Public Works White Papers Review: progress report; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the Deputy Minister of the Department of Public Works (DPW), Mr Jeremy Cronin and his delegation, and members of the portfolio committee present at the meeting.  The Chairperson also announced that, following a discussion with the outgoing Minister, Mr Nkosinathi Nhleko, the agenda item "Progress report on the Minister's Strategic Plan" had fallen away because of the cabinet changes announced the previous day. The new Minister, Mr Thulas Nxesi, would present the Plan at another time.

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the Committee Secretary, Nola Jobodwana, announced that the Director-General of the DPW had sent apologies for his absence from the meeting.

Approval of minutes of previous meetings
The Chairperson proposed that outstanding matters concerning the minutes of three previous meetings be finalised and the minutes approved.

The Minutes of 4 October 2017 were read, and Committee Members suggested various minor technical amendments. The Chairperson was happy as long as everything had been recorded, and except for a grammatical error on page seven, the Minutes were approved as they were.

Mr D Ryder (DA) pointed out an error regarding apologies the minutes for a meeting held on 30 January 2018.  He had been present the entire duration of the meeting, and it was Dr Figg who had been absent. Ms D Mathebe (ANC) was recorded to have tendered apologies for being absent, but also reported as absent (without apology). Ms Mathebe had indeed conveyed her apologies for that meeting.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) proposed a reconstruction of paragraph C on page six of the minutes, which dealt with the consultation process regarding the envisaged DPW Bill.  Mr Jeremy Cronin, the Deputy Minister of the DPW, responding to a similar plea for clarification from Dr Q Madlopha (ANC), said the process had involved two sets of consultation: the first one with the LOGB and then followed by the second one with the broader stakeholder community, including public hearings. The Chairperson concurring, the meeting agreed on rewording the item, and the Minutes were approved.

The last set of Minutes, for the meeting of 20 February 2018, were approved without amendment.

Briefing and Presentation by the Department of Public Works
Background of the DPW White Paper Review
Mr Mthokozisi Sidambe, Chief Director: Construction Policy, Department of Public Works, took the meeting through the various phases of a journey involving a comprehensive overhaul of the Department's policy framework towards an envisaged Public Works Act.

He sketched a historical background featuring some policy highlights which include the Expanded Public Works Programme and the National Development Plan Vision for 2030.  In the first five years of democracy, two Public Works White Papers with two different, yet interlinking foci were developed. The 1997 White Paper articulated the DPW's mandate in the context of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), while the 1999 White Paper reflected Government's vision for the Construction Industry still within the RDP context and the future.

What gave rise to the present work project was a 2014/15 ministerial policy statement about the need for a thorough process of policy review culminating in a Public Works Act that would help clarify and refresh the mandate of the DPW.  That would strengthen the Department's regulatory role in the construction and property industries. In addition, many changes both domestic and external, needed to be captured and incorporated into the DPW's policy framework.

The Department did not have a comprehensive Act but relied on various pieces of legislation, Cabinet instructions and traditional practices. Furthermore, the Department was not well equipped in its regulatory function for the construction and property industries. That had a negative effect on regulation, growth, transformation and competitiveness, which led to the slow pace of transformation and lack of conflict resolution mechanisms in the construction and property industries. 

Conceptualisation of the White Paper review project had been completed and expertise had been largely procured. Project institutionalisation including in-house experience was largely in place and an internal discussion document was already circulating, to be further refined for consultation with targeted stakeholders. In the following two years, a draft Public Works Bill was envisaged, culminating in an Act by 2020.

Project challenges and remedial action
Expertise expected from external institutions like universities and industry had not been forthcoming, and the Department had a lack of internal expertise in policy research, analysis and project management.  14 posts relating to the 16 thematic areas identified for the review process had been filled.  A project institutionalisation blueprint driven by a core project management office(PMO) was being implemented.
Two workstream groups have been set up for the construction and property industries respectively. They are mainly composed of DPW staff and others from industry and charter councils. Over and above the White Paper review process, the DPW is reviewing all its policy instruments including all relevant legislation to ensure that the project produces an effective Public Works Act that speaks to its developmental and regulatory mandate.

Other remedial measures include the synchronising of the whole review process with the legislative process in Parliament. A Project Implementation Plan has already been formulated and was in document form.
The DPW presentation also detailed the formulation of a consultation strategy, as part of the whole project institutionalisation process, to ensure buy-in and the cooperation of both internal and external stakeholders and therefore the delivery of a sound a comprehensive Public Works Act. Part of the strategic mix was the setting up of an Intergovernmental Advisory Group and complementary to it, a Multi-Stakeholder Consultative Forum.

 In terms of actual deliverables, a snapshot of the project in real time showed that a few milestones have already been reached in the fourth quarter of 2017/2018). Other deliverables expected that quarter included the initial drafting of the Public Works Bill and the finalisation of the Policy Review Report.
Addressing the way forward, the presenter expressed gratitude for the Portfolio Committee's continued strategic leadership and support for the project.

Responding to a question from the Chairperson, both the leader of the delegation, Ms Lydia Bici, Acting Head: Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE), DPW, and Deputy Minister Cronin were satisfied with the presentation and were looking forward to the discussion to follow.    

Discussion
According to Mr D Ryder (DA), when one compared slide seven of the presentation, on the Five Year Policy Statement and Vision for 2014-2019, with slide ten, on the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan, it became clear that Department was in a state of confusion. Mr Ryder said he had previously challenged Deputy Minister Cronin that the DPW needs to "stick to its knitting," as he put it, and that Mr Cronin had replied that the Department did not know what that was.

He declared that it was clear that the Department had lost its direction and had failed to heed the Minister's call contained in slide seven. Mr Ryder urged the DPW to make better progress on the review project and that, notwithstanding the challenges around expertise, the delays were unfair to people on the ground.

The reality of not having the White Papers in place was that the Department was failing to provide services to people who needed them. He advised DPW officials that the next time they go on holiday in the Eastern Cape, instead of spending their time at a hotel, they should spend some time with their colleagues at the staff quarters of the East London prison or the magistrate's courts.
However, he welcomed the presentation and appreciated its honesty, but urged the Department to get its house in order and prioritise the review process. The primary mandate was to provide places where the government could give service to the people. Anything else, such as empowering service providers and other concerns, came second, Mr Ryder said.

Mr F Adams(ANC), whilst in sympathy with Mr Ryder's sentiments, however, felt that it was hard for the DPW to meet its targets in the midst of the recent unstable political atmosphere in government. He stated firmly that he was not trying to defend the delegation but only wanted the Committee to be realistic about the political realm, with its coming and going of Ministers, which had led to the Department's priorities shifting away from the work that needed to be done.

Mr Adams also wanted to know whether or not the revised White Paper process had taken into consideration the new leadership regime and its vision as reflected in the State of the Nation Address and the earlier ANC January 8 Statement. Was it aligned to the new political dispensation and could the Committee also have the assurance that the new White Paper would be tabled before it before the dissolution of the current Parliament? Mr Adams also noted the vast improvement between past presentations and the one presented on the day and thanked all those who had worked on it.

Mr M Filtane (UDM), was keen to find out whether all the officials in the delegation had formal qualifications in project management.  Why had the skills challenges mentioned in the presentation been allowed to develop to the stage of being called ‘historical'? He argued that such a description betrayed what he called a lethargical approach to the work of the Department. Responding to the previous speaker, Mr Filtane disagreed with the notion that political instability interfered with the work on the project. While heads would continue to roll at the top, that could not be used as an excuse to stop the work of government, unless officials were directly told to stop and do something else. So far there was no evidence of that in the case of DPW, and therefore the question remained as to when the Committee could expect the completion of the process of reviewing the White Papers.

Another concern raised by Mr Filtane was the issue of buildings which did not fit the purpose for which they had been erected. By way of example, he mentioned the entrance of the Ngcobo Police Station building where five policemen had been shot dead by a group of attackers recently. Mr Filtane asked the delegation to inform the Committee whether the police had applied for a more secure building in the incident in the Engcobo Municipality. More generally, he wanted to know whether the Department had a policy of regularly checking whether government buildings, of which the DPW was the custodian, were fit for purpose.

Mr Filtane also referred the delegation to an incident reported recently in the Daily Dispatch, an East London daily newspaper, about the ongoing vandalism of an unused school which had been abandoned by the Department of Education as part of a decision to move the school children elsewhere. He, therefore, wanted to know if the DPW had a way of liaising with user departments in instances where those departments had no more use for buildings previously allocated to them, and also whether there were written agreements with them. His own suspicion was that there were no such agreements and therefore he felt strongly that the DPW should look into the matter.

Going back to his earlier question on formal project management qualifications, Mr Filtane, said his concern arose out of what he perceived to be the absence of a risk management focus in the presentation.  He, therefore, wanted to know what attendant risks had been identified as part of the project's conceptualisation and what was being done about them.

Dr Q Madlopha (ANC) also expressed her concern about the departures from the Strategic Plan highlighted earlier, and what she labelled as ‘excuses' laid at the door of political changes at the top leadership level of the DPW. She wanted more detail on the Strategic Plan.  Had there been an amendment to the strategic plan and, if so, had it been signed off by the Committee, and when?
Dr Madlopha also wanted more information on how the process towards a White Paper might be completed before the dissolution of the current Parliament. She wanted to know whether the current skills bank for the project was enough to carry it off, especially considering that the Department was supposed to be insourcing the expertise. Further, she wanted to find out more about the state of progress in the work between the DPW project and the Intergovernmental Advisory Group.  Lastly, she sought an explanation around the legislative alignments between the DPW review process and the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) and Council for the Built Environment (CBE) Acts.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) also revisited the skills issue by asking the delegation to explain why it was currently confident of its skills capacity, given the earlier lack of such skills, which had forced the Department to look externally. She echoed Mr Filtane's sentiments around the poor relationship between the DPW and user departments, which had led to vandalisation of state property. She urged the delegation to address that matter as it was the DPW which ended up being blamed unfairly for something it was not guilty of.

Ms P Adams (ANC) said she wanted to know what had happened to the turn-around strategy of 2012. She also had something to say about the skills challenges that had bedevilled the review process at its inception. In as much as she was opposed to outsourcing of expertise, or what she called ‘consultants', she had no objection to it if the motivation was strong and reasonable enough. Turning to the consultation process, she asked for more explanation on who the different stakeholders were and how they would be brought into the project. What were the timelines for the process?  Ms Adams asked the delegation what was meant by "adequate funding" for the DPW review process and what criteria were being used to determine it.

The Chairperson called a halt on questions and comments from Committee members and invited a response from the delegation. He implored the delegation to speed up the process and find ways of doing so in spite of all the inevitable challenges that confront the project, including the constant changes at the top.

 He reminded the delegation that the most crucial objective was to change the lives of the people of South Africa for the better, to redress the imbalances of the past, and that that overrode everything else. He said the government had to turn things around or reap the whirlwind of growing discontent among the poor and marginalised.

Response from the DPW delegation
The leader of the delegation, Ms Lydia Bici, Acting Head: Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE), DPW, kicked off by making the admission that the project had suffered quite serious delays and had been before the Committee for quite some time without completion. Part of the reason was the decision to reconsider the use of consultants in favour of insourcing the expertise for it, which had involved a long process of deliberation before the Department felt that it could own the process. But she acknowledged the delay, apologised for it and said there was no reason to deny the facts.
Alignment With SONA

With regard to how the Department saw its review process in relation to SONA, Ms Bici informed the meeting that a document on that issue was being produced for briefing the incoming Minister, and for guiding the alignment between SONA priorities and the DPW process. She also indicated the Committee would shortly be briefed on an engagement between the Department and Treasury around Budget 2018 concerning some inaccuracies about certain issues.

Ms Bici also responded to concerns on the relationship between the DPW and user departments who left buildings without following the required procedures to ensure the security of government property. She said a portfolio of the top ten departments working with the DPW was currently with the Director General's (DG) office and the aim was to work out all problems around leases and other issues with those departments. In future, the DPW would adopt a proactive stance by approaching user departments and addressing mutual challenges.
Ms Bici asked the Committee for a special presentation to be dedicated solely to the turnaround strategy mentioned earlier by Ms Adams, during which more detailed information could be unpacked on the issue. 
Acting Deputy Director General: Policy, Research and Regulation, DPW, emphasised the re-orientation of the DPW review process towards its own internal skills base and assured Mr Filtane that indeed a number of those part of the delegation had formal training in project management. She also stated that risks had been factored into the process, even if the terminology used might differ from that of Mr Filtane. 

Again, in answer to Mr Filtane, Ms Rabada replied that the DPW did have service level agreements with user departments, and those agreements specifically covered the procedure to be followed when vacating a government building. In the light of numerous instances of non-compliance, Ms Rabada admitted that perhaps lease agreements could prove a stronger deterrent.

Ms Rabada also raised a major challenge between the DPW and provinces over control and use of government property. She said that was one of the issues under debate in forums such as the Intergovernmental Advisory Forum, and it was time that a clear policy position was agreed upon.
She handed over to Mr Mthokozisi Sidambe, Chief Director: Construction Policy, DPW, who had made the main presentation.

Responding to the question on the Intergovernmental Advisory Forum, Mr Sidambe said that, although the process was still at the level of constituting the membership, the terms of reference had already been completed. In addition, he stated the DPW had a stakeholder strategy which identified and categorised stakeholders into 13 types. Those included internal and external stakeholders, state-owned entities, provinces, client departments, academic institutions, voluntary associations, interest groups, the six built environment professional councils and other groups. A more detailed stakeholder plan was being finalised which identified who was to be met and what the most effective mode of engagement would be.

Mr Sidambe said that, by the end of that financial year, the project institutionalisation part of the process should have been completed and by the end of 2018/19 a draft Public Works Bill should be on the table and ready for public comment. Ms Rabada also added that an Annual Performance Plan for 2018/19 was being finalised and that would reflect the revised timelines while synchronising with the envisaged Draft Public Works Bill.

Mr Bennito Motitswe, Director: Construction Policy DPW took the time to assure the meeting that he was quite familiar with project management and commended the Committee for its work. He said the time for talk was over and promised that the workstreams were ready to get to work and deliver the project. He believed that the bulk of the work was basically lobbying and advocacy and that the DPW would deliver.

Mr Imtiaz Fazel, Deputy Director General: Governance, Risk and Compliance, also put in a word on the delays around the Strategic Plan, pointing out that had it not been for those delays, the envisaged Bill would have been before Parliament by that stage. On the destruction of government property, Mr Fazel said the DPW had identified between 1200 and 1300 illegally occupied properties but was finding it hard to deal with the occupiers because of the law dealing with evictions and similar issues. He said more details on that would be available in two weeks' time when a presentation would be made before the Committee.

Mr Sidambe also dealt with the question on the review of CDIB and CBE legislation as asked by Dr Madlopha by explaining that the process was part of the whole overhaul of the legislative framework of the DPW.  With regard to the two entities, in particular, the consultation process had yielded some contentious matters that needed more time in order to do justice to the voices of people on the ground. He said the delay could be seen as an investment in more deliberation instead of rushing ahead with the process, which might end up with challenges to the legislation.    

Delivering the last word, Deputy Minister Cronin said it was good that the Committee was putting pressure on the Department to move faster on the long-delayed issue, but the cause of the delay could not be attributed to mere laziness on the part of the Department. He reiterated the role of the initial decision to source external expertise as a major cause of the delays, especially the non-existence within the industry of an entity that possessed the whole spectrum of skills needed to come up with better outcomes than those of previous White Papers. The Deputy Minister said it was cause for celebration that the process was now run from inside the Department, by people sourced from within.

Mr Cronin argued that one of the reasons, amongst others, for having a Public Works Act was the need to resolve the confusion and potential for conflict that arose with the concurrency challenge between the national government and the provinces. He also remarked that in the light of SONA and wide calls for a less bloated Cabinet, it was worthwhile to think about whether DPW needed to take more responsibilities or less, and he mentioned the EPWP as an example of something that could be moved elsewhere.

Mr Cronin sounded a note of caution regarding the role of the two workstreams which formed part of the process towards the envisaged Act. Their role contained some uncomfortable contradictions that made the DPW both a referee and player in the construction and property industries. He, therefore, urged the meeting to think carefully about those issues going forward.

In his closing remarks, the Chairperson once again reminded the meeting of the urgency of the situation and urged the DPW to do its utmost to find closure on the matter.

The meeting was adjourned.