Government Immovable Assets Management Bill [B1-2006]

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
31 MAY 2006
GOVERNMENT IMMOVABLE ASSETS MANAGEMENT BILL [B1-2006]

Chairperson:
Mr F Bhengu (ANC)

Document handed out:
Government Immovable Assets Management Bill [B1-2006]

SUMMARY
The Committee met with the Department in order to sketch the way forward. Parliament had a duty to produce legislation that could not be questioned. The Committee had not yet dealt with the Bill but already had some concerns. The Department would need more time for it to do a good job and to consult with SALGA and other departments before finalising changes to the Bill. There were two options: to withdraw the Bill and have proper consultations and then redraft the Bill or to proceed with the Bill as it stood and at the same time start working on an Amendment Bill which would go through the necessary process of consultation. The purpose of the Amendment Bill would be to make the existing Bill applicable to local government. The Amendment Bill could come before the Committee next year.

The Committee agreed that the Bill should be sent back for drafting and a new draft should be submitted by 1 October 2006. The Committee should be firm on this issue because there was no reason for the Department’s failure to consult with SALGA and DPLG. It was not the Committee's fault that the Bill would have to be redrafted. It had played its oversight role by identifying flaws in the legislation. The Committee should be briefed on the Property Charter because it was closely linked to the Bill.

MINUTES

Department briefing

The Department was represented by Dr S Phillips (Acting Director-General), Mr A Meiring (Director: Property Policy), Mr B Annandale (Director: Legal Services) and Ms J Botha (Legal Advisor). The Chairperson said that Dr Phillips would leave shortly because he had some other engagements. It seemed that the time given to the Department to deal with the decisions from the last meeting was too short. The Department was expected to look at technical aspects of the Bill since there had been discussions on the implications of the possible withdrawal of the Bill. The Committee strongly felt that a chapter on local government should be included in the Bill. The Committee had requested that the Department look into all modalities and investigate the implications for including such a chapter.

He said that he was embarrassed when Parliament was dealing with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Amendment Bill. The Bill had gone through Parliament to the President who picked up some flaws and sent it back to Parliament. Parliament had to vote on it for a second time. There was a similar case in housing where a Bill had to be withdrawn for some reasons. One expected Parliament and Departments to come up with a product to which they had fully applied their minds. He wondered if the Department was of the view that the time was too short for it to begin to look at the Committee's requests. The Department could request that the time should be extended and then the Committee would have to engage Parliament on the proposal. Committees reported before Parliament and Parliament monitored every Bill that was before it. There were timeframes attached to every task given to Committees. Parliament had a duty to produce something that could not be questioned. The Committee had not yet dealt with the Bill but already had some concerns.

Dr Phillips said that the Department had always prioritised the work of the Committee. He said that he was due to participate in a workshop in Camps Bay organised by the Presidency and Treasury on infrastructure and growth. He had arranged for Ms L Bici (DDG: Policy) to attend the meeting on his behalf. Ms Bici could not attend the meeting because her flight was diverted to George due to fog in Cape Town. Following the last meeting with the Committee, the Department had written a letter to the Director-General of the Department of Provincial Local Government (DPLG) and Mr P Flusk about issues raised by the Committee. Mr Flusk had indicated that he would draft a letter and give it to the Director-General to sign. Dr Phillips indicated that he had not yet received the letter from DPLG. The Department had also asked the Director-General of DPLG to facilitate discussions with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA).

He said that the Department had, in the meantime, asked its legal section to draft changes to the Bill and it had already done quite a lot of work. The Department would need more time for it to do a good job and to consult with SALGA and other departments before finalising changes to the Bill. There were two options: to withdraw the Bill and have proper consultations before redrafting the Bill, or to proceed with the Bill as it stood and at the same time start working on an Amendment Bill which would go through the necessary process of consultation. The purpose of the Amendment Bill would be to make the existing Bill applicable to local government. The Amendment Bill could come before the Committee next year.

Mr Annandale said that the Department would not loose the essence of what it was trying to do. It would make the Bill applicable to the national and provincial spheres immediately and then roll it out to local government.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the Bill could either proceed or be withdrawn. He asked for the Committee's views on the matter.

Mr Anthony (ANC) asked for the timeframes relating to both of the proposals. The timeframes would help the Committee in deciding which option to take.

Dr Phillips replied that the timeframes would be the same for the two options. The advantage of the second option was that the Department would implement the Bill sooner for the national and provincial spheres. Should the Committee decide to withdraw the Bill and redraft it, the new bill would apply to all spheres of government

Ms M Ramotsamai (ANC) said that the Committee should not be quick to make a decision on the matter but should sit down and evaluate the pros and cons of any decision. It could relay its decision to the Department at a later stage. The Committee agreed with the suggestion. The Chairperson said that this should not stop the Department from looking at all aspects it had been requested to deal with. The Committee would appreciate it if the Department would deal with the matter urgently. The Department was excused.

The Chairperson said that the Department had been pleading that the Committee should proceed with the Bill in its current form. The Committee would not take instructions from the Department and could not be forced to adopt the second option. Why did the Department not think about it before the Committee raised the issue? The question was whether the Committee was really doing its work. It seemed that the Department was short-circuiting the process. The matter had been on the agenda since 2003. The Department had said that it had told the Committee in Caledon that it would not incorporate local government. He said that he had gone through the Caledon Report and it did not mention anything like this. The Committee should be firm on this issue because there was absolutely no reason for the Department’s failure to consult with SALGA and DPLG. The Department had only started to deal with the issue after the Committee had pointed it out. The Department had indicated that it had sent a letter to DPLG but no letter was sent to SALGA. Should the Committee begin to tell the Department how to do its work?

Ms Ramotsamai said that she had suggested that the Committee should postpone its decision on the matter because she had realised that the Department might come with tricky options. She wanted the Committee to make an informed decision indpendently. It was not the Committee's fault that the Bill would have to be redrafted. It had played its oversight role by identifying flaws in the legislation. The Committee did not know how long the process of introducing an Amendment Bill would take. Most of the problems were experienced at local government level, and this was the reason why everything had to be done at one go. The Committee should set some timeframes so that the Department would not take many years to bring the Bill back to the Committee.

Mr Anthony said that it was important to do the right thing from the beginning. The Bill did not belong to the Committee, and it dealt with national issues. The Bill should be sent back so that the Department could do the right thing from the outset. The Committee was proceeding very well because it had indicated that it was aware of everything that the Department was doing wrong. There was evidence of the abuse of immovable assets.

Mr S Opperman (DA) agreed with the views expressed by other Members. The Department wanted the Committee to produce a Bill while at the same time having amendments at the back of its mind. This would give the perception that it was unable to deal with the issue holistically. The Department had promised to produce the Bill for many years.

Ms T Nwamitwa-Shilubane (ANC) also concurred with the views of other Members. She said that the Department had said that Bill would become a law relevant at all levels of government. One could not accommodate two spheres and leave local government out. She could not see how the Committee could take the first option because the issue had been before them for some years now. There had been delays due to numerous glitches. How would the Committee benefit from calling hearings for national and provincial spheres because people who would want to be heard were from local government? There should be no ‘piecemeal legislation’.

Ms M Ntuli (DA) did not think that it would be right for the Committee to hang on a string called amendments. The Committee should do its job satisfactorily. The question was why all the delays. What was it that the Department wanted to do before everything was tabled? The Department wanted the Committee to sing their tunes or to follow their steps. She was happy that Ms Ramotsamai was quick to suggest that the Committee should not rush into making decisions. It seemed that the Department wanted the Committee to come up with decisions quickly so that it would not see what was hidden. It was high time that the Committee put some timeframes on dealing with the matter.

A Member said that there was some resistance on the part of the Department. There was a need to emphasise timeframes. The Department should work according to the Committee's timeframes because it had failed to work according to its own timeframes.

Mr Anthony said that the Committee should not put itself under pressure. Given the ten-year period in which the matter had not been resolved, the Committee should give the issue ample time so that it could be resolved. The Committee would have legislated long ago if there was urgency on the matter. The Committee should ensure that the Bill covered everything that the Committee wanted it to cover.

Mr L Maduma (ANC) said that Dr Phillips had indicated that the legal team had begun to work on amendments. The question was from which premises were they moving with the amendments if they had not done what the Committee had requested. The Department was ‘playing hide and seek’. They knew that their product was not up to scratch and that they could draft a better bill. They wanted the Committee to proceed on the basis of the input of two spheres of government, and exclude local government. What was the team drafting if it had not yet received information from SALGA? Was the Department trying to put the Committee under pressure? The Department had not done its work and the issue of options should not be entertained. There were problems with the disposal of State assets. One wondered what the Department wanted to do between now and the process of amending legislation to make it applicable to local government.

The Chairperson sensed that there was unanimous agreement on the way forward. The Office of the Chairperson would communicate the decision to the Department. The Committee should begin to look at the issue of a timeframe. What timeframe would be suitable? A new bill might be submitted early next year should the present one be withdrawn.

Mr Ramotsamai said that the Department only had to look at issues around local government. The Bill should be tabled by the end of the year or else it would come in June 2007. The Committee could start processing it at the beginning of the year.

Mr Blanche proposed that the draft Bill should be submitted on 1 October 2006. The Committee would need time to plan how to approach the Bill. It could then start processing it early next year. The Department had had 13 years to come up with a Bill and should now produce it in five months. The Committee agreed with the proposal.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should begin to look at the issue of the disposal of State property. Some assets were advertised last year and the beginning of this year, and the Committee had been trying to get some information on the properties so that it could see what was happening. The Committee should be briefed on the Property Charter. Members had kept on saying that they should not be left out of the process of the development of the Charter. The Committee was informed on a Wednesday that the Charter would be signed and it was signed on a Friday. The Committee had not yet seen the Charter and did not know who was consulted in the development process. There were indications by the Acting Minister that the adverts were to be withdrawn. Part of the Committees' recommendations that were passed and adopted by the House was that there should be a moratorium on disposals. The moratorium was closely linked to the Bill. The Committee would be going on a study tour in Canada. There was no point in passing a Bill and then going to learn about it after it had been passed. The Committee should invite the Minister to a meeting next week for the purposes of meeting and greeting her and listening to whatever she might have to say.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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: