Housing Development Agency Bill: deliberations on public submissions

Meeting report

Housing Development Agency Bill: Deliberations on public submissions
The Chairperson explained to the Committee that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issues raised during the public submissions on the Housing Development Agency (HDA) Bill (the Bill) so that the Committee could formulate its proposals. The court judgement made with reference to the Joe Slovo Informal Settlement must be accepted. The Committee understood the anger and frustration experienced by those communities and had to work with them.

Ms B Dambuza (ANC) thought that the issues raised made it clear that there was no provision made for bulk infrastructure. This was one of the contributing factors to the problems experienced around the building of houses. There should be central planning by the respective departments in order to create a coordinated situation. There should also be a high level decision making body. If not these issues would hinder any progress. Another issue was that currently some municipalities, particularly those in the rural areas, did not have the capacity to facilitate the public participation process.

Mr M Khauoe (ANC) mentioned that there was an issue raised in regard to the property and asset management of the HDA.

Mr A Steyn (ACDP) commented that the issues raised thus far dealt more with the mandate of the HAD, and that was perhaps not clear in the document. The Bill was intended to create a structure. The State Law Advisors should advise whether the Committee should highlight these issues in their proposals on the Bill.  He was concerned with the necessity or otherwise of the HDA and their mandate. The only submission that dealt sufficiently with this issue was that from the Banking Association. They had suggested that the structure should be more focussed and perhaps placed in the Office of the Presidency. Unfortunately very few presenters made any specific amendments regarding the Bill itself.

Mr D Mabena (ANC) mentioned the issue of research and innovation capacity. It was suggested that perhaps the Agency should work with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for research purposes and utilise the services of the innovation hub for housing typologies.

Ms N Ngele (ANC) agreed with Mr Steyn and added another issue brought up by the banking sector. It was stated in the Bill that the HDA would be a developer; but the banking sector had mentioned that this would drive out the private sector.  The source of funding was also questioned and whether it would utilise subsidy funding. Cost recovery fees that were to be paid by the municipality, as well as skills transfer, were other issue. The municipality did not want to become dependent on the HDA.

The Chairperson clarified the issue of the developer. There should be a clear definition of developer, as the Committee thought that it would be a sub-contractor. This type of ambiguity should be avoided.

Mr Khauoe remarked that there had been several meetings and public hearings on the role of the HDA and many were supportive of the importance of the HDA since it was thoroughly explained. Thubelisha and others had failed to deliver on housing. This discussion should be about strengthening the Bill, rather than raise issues that had already been raised. The importance of the HDA was a foregone conclusion.

Mr S Masango (ANC) mentioned that there should be clarity on what would happen after the HDA had acquired land. He asked what would happen if the municipality did not agree with HDA.

Mr Mabena mentioned that Bill was silent on the roles played by the provincial government sector. Consumer Education mentioned the health risks pertaining to the type of building materials.

Mr Steyn agreed that a structure was required to speed up housing delivery. He had queried the HDA because it was so broad. There were submissions made on the kind of entity that the HDA would be. The National Treasury and the Department of Public Service and Administration had indicated, in the framework on administration and government entities, that they would prohibit the use of Section 21 companies and trusts as forms of public entities. There had to be clarity on the type of entity that the HDA would be. The monitoring and evaluation of the proposed HDA was important, although they had stated that they would submit an annual report it was not sufficient.

Ms Dambuza questioned the period of time taken to acquire land. This would raise the issue of what mechanisms could be used to unblock those obstacles for land acquisition. There were issues around the accreditation of the municipalities and the need to note how the process would be accredited. The Department had responded well, however they advised that municipalities should continue in the role that they occupied.

Mr Steyn queried the lack of consultation with provincial departments.

The Chairperson agreed that the Bill was not vocal on consultation with provinces and that it was important that provinces were involved. There was also the issue of who would provide payment for the management fee. Further clarification was required on this point.

Mr L Modisenyane (ANC) mentioned that there should be inter-departmental coordination of departmental funding. Clarification was required on which legislation would be amended to facilitate the HDA.
 
The Chairperson remarked that there should be centralised planning and that it should be situated at a strategic level.

Mr Steyn mentioned that there was an Expropriation Bill before Parliament. Expropriation was part of the functions of the HDA. He asked how would this new Bill impact on the HDA.

Mr Khauoe said that the State Law Advisors should look into issues of legislation.

Mr Modisenyane mentioned the period of land acquisition was long and he wanted a shortening of the period.

Mr B Dhlamini (IFP) mentioned that the HDA was to speed up housing delivery, however this process could not be successful if the issue of land acquisition and rezoning was not dealt with. He added that they were prohibited by the eighteen-month waiting period.

The Chairperson mentioned that the waiting period had now been extended to thirty months.   She questioned why land acquisition and land proclamation took so long and agreed that the process had to be reviewed. The HDA had to assess the long tender processes as well as the payments. 

Ms Dambuza thought that another important issue was that of the procurement processes, which were not in line with the Black Economic Empowerment principles and the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). Town registration was also a problem. The Committee had also already raised the issue of links between the community and other stakeholders and the Department. At the beginning of the Bill the primary objective should be noted. 

The Chairperson asked the Committee not to repeat issues. 

Mr Steyn mentioned the issue of the financial viability of the HDA.  Reference was made to research done in the early 1990s when government wanted to establish a land bank, and that research indicated that this suggestion would not be feasible. However, with regard to the HDA, there was a Regulatory Impact Assessment Study conducted by the National Treasury last year that alluded to the financial viability of finding and holding land. He asked that those findings become available for the Committee to consider.  He wanted to know what else would the HDA depend on to become financially viable, besides the management fees.

The Chairperson thought that this should be assessed by the State Law Advisors. Once the SLA had given its submission the Committee could then look at the clause-related submissions. The Committee had deliberated on the submissions by the Banking Associations, Ekhuruleni, Middle Villages and others. They had also deliberated on the written submissions. The Committee realised that there was a general feeling that there was a need for the HDA, but the functions had to be clearly defined. The issues of infrastructure, provinces, funding, asset management and legislation had been raised.

Ms P Ngema, State Law Advisor, Office of Chief State Law Advisors, suggested that her office should prepare an amendment document that included all the comments made during the public hearings, and by the Committee. However, no new clauses would at this stage be inserted into the Bill; instead the document would be brought back to the Committee as a discussion document.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee wanted to pass the legislation by 18 March 2008 and asked how long would the formulation of the document take.

Ms Ngema replied that by the following Monday the document would be completed.

The Chairperson mentioned that during Committee week two days should be taken to go over issues pertaining to the Department of Housing Strategic Plan and the Business Plan of Committee.
 
The meeting was adjourned. .