Postponed: KwaZulu-Natal & Gauteng on MinMec 2022/23 Priorities and Budget Expenditure

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the delegation from KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) had communicated that they had experienced a challenge at King Shaka Airport due to mechanical issues that had delayed flights. They had requested to join the meeting virtually. She would take the decision when Members arrived, since it had been agreed that the meeting had to be physical.

The Chairperson asked Members to make a decision on the proposal to allow KZN to join the meeting virtually.

Dr N Khumalo (DA) said she would have booked another flight with a different airline.

Mr C Malematja (ANC) said if they were unable to come to the Committee, the Committee should go to them. He said they were defying the Committee, and were not doing justice to it. Somebody needed to act. There was a need to visit these departments.

Dr Khumalo said she agreed.

Ms Kholiswa Pasiya-Mdende, Committee Secretary, said the chief financial officer (CFO) in Gauteng had said they were not aware of the meeting, but she had been in communication with them and a presentation had been sent to the Committee.

Mr Malematja said the two provinces were disrespecting the Committee, and they should go to Gauteng for them to account. He was tempted to say that KZN had planned this, as they wanted to have a virtual meeting. He wanted to visit the provinces. He referred to a picture of a broken-down house in the presentation sent to the Committee, and said the Members had to see it.

Dr Khumalo said there was some element of disrespect and orchestration from KZN. In hindsight, it was a good suggestion to visit KZN and Gauteng. It was disrespectful, considering it was Parliament, and not even one person could be sent. This was uncalled for and unacceptable. She said the Committee should visit KZN, as it would not be extra expensive as it had activities scheduled in KZN in the next two weeks. They should not put a cost to their job to ensure that the rights of people are upheld.

Mr A Tseki (ANC) said he was not sure there would be enough time to visit KZN and Gauteng. The Committee could invite Gauteng to KZN, to club them together.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) said he did not disagree with the sentiments that had been shared. KZN had faced a number of issues related to floods and housing, and people had been displaced, so it was vital for them to ask questions about how people had been assisted. It was a huge slap in the face of the Committee for the provinces not to be present. He said the Fleurhof Housing Project was currently falling apart, and the Committee could not provide adequate oversight in this way. The Committee could not accept the reasons given, as this would set a bad precedent. He supported the suggestion to visit the provinces.

Mr B Herron (GOOD) said he shared the Committee’s frustration.

The Chairperson said the Committee would look at the possibility of inviting the provinces again. She said the Members' sentiments were correct concerning KZN. If the Committee was allowed to visit the provinces, it would. If not, the meeting would be rescheduled so the provinces had enough time to come to Parliament, as they could force them -- Parliament could summon anyone. This had disorganised the Committee, as it now had to work around its programme to accommodate the provinces. The Committee would make an application to visit Gauteng and KZN. It would also indicate to the provinces that their apology would not be accepted. The Committee would summon one province for a meeting next week, and the other the following week.

Mr Herron said he agreed with the Members. The Committee would be engaging with all the provinces except the Western Cape in the coming weeks, but there were a number of performance areas which the Western Cape should be interrogated on.  

The Chairperson said oversight took place on 24 May, and the Committee had met with officials, but both the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) and the Head of Department (HOD) were not present. Only the Director was present, along with two Members of the Committee. The Committee did not form a quorum, and they received a presentation and organised to have the meeting with a quorum.

Dr Khumalo said all provinces, such as the Northern Cape, should be included.

The Chairperson said oversight had been done In the Northern Cape.  

The Committee would visit Limpopo and Mpumalanga on 6 September.

It would meet with KZN, Gauteng and the Western Cape on 13 September.

A virtual meeting would be held on 15 September to consider the Committee’s first quarter report.

The Committee would then visit the Free State on 20 September.

Mr Tseki asked for clarity on the dates the Committee would visit the provinces.

Dr Khumalo asked about a handing over of title deeds in KZN, as she did not see this on the programme.

The Chairperson said a submission stated that the Chairperson could deploy only one Member. Parliament had rejected the application, citing reasons that the Committee had already been travelling and had overspent its budget.

Dr Khumalo asked whether she could go on her own account.

The Chairperson said anyone who was available could go, even without using Parliament's resources.

Dr Khumalo said there was an item she wanted to include in the agenda. She wanted to discuss challenges with stakeholder engagement. Perhaps it would be helpful to have entities or departments to provide contact details of people to assist with certain issues.

Mr Tseki said his experience was that the Department was engaged through their Minister, the Parliamentary Liaison Officer (PLO), and the HOD or chief executive officers (CEOs) of different entities.

The Chair interjected, and asked Mr Tseki to allow her to respond.

Mr Tseki asked what the Department would do at the meeting.

The Chairperson said the Department was meant to accompany the provinces and assist in responses. The Department had learnt that the provinces were not at the meeting only when they landed in Cape Town. The Committee was entitled to engage with the Department, MECs and any stakeholders. The Members could engage with civil society organisations (CSOs) and Ministers to ask questions, as Members were entitled to exercise oversight.

Dr Khumalo said there was no contact directory for ease of reference. She understood she could just go to their offices.

Committee programme

The Chairperson asked Members to move for the adoption of the Committee’s third term programme from 30 August to 20 September.

The programme was adopted with amendment.

Mr Herron asked for clarity on the amendment.

The Chairperson said the programme was adopted with amendment.

The Committee invited the delegation from Gauteng to join the meeting, but dismissed them as the national delegation from the Department was not present.

The Chairperson explained to the Department what the Committee had discussed, and the decision it had reached.

Dr Z Mkhize (ANC) said he had flown from KZN at 7:30 in the morning, and the flight was not full.

The Chairperson said the aircraft had mechanical issues, and the delegation in KZN had been told at 11am the previous day that the flight would not take off.

Mr Siyabonga Zama, Acting Director-General (DG), Department of Human Settlements (DHS) in Gauteng, said their understanding was that both provinces were aware that they needed to appear before the Committee. The Gauteng delegation had been in consultation with the KZN delegation. He indicated that he had told them to catch a morning flight. The DHS in Gauteng were aware that they needed to appear before the Committee, and the presentation submitted was from the HOD of the province. He could not say they did not know about the meeting, because that would disown the presentation which he had received. He apologised for the inconvenience caused to the Committee and tendered an apology for the executive authority, who was attending a Cabinet meeting.

The Chairperson excused the delegation from Gauteng.

The meeting adjourned for five minutes.

Consideration and adoption of minutes

7 June

The Chairperson took the Committee through the minutes page by page.

The minutes were duly adopted.

14 June

 The minutes were adopted without amendment.

5 July

Dr Khumalo asked that the Committee flag the last bullet (bullet 5 on page 5) to implement its resolution to meet with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) so that it had some mechanism to follow up on.

Mr Tseki said he considered the resolutions of 14 June, and asked how to follow up on this. Should a letter be written to the Department or the Speaker?

The Chairperson said it would be itemised and included as part of the programme, but some would be dealt with in the quarterly reports which would then become the resolution of Parliament once they were "ATC’d" (Announcements, Tablings and Committees). A programme had been developed, based on issues raised by Members during interactions with the Department and oversight visits. This was how items were placed on the agenda of the Committee.

Mr Tskei asked that the resolution of 14 June be considered by management for further discussion. The Chairperson said the Committee would receive a briefing from the SIU, and the Minister could report on the process of blacklisting companies. It had been indicated that the process took time. The Committee would consider this with the Office of the Chair. Usually, the National Treasury would blacklist companies.

Mr Malematja asked what was meant by blacklisting? Sometimes the company that had been blacklisted would work again.

Dr Mkhize said punitive action needed to be taken. It may be difficult to prescribe exactly how. If a company had two projects, but was blacklisted for one that was messed up, they could pay a penalty. It was important to take the necessary actions that the law allowed, and that this was acted on.

The Chairperson asked if this could be included in the bid system, as a new tender was advertised each time. Could it be included that if someone was awarded a project that was not completed satisfactorily, they were automatically disqualified?

Dr Mkhize said it was not that simple. Some money could be withheld until all the work was complete, and punitive costs could be charged. He said vis major could also be applied to issues out of the companies' control, such as issues with the construction mafia. The courts would also test this. The Committee could not go into operational angles, which caused delays.

The minutes were adopted with amendments.

Committee reports

Dr Khumlo asked for her name to be corrected in the report of 24 July, and for grammatical errors corrected. She suggested that the Committee secretariat change this, and the Committee could adopt it at a later stage after perusal.

Dr Mkhize said reports should accurately reflect what took place at the meetings, as political slants could be made which could lead to an argument.

The Chairperson highlighted the difference between a Committee report and Committee minutes.

Dr Mkhize said this was a Portfolio Committee report and should not be politicised. It must reflect what the Committee would be happy with in the general public.

The Chairperson said the report could not be like minutes, and should summarise the purpose of the oversight and recommendations. She asked the Committee to submit its input.

The Chairperson asked if the report had been quality-checked.

Mr Sabelo Mnguni, Committee Content Advisor, said he did not quality assure the report sent to the Committee and could not accept accountability for this.

The Chairperson said reports indicated the issues that needed to be resolved. The support team would be allowed to work on this to ensure what was submitted to Parliament was clear.

Members had not received the correct report.

Dr Mkhize said appearing before the Committee had been taken lightly. He said there must be formal communication indicating the Committee’s objection. A letter must be sent to the MEC in KZN and Gauteng before a subpoena was made, as the worst that could have happened was for the KZN delegation to land in Cape Town later. What may well be an issue was the MEC choosing between two meetings, as the MEC had needed to be at a Cabinet meeting. If that was the case, they could have explained it as such. The lack of formal communication with the Committee undermined it. The Chairperson needed to write a formal letter, and the provinces should make all the adequate arrangements to appear before the Committee on the next given date. This was a formal responsibility all of them had to deal with, and this must be made clear.

The Chairperson said the reality of the matter was that the explanations given were unacceptable. The Committee strongly rejected the non-appearance of Gauteng and KZN before it.  

The meeting was adjourned.