those who did not perform their duties should be removed. She had visited all the provinces that did not use their allocated funds, and emphasised that R98.5 billion was going to be taken to provinces that were in need, such as the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. She did not know the reason why money was not being used -- as National Office, they did not want excuses and would make sure that the grants given would be utilised.

She agreed with Ms Mokgotho that some of the delays happened at the municipal level, and that the model of district development would force the three spheres of government to work together and improve the situation. 

She commented that those with private land were taking advantage of the fact that the government was in need of land, and therefore increased the purchase price. This resulted in negotiation processes aimed at reducing these prices to affordable levels.

Mr Makokga clarified the question on the allocation of funds. He said there were several measures in place which would address the oversight of grant utilisation. The responsibility of the National Department was to follow up on all processes by means of reports which should be submitted by the provinces. There were also one on one engagements with the provinces when there was a concern around a lack of expenditure, and these measures had been put in place to ensure that the grants issued were utilised.  

Miss Ngxongo said that transformation had become a priority for the whole country, and the Department was also implementing a transformation plan. The Department was involved in improving the processes by indicating within the set plans, the allocated budget supply chain processes and details on the percentages that had been earmarked for women, the youth and those with disabilities. The reason for a transformation plan was to show clearly that there were impacts from the plan, instead of looking for anything that might qualify for transformation. 

Ms Arries said her question on computerised data had not been answered.

The Chairperson said that the MEC had addressed the question, and that the Member may have not been listening at the time.

Ms Arries said she was not addressing the Chairperson, but rather the Department. It was not the Chairperson’s responsibility to answer questions, but rather to chair the meeting.

The Chairperson reiterated that the question had been responded to.

She said that Gauteng should come and present before the Committee, as this was the province that took the bulk of the budget. The Committee was not happy about the spending in the Gauteng province, and the legislation had to be tightened so that people would not be denied services. There needed to be legislation that gave ministers more powers, because the system of transferring money from one province to another was not helping.

After the Committee had adopted minutes of a previous meeting, the meeting was adjourned.
 

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.

Share this page: