Human Settlements December Workshop: Day 1

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

01 December 2009
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Human Settlements (the Department) responded to the Committee’s request for more detailed interaction by hosting a two day workshop. The session was aimed at improving the Committee’s understanding of the basis for the decisions made in the programmes of the Department. It was also aimed at providing a platform for the Department to hear Members’ views. The Members’ inputs would be recorded and compiled into a report to provide guidance for the development of the Department’s programmes.

The Committee heard four presentations in the first session: Human Settlements Conditions, Appreciating the Scope of the Human Settlements Mandate, the Spatial/ Urban Background and Context and the Sector Strategy for 2009-2014. A major theme of the presentations was the rapid and irreversible urbanisation and migration in South Africa, coupled with growth in informal settlements, lack of access to basic services, unbalanced property markets and poor planning in the past. All future planning must be put into context. There were widely divergent housing situations, and statistics were given of the outstanding need for services. South Africa was further characterised by structural unemployment and informality, with many households falling into the subsidy income band. The Department acknowledged that different settings required different interventions, and also recognised that much of the current housing was not well located, but that many people were unable to move closer to their work. The population was densifying in those urban areas that had always been major cities, and no new economic centres had emerged over the past forty years. Choices had to be made about South Africa's urban future, which also take into account degradation of land, the effect of climate change and the unused agricultural land. The Department then described its expanded mandate, the importance of integrating elements, explained human settlement development principles, and set out the various pillars upon which its strategy was based.

Members queried the apparent urban bias of the Department, and asked if this would imply an increased spending in urban areas. Related questions concerned the possible increase of housing subsidies, addressing the mobility of the poor, how jobs in rural areas related to human settlements development and planning human settlement developments in relation to job opportunities. Members queried the cost implications for the implementation of the proposed strategy. Members also questioned whether the statistics given included the 2.2 million backlogs in housing, and queried what data sources were used for fixing the basic services figures. Members were concerned about the need for increased co-ordination between this Department and others both inside and outside the Cluster, and the Department explained that it must act as an anchor department to identify and pursue policy options. The Committee noted the reduced resources and questioned the implications of this for service delivery in the context of macro-alignment, capacity assembly, project management, and how the Department would communicate the key points. They also asked for more detail on the hierarchy of service delivery and how this would be sequenced between the relevant departments. Other questions concerned special needs housing, the progress of the People's Housing Process, the need for an increased focus on Community Development Workers and the possibility of creating new cities and planning human settlements around job opportunities. The Department undertook to deal with some issues in later presentations, and also agreed that it would try to present its strategic plan, taking into account many of the points raised, early in 2010.

 

The Directorate for Communication Services made a presentation on the approved annual strategy for 2009/10. The presentation focused on three primary areas of communication, namely; the Department's external communication strategy, current beneficiary communication activities and a multimedia campaign for the 2009/10 financial year. The report highlighted the Department’s major campaigns for promoting and enhancing knowledge through the provision of access to information to existing and potential beneficiaries of housing delivery. These included industrial theatre performances throughout the country's eleven provinces and consumer awareness radio broadcasts in several of the SABC local radio stations. 

 

The Department was called upon to clarify the operations of its call centre and the rationale behind the messages that it beamed out to communities through various media such as short messaging service and radio broadcasts. Members of the Committee were particularly interested in knowing how these messages were aligned to particular strategic aims and whether there was an observable output or indicators of success.

 

A member expressed doubt about the Department's claims that housing delivery thus far had reached a figure of 2.6 million homes and cautioned that beneficiary communication could create false hope and raise the expectations of those awaiting housing leading to discontent and instability when those expectations were not met. Another member commented that there was a need for communication to target people on the ground to address ignorance over the value of housing as shown by people who sold their houses at prices that were far below they market value.

 

Mr Johan Minnie, Deputy Information Officer in the DHS presented on the allocation strategy for housing opportunities, which had been developed in response to allegations of mal-administration and fraud regarding the allocation of housing subsidy financed properties and instituted a National Housing Needs Register from which the selection of beneficiaries could be undertaken.

 

The Committee raised concerns about the exclusion of councillors in the composition of the allocation committees and there were members who felt that they had to be broadly representative and inclusive of existing community structures and civil society. The Chairperson felt that the composition of the allocation committee and the processes for allocating housing to communities represented the foremost challenge for both the department and the Committee and called for problems in this area to be resolved with finality to avoid them recurring from year to year.

 

Meeting report

Workshop of Department of Human Settlements (DHS)
Introduction by the Acting Director-General of Department of Human Settlements
Mr Mziwonke Dlabantu, Acting Director-General, Department of Human Settlements, commented that the purpose of the session was that the Committee gain a better understanding of the rationale behind some of the Department of Human Settlement (DHS) programmes. In addition, this session would provide a platform for the Committee to advise the Department. The workshop was offered in response to various requests made by Members throughout the year, and the agenda was largely directed by the Members requests for information. He thanked the Committee for its keen interest in the DHS programmes, which demonstrated the Committee’s commitment to finding a way forward and holding the DHS accountable. The DHS would record the Members’ inputs, compile these into a report and reflect them in the Department’s programmes.

Mr Dlabantu referred to the well-known problems of houses built by the DHS that were not connected to water supply or that were not close to schools, and stated that the DHS was committed to finding solutions and to the hard work that was needed to correct the situation. The Department aimed to use every available advantage and intervention. It would have to deal with mandates, budgetary allocations, and discuss the roles of the relevant institutions – in short, the politics of delivery. This would be the core of co-ordination. It was absolutely central to the workshop process that the Members should be candid in expressing their views. Mr Dlabantu also felt that this type of interaction should happen more regularly, as the workshop would allow the DHS to set the programme for the coming year.

Introduction by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed all those present and expressed her view that this would prove a useful interaction, both for the Committee and the DHS.

Briefing on Human Settlements Conditions
Mr Joseph Leshabane, Chief Operations Officer, Department of Human Settlements, noted that the presentation would be conducted in four parts. He would begin with detailing the Human Settlements Conditions. Mr Leshabane reported that South Africa had a particular context, to which the planning on human settlements must respond.

South Africa’s greater context showed rapid urbanisation and migration from rural to urban areas, population growth, increased household formation and diminishing size of each household. The current human settlement conditions were characterised by growth in informal settlements, lack of access to basic services, unbalanced property markets and unsustainable development choices.

He noted that the categorisation of the 12,5 million households in South Africa was divided into formal settlements, informal or free-standing settlements (comprising 1,2 million households), settlements on tribal or communal land, and settlements on farms (farm-workers).

He provided statistics on the current need for basic services in South Africa. 3.95 million households needed access to water. 3,2 million households required access to sanitation. 2,6 million households still needed access to electricity and energy. 4,56 million households needed refuse removal.

Mr Leshabane also illustrated the extremes in South Africa’s housing situation using pictures of both extremes – informal settlements and high-end gated communities.

The urbanisation and demographic trends showed “dual residence”, which he described as households maintaining a rural base while sojourning in urban areas, with migration to urban areas becoming increasingly permanent. Urbanisation was irreversible and growing and had seen consolidation since the 1960s. This migration created the phenomenon of the “shifting target” in the delivery of services.

South Africa was also characterised by structural unemployment and informality and, in the wake of the economic downturn, access to housing finance or credit was diminishing, so that more households fell into the subsidy income band.

The macro conditions impacting on human settlements were listed as: diminishing bulk infrastructure spare capacity, social and geographical disparities, the costs of inputs (construction, materials and capacity), the built environment governance nexus and sustainability in the form of responding to climate change.  These were the prevailing conditions in South Africa that needed to be acknowledged.

Briefing on the Spatial/ Urban Background and Context
Mr Leshabane then moved to the second part of his briefing. He described the spatial / urban background as the point of departure for the Department's strategies. The DHS acknowledged that different settings required different interventions. The urban reality of South Africa was one that had inbuilt inefficiencies, and barriers to housing densification. Housing was, in most cases, not well located and it was difficult for people at the lower end of the market to move when this was what their jobs and livelihood required.

He reviewed infrastructure and development finance and various aspects of spatial geography. With regard to the latter, he pointed out that urbanisation, permanent migration and the stubborn apartheid infrastructure legacy all had a part to play. He illustrated the progression of population densification in South Africa's major cities of Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria and Johannesburg, from the 1960's to 2000. Population density was indicated by increasing peaks in the graph, and it was notable that this was concentrated in the metros. Over the past 40 years no new economic centres emerged elsewhere, so that the same areas continued to have high concentrations of people. Development potential correlated with the economic centres. In other areas, there was low development potential and high need. When examining the informal settlements, it was notable that these were also mostly concentrated in the larger cities and their outlying areas, which showed that a dedicated effort was needed to respond to the problems.

Mr Leshabane stressed that the dichotomy between rural and urban was a false one, and he highlighted the linkages between the two. The strategic issues, both spatial and housing, around human settlements were reviewed, as well as possible solutions. Mr Leshabane stated that choices had to be made about South Africa's urban future, specifically, what types and what form of infrastructure were needed. Related issues were the degradation of land, the effects of climate change, unused agricultural land and the implications of urbanisation.

Briefing on Appreciating the Scope of the Human Settlements Mandate
The Human Settlements Development Framework was presented according to the necessary elements of financial, social, institutional and physical. The Department of Human Settlements described how it saw its expanded mandate in the light of integrated human settlements. Several graphic models were presented to highlight the various phases of human settlements development. The Department concentrated on the locality considerations, bulk infrastructure (water, sewerage, electrical and roads), internal infrastructure (integrated water, sewerage and electrical infrastructure), top structures (subsidy units, bond units and social housing) and amenities (schools, recreation, open spaces and employment opportunities). Mr Leshabane used a honeycomb graph to illustrate the importance of integrating all these elements. The human settlement development principles were explained.

Briefing on Sector Strategy: 2009-2014: An overview of the Human Settlements Strategy Pillars
The pillars or key elements of the Department of Human Settlements’ Strategy were explained. The statement of expected outcomes was based on the prevailing housing reality, the DHS mandate, the State of the Nation Address (SONA) and sustainability considerations. Pillar 2 concerned the macro co-ordination and alignment of all relevant departments and entities. Pillar 3 was concerned with urbanisation and spatial management. Pillar 4 dealt with key priorities such as residential property development governance (2009/10), shelter development: (from 2009 to 2014) and long-term human settlements development (from 2009 to 2025). Pillar 5 concerned the necessary paradigm shift for transformation. Pillar 6 dealt with institutional re-alignment for implementation of the strategy.

Discussion
Ms M Borman (ANC) asked whether the statistics on backlogs in the first presentation included the 2.2 million backlog in housing.

Mr A Steyn (DA) asked on what data the basic services statistics were based.

Mr Leshabane replied that the statistics were based on the data that emerged from the 2007 Community Survey and this data pointed to the fact that while people may be adequately housed, they might not have access to basic services. The DHS was moving away from the use of the term "backlogs", as backlogs were time-specific, and migration made quantification of the backlogs problematic. Instead, the DHS had now moved to talking of “housing needs”. It was very important to quantify the investment needed to provide for these needs.

Ms Borman stated that it seemed that the housing backlog should be included in the basic services-needs statistics. She found it strange that there was such a large discrepancy between the number of houses delivered and the access to basic services.

Mr Leshabane responded that this discrepancy was a result of the country’s history. He referred to the dispersed development in South Africa, particularly evident in the former TBVC states (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei). There were many legacy issues to deal with. The houses may be in place, but might lack access to basic services. There was at that stage no correlation between houses and services. Investment priorities in municipalities had always been different. The DHS wanted settlements developed as a full package, and thus wanted to develop a regime that would respond to the issue of co-ordination.

Mr Dlabantu added that the DHS stated the statistics as they were. He added that a house may remain inadequate because of lack of access to basic services. The DHS wanted a situation where shelter and services were brought together until they correlated. From the point of view of getting statistics, the 2011 Census would provide a better picture, as it would give government a better sense of the accuracy of the data. He stated that government needed better data to answer the questions on the pressure building in South Africa.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) asked how jobs in rural areas related to human settlements development.

Mr Leshabane replied that it was a reality that high skilled jobs were usually in urban centres, due to economies of scale giving rise to advancement and innovation. There was a need to address the location of jobs and where people were living. Quality of life was compromised when people had to travel long distances to work. Quality of life was a very relevant factor to planning. The DHS wanted to ensure that people could live closer to areas of work.

Ms Mashishi asked what was meant by “mixed municipal performance”.

Mr Leshabane responded that the third group of municipalities was for the most part rural. These municipalities did not have the resource base and were therefore unable to respond to basic needs. This was what was meant by “mixed municipal performance”.

Ms V Mugwanya (ANC) asked whether the Committee would be overstepping its authority if the Committee were to ask to undertake inspections of new sites.

Mr Leshabane replied that this might pose a huge challenge. In Free State alone, 80 projects would be undertaken in 2010 and this was the average for all the other provinces. This was a huge number of inspections for the Committee to entertain. He felt that a more important issue was that there had been a failure of governance in planning of settlements, and it would be more useful for the Committee to try to fix this aspect.

Mr Dlabantu interjected that the Department would decline to answer the question on the Committee’s authority, as this was a question that the Committee Members themselves must decide, as they did have an oversight role.

Mr A Figlan (DA) referred to Nyanga West, where toilets were still situated outside houses. He asked what the DHS planned to do about this.

Mr Dlabantu replied that the question was central to the Department’s frustration. The DHS was looking at the monitoring framework in its totality. Monitoring was central to what the DHS should be doing, and was part of its vision for the future. The need to deal with sub-standard delivery quality and co-ordination meant that there were different roles for local government and provincial inspection. The DHS was also grappling with how to approach the proper monitoring framework. He added that the Department had taken note of the question on alleviating people’s living conditions, particularly the inappropriately-located facilities.

Mr T Botha (COPE) asked what the cost implications were for the implementation of the strategy. Although the plan looked good in the presentation, the real question was how it would be implemented.

Mr Botha referred to the section on basic service delivery and pointed out that water and electricity were delivered by different bodies, yet the DHS was mandated to deliver integrated human settlements. He wondered whether the DHS would be held back by a lack of co-ordinating structures to help it to deliver on its mandate.

Mr Botha also queried the cost implications of the Department’s vision in the third presentation.

Mr Botha noted that in the current economic conditions more people would qualify for subsidies. He wondered whether the State would increase subsidies to compensate for this.

Mr Botha referred to the urban/rural bias. He agreed that migration to urban areas was unstoppable. He asked if this implied increased spending in areas. He also asked for more clear definitions of what was categorised as urban and rural. He asked how the decision would be made as to how to allocate funding.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) stated that the DHS, as an anchor department, must be able to identify policy options. Under conditions of reduced resources, he asked what the implications were for service delivery in the context of macro-alignment, capacity assembly, and project management. He also queried how the DHS would communicate the key points.

Mr Mdakane noted that Pillar 3: Urbanisation & Spatial Management seemed critical to him. He asked whether the DHS could report on the challenges and unintended consequences regarding those issues.

Mr Dlabantu replied that the Department would record the Committee’s views, as they were quite substantive. Broadly, he said that this was all related to focussing on the outcomes. The DHS should look at the targets that would deliver the desired human settlements outcomes.

Inefficiencies in the cities had to be addressed politically and strategically. This was an issue of co-ordination in the human settlements Cluster. The DHS was the lead department in this Cluster, which also included the Departments of Rural Development and Land Reform, Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mineral Resources, and Energy. The departments’ individual plans were all communicated through the Cluster. The DHS had to discuss the institutional reforms that it wanted to achieve, and more co-ordination was needed now than previously, so it was critical that all departments were involved. The DHS also wanted to resolve the issues around authority, powers and functions. It also understood that these aims would not be achieved without money being spent in a co-ordinated manner, and without there being enforced arrangements for this co-ordination.

The DHS was also involved at local government and provincial level and wanted these structural and legal issues to be resolved as well. In the short term, DHS wanted to see quality in delivery and wished to address the unintended consequences for the population. This was particularly important because people at lower income levels were also more vulnerable.

In regard to the subsidy thresholds, Mr Dlabantu said that he was not aware of any serious intention to increase the threshold. DHS understood the implications of not increasing thresholds and was looking at solutions for the people above the thresholds, such as affordable rental housing and social housing. The threshold would not change. As more people became unemployed, the number of people eligible for a subsidy would also increase. This would lead to an increase in the number of people dependent on the State. Conversely, as people became re-employed, they could begin to fully emancipate themselves from that dependency. The DHS wanted the Committee’s views on these issues and could take this commentary on prioritisation to the Minister

With regard to the cost implications, Mr Dlabantu said that the DHS would like to consolidate the policy choices at this stage and would then cost the options chosen.

Mr Dlabantu then said that in regard to those people who were not paying municipalities, there was a need to develop policies that were aligned between programmes. Government had a programme for dealing with the indigent. This programme would be reviewed to ensure that it remained relevant and appropriately targeted. Indigent policies were supposed to address this problem and if they were not, then perhaps there was a need to look at municipalities’ implementation of indigent policies.

In answer to questions around the rural/urban bias, Mr Dlabantu said that the DHS was not stating an urban bias. While the DHS prioritised urban areas, it also understood the need for a rural perspective. The Department had a rural development strategy and also sought to provide rural solutions.

Mr Leshabane added that the DHS strategy provided room to address the key issues that confronted South Africa. With regard to macro co-ordination and priority service delivery issues, he said that shelter development would continue, bearing in mind the need for basic services. In the meantime, the DHS had broken down priorities such as governance, and capacity assembly. These priorities were critical to efficient service delivery, and could not be ignored. The Department accepted that co-ordination posed some risk.

Mr Mdakane stated that the current situation locked out poorer communities, as the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) houses were not located close to work opportunities. He stated that it was also more difficult for people living in these houses to sell them in order to move closer to work. The DHS had to find a way of addressing the mobility of the poor.

Ms J Bayat, Workshop Facilitator: Department of Human Settlements, responded that the DHS was starting to address co-ordination between various departments at the level of individual projects.

Mr Steyn thought the presentations and discussions captured the essence of the historic perspective and where South Africa was going. He noted that, at times, the private sector did not make the best feasibility decisions and as a result, would go bankrupt. The difference between the private and public sectors was that public sector entities could be bailed out by government.

Mr Steyn queried the plans for special housing needs. He stated that the DHS policy documents were not very specific and he was of the opinion that the DHS needed to start spelling out how it intended to provide for the needs of various categories of disabled people.

Mr Steyn referred to the rental and social housing, and stated that people may advance in salary level. He queried what would happen when people earned more than the threshold, and whether they would then find themselves being evicted or whether they would be helped to move into bond housing. This was a point that had to be considered.

Mr Steyn was of the opinion that planning would inevitably take longer than two years. He wondered what would happen in the interim. He felt that emphasis on job creation and economic opportunities was critically lacking. There was also a need to look at the creation of new cities, as seen in the Indian development example. He stated that these were the type of future views he would like to see.

Mr Steyn noted that there was generally heavy emphasis on spending, but government needed to look at what it had achieved so far for the money spent, and whether there was value for money.

Mr Steyn commented that this presentation should have been done five years ago. He noted that the Peoples Housing Process (PHP) was still a strategic pillar in housing delivery. There should be more emphasis on making PHP a success.

Ms Borman remarked that the slow progress was of concern and felt that strong leadership was necessary to lead the DHS in a new direction. She stated that the explanations had been very vague.

Ms Borman referred to funding policy and asked if the Department was being efficient in the co-ordination of funding for human settlements, and whether this co-ordination would result in sufficient funding for human settlements development.

Ms Borman referred to the concept of integrated development. She asked whether industrial development was planned to provide jobs in housing development areas.

Ms Borman agreed with Mr Steyn that more emphasis should be placed on accommodation for people with disabilities.

Ms Mugwanya referred to comments made on the co-ordination within the Cluster. She asked for more detail on the hierarchy of service delivery and how this would be sequenced between the relevant departments. She added if the service delivery riots were to be used as a gauge, service delivery appeared to be badly co-ordinated and not monitored.

Mr Leshabane replied that Ms Mugwanya had summed up the question of co-ordination and alignment. This debate was nothing new. However, the problem in the past had been that there was never a focal point for co-ordination. Government had to make a decision to formalise co-ordination and decide how to proceed with human settlements, so that the DHS could then assemble the capacity. A case in point was that the Department of Energy had stated that it would not electrify an area until there were houses in place. The usual process, however, would be that the internal infrastructure  of electricity, water, sewerage should be completed before the top structures of houses) were built. There was therefore a need to achieve policy alignment.

Mr Leshabane then referred to the funding implications, and stated that ultimately the money in the fiscus needed to be spent differently. The DHS was likely to have a full costing, stretched over seven years, based on the plan for investment requirements in the future.

Mr Dlabantu added that work was being done by the Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency. This was a plan to create accountability arrangement for Ministers through Inter- Ministerial Protocols, as well as a process for putting in place a structure for monitoring.

Ms Bayat stated that the DHS had taken note of the issues raised by Members, being special needs housing, the mobility of the poor, the progress of PHP, creating new cities and planning human settlements around job opportunities.

The Chairperson noted that the session had highlighted several issues and would provide input into the Department's 5-year strategic plan.
She summarised that the issues to be considered were: policy options, and the structure of the Cluster. She thought the restructuring of the Cluster might be necessary. Housing had previously been placed in the social and economic clusters, but housing really relied on all sectors for its success. The Committee would take this debate to other platforms.

The Chairperson added that the subsidy scheme and the related gaps in policy had to be addressed. When people earned more, they continued to not pay rates because their house was in an indigent area.

She noted that government was not doing very well on public education and this had to be added to the priority list.

The Chairperson noted the questions on capacity, and asked about the Community Development Workers (CDWs). She was of the opinion that this might be too much for local government and asked whether this could be addressed by the DHS in a consolidating structure.

Ms Bayat noted that the Committee would address the Cluster structure issues. The gaps in the subsidy scheme, as well as the public education and CDWs would be addressed by subsequent presentations.

The Chairperson also asked whether the Committee could hear of DHS’s strategic plan earlier in 2010 for use in the budget vote process.

Mr Dlabantu said that the strategic plans were usually formally presented after the Budget speech, but the DHS could take the Committee's requests into account in its programming.

Ms Mugwanya asked for more detail on the hierarchy of service delivery and how this would be sequenced between the relevant departments.

The Chairperson urged Ms Mugwanya to reserve this question for discussions in the Committee.

The morning session was adjourned.

Presentation on Beneficiary Communication
Ms Thandiwe Maimane, Chief Director: Communication Services, DHS, presented on the topic of beneficiary awareness, which she also referred to as beneficiary education. The presentation was based on the approved annual strategy for 2009/10. The presentation focused on three primary areas of communication, namely the Department's external communication strategy, current beneficiary communication activities and a multimedia campaign for the 2009/10 financial year.

The campaigns were developed with the intention of promoting and enhancing knowledge and giving hope by providing access to information to beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. The external communication strategy comprised of six areas of activity [see document]. Beneficiary awareness was achieved by way of a 10-part Radio series that was broadcasted various SABC language stations such as Umhlobo we nene, Lesedi and Motsweding to mention a few examples. These radio stations had been identified on the basis of the number of listeners.

The Department also used the theatre as a platform to enhance public awareness. Other initiatives such as the production of a comic book and door-to-door campaigns were undertaken by the Department. The latter was particularly important because it encouraged community participation and also involved civil society and the business community.

Discussion
Mr Steyn referred to page 4 of the document titled H.S Issues Submitted Last Month. He noted that a number of queries were listed as open and wanted to know what this meant.

Ms Maimane explained that this referred to an enquiry that had been received but had not yet been resolved and once it had been resolved it would become a closed enquiry. This often came about as result of people phoning in with an enquiry to say for instance that they had applied for a house in Johannesburg, but when asked for a reference number for the application they would say that they did not have it on them. They would then need to come back at a later stage to bring that missing information so that their query could be processed further. She assured the Committee that every effort was made to follow-up on these open queries and to bring them to finality.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) asked whether the Department had authored the report or if it had paid a consultant to compile it.

Ms Maimane responded that this was a report that was automatically generated by the system used for data capturing.

Ms M Mnisi (ANC) asked whether the walk-in centres were available in all the provinces or if they were only available at the Department's offices in Pretoria.

Ms Maimane clarified that the call centre was located in the Department, whereas the walk-in centres were located across all the provinces. The call centre agents were trained to assist clients from across the country and to make sure that each query was handled satisfactorily.

Mr Mdakane commented that information regarding the status of housing applications had to be made easily available for public inspection in order to instil confidence in the process. There was a need to come up with a system that was open and transparent as opposed to confidential so that people could see a list of beneficiaries and would not go about accusing officials of corruption.

Mr Steyn addressed several issues. Firstly, he expressed concern about under-spending of the budget for communication, noting that R60 million had been budgeted for and only R20 million had been spent. Secondly, he voiced concern that the Department’s communication strategy could create false hope for people who had been waiting for houses for many years. He therefore cautioned against raising people's expectations. Finally, he asked about the nature of the text messages that the Department sent out daily to people.

Ms Maimane explained that the messages contained important information about the services that the Department offered and how people could benefit from this. The Department also used this tool to inform people that they should not sell their houses because if they did, they would not be put on the housing list again.

In addition, she pointed out that national government did not target communities for beneficiary communication on its own but worked closely with provincial government to identify the areas where it was most appropriate to send these kind of messages. The Department had even taken the step of addressing councillors in certain areas.

Mr Steyn voiced doubt regarding the claim that 2.6 million houses had been delivered since 1994. He challenged the Department to prove that it had actually done this.

Mr Steyn questioned the efficacy of the presidential hotline and cited the problem experienced by the DA to highlight this point. The DA had put in a query through to the presidential hotline in Limpopo and they had been told that their query had been resolved despite the fact that there had been no change in the situation. It was not clear whether the query had not been understood or if it had been ignored entirely. As a result, he was not sure that government was getting value for money as far as the call centres were concerned.

Ms Maimane accepted that there was some merit in the point raised by the Member. She mentioned that part of the reason for the workshop was for the Department to get some guidance on what aspects of its strategy needed to be amplified and if there was anything which had to be added and  incorporated into its communication strategy.

Ms M Borman (ANC) noted that only 48 cases of fraud and corruption had been reported by the Department. She found this puzzling as she had expected the figure to be higher.

Ms Maimane responded that the small figure could be attributed to the fact that the Department had not publicised this service to the public. In order to correct this, the Department had proposed a multimedia campaign which would provide a platform to develop the details about how to make enquiries on everything that they put out to the public.

Ms Borman commented that the Department's communication effort had to be focused on the people on the ground as she felt that certain issues such as people selling their houses and not understanding the value of what they had acquired was not fully understood. She hoped that with the new communication strategy in place, this would come across and people would realise that they had acquired something very valuable.

The Chairperson commented that the issue of the housing waiting list was a challenge especially for people who had been on the waiting list since 1996.

With respect to communication, Mr Mdakane commented stated that one could not see how existing structures in communities were being used and that there seemed to be what he described as the tendency to over-communicate and to saturate people with information, which they were bombarded with from various other departments. The result was that there was a lot of good information that people ignored because they had seen a lot of material and became fed up. He proposed that the Department's communication strategy had to be measured by outputs such as the identification of beneficiaries and not simply to inundate people with messages that had no visible outcomes.

Mr Joseph Leshabane, Chief Operations Officer, DHS, stated that the underlying objective of mass communication was to locate information and knowledge in the community and therefore it would find relevance in the community in varying degrees. However, what they were creating was a social map of information and knowledge so that critical information on housing would reside within society and filter down to particular individuals and households. The Department would have to come back with their assessment of the impact of their communication strategy but he urged the Committee not to under estimate the impact and power of locating facts and knowledge in the general public.

Presentation on the allocation strategy for housing
Mr Johan Minnie, Deputy Information Officer, DHS, presented on the allocation strategy for housing opportunities created through the National Housing Programmes. He submitted that the this strategy had been developed in response to allegations of mal-administration and fraud regarding the allocation of housing subsidy financed properties and that investigations had revealed the need for a National Housing Needs Register from which the selection of beneficiaries could be undertaken.

The allocation process had become depoliticised and a structured process for the selection and approval of applications had been introduced. The presenter took the Committee through the whole allocation process [see document].

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the allocation of housing was a difficult and challenging feat for the Department. She warned that if the Department did not deal with this area effectively, it would continue to experience problems with no end in sight. The reason why the Committee had requested this workshop was so that it could resolve this issue once and for all. She expressed concern over the composition of the Allocation Committee (AC), which left out the councillors and other stakeholders at a grassroots level. She did not think it wise to exclude the councillors and she expected that they too wanted to participate in the AC. Finally, she stressed that this issue must be looked into because it was often abused by politicians. To buttress this point, she cited the example of officials who abused their positions and awarded houses to either their girlfriends, friends or relatives.

Ms Borman concurred with the Chairperson's comments about the AC and added that it was a tricky issue to exclude councillors as they fulfilled an important role in communities. She was of the view that the (allocation) process had to include the body of civil society, which included the church community, labour unions and both the formal and informal business community to open up transparency.

Mr Minnie responded that the Minister had instructed the Department to develop a system that would depoliticise the allocation process. If a person's name was on the needs register, there was no way that anyone could manipulate a position. The process was different to a lottery draw in the sense that the names were drawn per region based on specific criteria. This criteria could be adapted by the council to accommodate certain issues such as the large number of women with children in a particular community and so they could manipulate the criteria to prioritise them on the list.

Mr Minnie responded further that the Minister had approved the AC and that councillors were involved at the project approval phase of the process. However, they could not be involved in a specific allocation of names for housing beneficiaries. The Department was ready with their national needs register and if there were problems with the issue of the councillors' involvement, then the Department would have to decide how to deal with that issue.

The Chairperson argued that the AC was constituted in a way that took into account the existing community structures and forums. They were structures that had to be considered as this affected people within those communities.

The Chairperson referred to the aspect of the presentation on qualification criteria whether it disaggregated people according to age to cater for old people for instance.

Mr Steyn also requested clarity regarding the qualification criteria and asked if it would be on a first come first serve basis. If that was the case then it went against the spirit of the law in terms of how people were prioritised and this was a fundamental flaw. If it was done in this manner the danger of corruption was high as buddies could be prioritised first.

Mr Minnie explained that the Department had consulted with the State Law Adviser about this and had been informed they could not do that kind of thing because it would amount to telling people what they had to do before they could obtain a house and this would be unconstitutional. The age could be recognised in terms of people who were the most vulnerable and in need of housing and this included single-parent households of women with children and the disabled. The council was responsible for determining what the overall profile of the criteria had to look like if they wanted to prioritise them.

Mr Steyn objected to the suggestion that councillor’s should be part of the AC on the basis that it was not their role to dictate policy but that they could only oversee how it was implemented. He also felt that if an interest group was allowed into the AC, then it would open up the process to bias as particular groups would probably favour their own members' interests. This would create more problems than had existed in the past. However if their role was to oversee the process only then he would be in favour of their inclusion. He could not agree however that they had to be part of the AC.

Mr Steyn remarked that idea of drawing names from the needs register was not in any particular order and it seemed that the process depended on the luck of the draw for those who relied on it for their housing needs. He felt that the potential beneficiaries had to come from the needs register as it was more logical and straightforward.

Mr Steyn agreed with the Chairperson viewpoint concerning the office of the city manager and stated that this was a politicised office and that people who were employed in that office would most often be political appointees.

The Programme Director indicated to members that the next presentation dealt in more depth with the issues that they were raising.

Presentation on the Housing Register and Demand Database
Mr Minnie’s presentation focused on the Housing Register and Demand Database. [See document]

Discussion
Mr Matshoba commented that this presentation addressed the earlier concerns raised by members on the issue of the allocation process.

Ms Borman asked how long it would be before the system was up and running and requested information from the Department which showed the different housing opportunities that were available to people.

Mr Minnie responded that the database with respect to municipalities would be completed in the current government’s tenure of office. The database was up and running and data capturing was currently ongoing to arrive at a standard data set. The Department had allowed the provinces to add one or two questions to their questionnaires as it was necessary to bring in some other questions. The challenge was building the database to ensure that the processes were clear and standardised and there were no inconsistencies right down to the lowest level. Getting the database to be implemented in a consistent way was the foremost challenge.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: