Hon Minister, it is another question from Mr Makhubela.
Deputy Chair, we have not engaged provinces to check whether they have changed their laws. What we know is that generally all the provinces, except the three which are more urbanised, have not changed their laws. The Western Cape has its own law around land use. Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal each have a development planning Act. For all other provinces to be able to approve things, they are still reliant and dependent on the ordinances.
Therefore, from that point of view, we believe that the Land Use Management Bill will be able to assist in giving guidance, although it was agreed that in its current form it was not revolutionary enough. That is why it was withdrawn in order to be engaged on at that level.
From our point of view we are saying that only three provinces have their own laws, and the others are still struggling. Thank you very much.
Chairperson, it is not a follow-up but I would like to commend the Minister for doing such wonderful research and coming up with the gist of the matter. Minister, we thank you very much for that.
Investigations into viability and sustainability of municipalities
67. Mr R A Lees (DA) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
Whether his department has conducted any investigations into the viability and sustainability of municipalities; if not, why not; if so, (a) which municipalities and (b) what recommendations were made to change municipalities? CO389E
Deputy Chair, this is the last one, I guess, and we are able to save you from further torture!
There are still more questions.
Of these questions? All right.
The department has conducted a comprehensive analysis of all municipalities in South Africa. It is something that is unprecedented and has never been done before, even at the time of the programmes that were there before. What we came up with is the state of local government, and if you look at that report it will tell you what is happening in each municipality. Subsequent to that was the Local Government Turnaround Strategy, which was approved by Cabinet in December.
This analysis looks at the root causes of the problems. Amongst the root causes are a low revenue base and the indigence of our people, as they don't have money to pay, as well as the issues of poor economic development and the conditions in municipalities that are not that good.
Having looked at that, what we are doing now is to categorise municipalities, because the categories that are used by National Treasury, and which we and other departments are using, are not the same. We are saying that there is one co-ordinator of local government in South Africa: Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs. Therefore, we must ensure that everybody toes the line and follows what has to be done in relation to the issue of categorisation of municipalities, so that we can speak the same language moving forward.
From our point of view, there are quite a number of municipalities that are viable, but there are also quite a number that are not viable. In fact, we think that South Africa must discuss this issue, but you can't discuss the issues of municipalities without also discussing the provinces, because it means that you will be discussing governance piecemeal. For instance, do we need district municipalities in South Africa? They are financially redundant. Before, they were reliant on the regional services councils, RSCs, levies but now that the RSC levies are gone, they have become dependent, like provincial governments, on resources that are raised nationally.
We are saying all these issues need to be looked at. In KwaZulu-Natal, they are looking at the matter because they have 61 municipalities. They are looking at proposing that at least 21 of them must be done away with. Other provinces are looking at the issue. Therefore, I am saying the viability issue is something that is a concern to us and that is being looked at regarding these matters. We believe that we must be able to look at these things and ensure that we change them, but we won't do that without engaging the people who are affected. We believe that the NCOP is amongst the most important structures to engage on these questions.
Yes, we are making serious changes in local government. The Local Government Turnaround Strategy is a document that will remain here for years. Changes that are being made are based on that. It reminds me of the document that there was in security in the past, called the National Crime Prevention Strategy. The Hawks, the Scorpions and everything else come from that document. It was more of a framework within which things happened. It is like the Local Government Turnaround Strategy.
One of the things that we are doing is amending the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act. We are also amending the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act. I could not understand why people in rural areas who have never seen any delivery by government, whether it is water, electricity or anything, are charged rates. What are they being charged for? Now we are looking at that, where we are saying that we can't continue doing that because people have not seen any development. Government has not enhanced their properties by developing the area, so on what basis are they being charged?
We are looking at all those things going forward. We are also looking at a situation where the ward committees are not toothless structures without power. We say ward committees must do a lot of things. Amongst others, if you develop an area and you want to build a school, a clinic or a road, you must consult your ward committee. Tell them beforehand, as a developer, what it is that you are going to do. Even after you have finished doing what you were doing, go to them to let them know that you have finished.
We are saying that developers must not be paid retainer funds without tacit approval and support from the ward committees. We are giving power to the people. Government cannot monitor every space where development is happening. That is what we are doing to ensure that we change things. From our point of view, we believe that we are making a lot of changes, and we want to ensure that things happen in South Africa. Thank you very much, Deputy Chair.
Is that a follow-up question?
Indeed it is, Madam, and I believe it is my prerogative. Deputy Chair, through you to the hon Minister: The hon Minister talks about 21 municipalities that are under investigation in KwaZulu-Natal as not being viable. Could he please tell us which municipalities those are?
In regard to ward committees, we all know that ward committees are undemocratic structures which are not elected by the people in that ward; they are elected by whoever happens to turn up at the meeting. Is the process of giving teeth to these ward committees, which I think is the expression used by the hon Minister, also going to mean a change in the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act to ensure that ward committees are elected by the voters in a democratic way, as are the other structures of government in the country? Thank you.
Deputy Chair, on the issue of the ward committees - I think that is your question - being undemocratic, I am not sure how you define democracy. Do you define democracy as something that must be in the legislation, in terms of calling for elections, or do you define democracy as something where people are consulted by and large, and where they choose to come, or not to come if they do not want to come? It is part of democracy, because you can choose to go to a meeting or not; choose to vote or not.
Let's take the local government elections. The average in terms of voter turnout is 48%, which is less than 50% plus one when we talk of a simple majority. Are you saying then that all the councillors that there are are undemocratic because of the voter turnout that is 48%? The point I'm putting across here ...
I'm sorry to disrupt you, Minister, but can you sit down? Hon Lees?
Hon Deputy Chair, on a point of order; I asked the Minister a question. Please ask him to desist from asking me questions directly across the floor.
Deputy Chair, I'm asking the question through the Chair. If you listen to me, you will hear that I always refer to Madam Chair.
The point that I'm putting across is that democracy, in this case, is a relative term because only 48% of South Africans, in terms of the trends, come out to elections, particularly at the local government level. Therefore, 52% of South Africans do not vote for local government. Now what do you call that? That is the point that I'm putting across.
The system that will be followed in appointing or in establishing ward committees is still a matter for debate; the jury is still out. However, we have concerns that the ward committees at times represent political parties. Ward committees are supposed to represent sectoral interests - the issues of the safety of our people, the economy, social development, and so on. But these structures are sometimes hijacked by other forces, and they don't run them in a proper way.
How we are going to counter that is still a matter that is being discussed. How we are going to ensure that these structures enjoy popular support is still a matter for discussion. How are we going to ensure that these structures are accountable to our people? Sometimes they represent their own jackets! They go to a meeting, come back and do nothing. From our point of view, it is something that is still being looked at, and we will be happy if the NCOP itself contributes in enriching the debate. Thank you very much, Deputy Chair.
Hon Bloem, you wanted to say something earlier. Oh, hon Lees, can I take Mr Bloem because it is the second time I've had to stop him? All right, you may proceed then.
On a point of order, Madam Chair: my question regarding the 21 municipalities in KwaZulu-Natal has not been answered.
On the 21 municipalities, I don't have the figures with me here. What you can do is to write to the member and request to be sent those municipalities. Thank you.
Hon Lees, are you satisfied? Proceed, hon Bloem.
Deputy Chairperson, I like the Minister very much. He is hands-on and a person who is trying to do things ...
Hon Bloem, is it a question or a statement?
No, it is a question, Madam.
Okay. Be precise.
What I want to hear from the Minister is: In regard to all these things that he is mentioning now - low income and so forth - does he have any timeframe? I know he is a hands-on man. Can he give the House a timeframe as to when he is going to address these problems, because in local government most of the municipalities are bleeding out there? The Minister must tell us the timeframe to address these problems. Thank you.
Deputy Chair, well Baba Bloem, I know that your municipality Moqhaka is in a state of disrepair. It is in a bad state, that area.
What we are doing is we have signed an agreement with the President that outlines what we are going to do annually until 2014. Our mandate ends in 2014. Therefore, we are looking at a situation where we can give the information to the hon member in writing, but only after we have announced about our agreement with the President, because that is where targets and timelines are, in regard to what is going to be done by when.
Therefore, in that respect, Mr Bloem, targets are there. The overall one is 2014, but there are steps as to how we arrive at 2014 in relation to dealing with these issues. We will be able to give you the information in person, as a former colleague, so that you are able to hold us accountable on these matters. Thank you very much, Deputy Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Hon ...
Worth. Deputy Chair, thank you to the Minister for his explanation. I hope I'm not repeating myself. There was a stage in the term of the last Parliament here that there was talk about doing away with district municipalities. I know there are probably some district municipalities that are viable, but I think that, of all municipalities, district municipalities are the most vulnerable because they have such a low-income base. We've got one in the Free State, Gariep, which is made up of three municipalities, and the district municipality just survives on the money it gets from central government, while the work is actually done by these three municipalities. I hope this is going to be given priority, that they rather be done away with and the councillors be put into various municipalities. That is one aspect.
The other one very much concerns the operations of this House in terms of section 139 where a municipality is put under administration. What does the hon Minister feel about the three months? We have found in the past that we would go and put a municipality under administration for three months. Then it would start coming right again, only for it to collapse again six months later, or there would be further problems. Could we in the context of this question just have the Minister's thoughts on that? Thank you very much.
Deputy Chair, on the issues of districts, as I said earlier on, we must review the structures of government, including the NCOP. Does the NCOP as a structure fulfil what is expected of it? Is the NCOP really representing the interests of provinces? Now, one of the critical things that is a challenge to me is when you say that the NCOP is a lawmaking body but the delegations that must come from provinces must be led by premiers - the executive. Why is it like that?
On the issue of Salga or organised local government, why does local government have people here as observers? Why can't local government have people here permanently, and then the numbers become better? Will it not assist the NCOP to deal with many issues if you look at that? If you look at the districts, should they continue being here? Are they serving in the way that they were established to do?
You go to some municipalities, and what do you think about them? The same applies to the provinces. Do we think that the configuration of provinces as they are still serves the purpose? Let's take the example of the North West or Free State. You have 30 members, and out of 30 you take 11 who become the executive, and 19 remain. The committees are generally up to 16. There are 16 chairpersons, and you are left with four people who are ordinary members. The issue is that when they call departments to come to give an account of themselves - and we have done a study in the North West - they take 10 to 15 minutes. These members have to go to other committees, and there is no time. Look at the amount of time that is taken by the department to prepare to come to the committee and the value thereof that is added.
All I'm saying is that it goes a long way; I think you will recall in the previous administration that the Free State proposed in the Constitutional Review Committee that their numbers should increase. I'm saying that there should be no holy cows when we look at the structures of government. We must look at everything and say what we are proposing, what we think will work. It is in that context, Mr Worth, that you must look at the nature of districts, even Gariep, the one that you are raising. I know it is poor and struggling a lot, and I must say that you represent the interests of the Free State very well. You always look at examples from the Free State when you speak.
Section 139 is something that we are looking at now. We are coming with a Bill which is in the draft stage now. This Bill focuses on two areas. There is section 100, interventions by national government in provinces and, while we look at support and monitoring, intervention is the last resort, because it is not done most of the time, although the first thing that people want is to intervene. This is also the case with section 139, because if you look at section 139(8), you see it raises the issue that there must be national legislation to regulate this section in regard to intervention. That has never been done. Therefore, we are looking at coming with this law to look at section 100 and section 139. Our basis is support and monitoring, and an intervention must be a measure of last resort.
The current interventions as they are, looking at them in terms of successes, are successful, but they are not where we want them to be. We want to change the approach in the way things are done so that we are able to ensure that whatever interventions are made are sustainable, but also that there are early warning systems that will tell us when there are problems there, and these are not there as we speak. Thank you very much, Deputy Chair.
I've seen the hands. However, may I at this juncture plead with all the members here not to leave the Chamber, because after all the questions have been answered, there will be a briefing in regard to the Provincial Week. Thank you. Hon Watson, you may proceed.
Deputy Chairperson, through you to the hon Minister, may I also say that I'm glad to see our old colleague back on his feet. I hope that he gets completely well very soon.
Chair, the follow-up question I want to pose is in regard to references by the Minister and members that have asked follow-up questions on district municipalities and the fact that they have exceeded their sell-by date, they've gone rotten on the shelf, and they should not be there anymore. I think the noise that I've heard, and the views of the Minister, will support my saying that we should do away with district municipalities - and not some day but immediately!
My question to the Minister is on the legislation that has been tabled in Parliament. By the way, the Minister must please bring local government legislation to this House first and not to the National Assembly, because they sleep on it and we have to rush through it at the end of day.
The legislation that there is makes no reference to doing away with district municipalities. My question is: Will the Minister support private member's legislation emanating from a member of this House and tabled in this House to actually change, firstly, the Constitution, where the three categories of municipalities are described, bringing it down to two and, secondly, the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act where the different categories of district municipalities are also described?
If we table a private member's Bill, and I volunteer to do so, will he support it? Thank you.
Hon Wattie, you are still very streetwise in the way you approach things, because what you are doing now is selling me a cat in a bag! How will I know what the cat looks like before I buy it?
I think in principle we support the thought that we should review things. I hope that you will be able to sell that idea to the DA because whatever changes we make, they think that it is because we want to control everything at the centre, which is not the case. We are open and we are saying, let's engage on these matters to check whether they work based on empirical evidence, not because of what we like.
From our point of view, hon Wattie, what I can promise you is to have a discussion so that whatever product emerges from that is a product ...
Excuse me, Minister. Hon De Beer, that hon member, could you sit properly in the Chamber? Thank you.
As I said, hon Watson, it is so that whatever product emerges from that enjoys the collective wisdom of the parties that are here. In that way, it can go a long way. But I say, let's not isolate local government. Let's look at the whole system comprehensively so that when we make changes, we make them once and not in a piecemeal fashion. If we have that discussion, we are willing to engage on that with pleasure and therefore will be able to take the process forward. Thank you very much, Deputy Chair.
Deputy Chairperson, I think all of us will agree that the remarks of the Minister regarding the status of our governance model in South Africa are quite far-reaching, and we are well aware that various bodies and institutions are investigating the possibilities.
The question is specifically regarding the Minister's remark about the number of provinces, the necessity for districts, and the state of local governments. Would the Minister admit that the constitutional and governance model that was agreed to and that has governed us since 1994 is now dysfunctional?
Deputy Chair, I have not looked at these matters in order to be able to come to a conclusion. You know, I'm a person who looks at empirical evidence when we deal with issues. I have not looked at these matters in order to say that this model is functional or dysfunctional. I would not be able to come to that conclusion.
What I'm raising in this House is that we should have a discussion and debate so that when we come to certain decisions or views that we want to express, they are based on empirical evidence. That is what I'm calling for, hon Sinclair. From my point of view I'm saying that we should work together and not leave any stone unturned. There must be no holy cows when we look at the structures of governance. Thank you.
Unfortunately that was the last chance for further questions, hon Van Lingen.
I had my hand up all the time, Madam Chair.
I beg your pardon?
I had my hand up from the beginning.
It is unfortunate, hon Van Lingen, that other people had their hands up before you. That is why I had to jump from this side to the other side. I hope you will accept that.
Thank you very much, hon Minister. Thank you that in spite of being sick you honoured our request to come and see us. That brings the business of the day to a close. Please, no one is supposed to leave, because there is a briefing.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.