Deputy Chairperson and hon members, good afternoon. Thank you for the question, hon Harris. The hon Harris asked about whether we have set up any communication and interaction with a panel appointed by a ministerial colleague. Madam Chair, when the hon Harris gives us his attention, then we can reply to his question. If I have it, then I shall proceed. Thank you. [Interjections.] I did speak through the Chair. If you had been listening, you would know, hon member. I said, "Madam Chair". [Interjections.]
Hon Minister, please take your seat.
Chair, on a point of order: I need to justify that I was simply reviewing the question as the Minister was talking about it. That was the only thing, and if he was talking through you, then I will respond through you and say that I am paying full attention to his reply.
Hon Harris, may I plead with you? Be a good hon member as you have ... [Inaudible.] [Laughter.]
Thank you very much, Deputy Chairperson. The question is one whose relevance I don't understand. The National Planning Commission comprises 25 people, other than me. I am a full-time member of the executive. Then, 25 part-time commissioners were appointed in terms of a presidential minute as an executive order. The names of the individuals were published and they were effectively sworn in by the President.
The National Planning Commission has a special status. Many of the Ministers have all manner of advisory groups. I am sure that Minister Shiceka here has advisory panels on all manner of issues. In my previous life as the Minister of Finance I had all kinds of advisory groups and some have statutory functions, others not. Why the hon Harris thinks that there is a need to equate the National Planning Commission with a committee appointed by one Minister, I don't quite understand.
As for relevance to the medium-term planning framework, planning remains the responsibility of the National Planning Commission, but every line function has its own planning responsibilities.
As for budgeting issues, these are the decisions taken by the Minister of Finance and he is advised by the nonstatutory inter-ministerial committee called the Ministers' Committee on the Budget, of which I as the Minister responsible for planning am part. Thank you.
Before we proceed, may I make an announcement that the Minister of Women, Children and People with Disabilities is out of the country, which means that there won't be answers to those questions?
Order! Would the hon Rasmeni and Adams please remain with us? Thank you.
The other Minister who is not available is the Minister for the Public Service and Administration. So, there are two Ministers who won't be able to answer questions.
Thank you very much for the explanation. Is there any reason for their not coming to answer questions? I've heard you say that the Minister of Women, Children and People with Disabilities is abroad. Can we please get an explanation regarding the absence of the other Minister, Deputy Chairperson?
Hon Bloem, I have already said that these two are not available and that is how far I can go. Thank you. Can we proceed? Are there any follow-up questions?
Deputy Chairperson, I understand that the Minister has made a technical response to my question that there need not be interaction between the National Planning Commission and the advisory panel to the Minister of Economic Development. But, you will allow me to ask, therefore: If a decision is taken by the Minister of Economic Development and/or the National Treasury in terms of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and that decision is not compatible or does not comply with the decision taken by the National Planning Commission, is there a process whereby the deadlock may be broken, for example by requiring presidential intervention or some other process to solve a contradiction between two planning functions, between the Minister in the Presidency's planning function and a similar kind of planning function that may exist in Economic Development or in the Treasury? Thank you.
Deputy Chairperson, the National Planning Commission has the responsibility articulated in the revised Green Paper which has been through a parliamentary process in terms of which it has certain obligations. Other Ministers do not have a similar kind of advisory power. The powers of the National Planning Commission are, in fact, sometimes to contradict the executive and sometimes to advise decision-making processes. But because the individuals who are members of the National Planning Commission are not, apart from me, themselves part of the executive, they don't have any executive powers. However, they have a very special status because of the nature of the executive decision taken by His Excellency the President in appointing them.
The same doesn't apply to panels appointed by ministerial colleagues. So, the Minister of Economic Development can't say, "Well, you can't take a decision like that because my panel says this." This is why I distinguish between that and the Ministers' Committee on the Budget, which is a committee of Ministers who sit and engage with the Minister of Finance on matters relating to the Budget. As it happens, Minister Shiceka and I are both members of that committee. We probably meet six to eight times a year and we engage on a whole range of issues. We can advise, but ultimately the decision is that of the Minister of Finance. When one is dealing with the National Planning Commission, one knows that it will be required to publish its research outputs, etc, and it has a particular status.
So, through you, Deputy Chair, I want to request the hon member Harris not to conflate issues because I know that this story in the press has somehow assumed the status of equity between a panel appointed by one Minister and the National Planning Commission. My plea is simply not to give that story legs, because it is without substance in law or in fact. Thank you.
I now call upon the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs. [Interjections.] No. [Interjections.] He said no.
Madam Chairperson, I do have my hand up.
You didn't.
Chairperson, sorry, my hand was up, if you will allow me another question. [Interjections.]
You did that.
Well, I did that.
You did that!
Deputy Chair, may I please ask another question? [Interjections.]
I am asking for an apology from you,hon Harris. Hon Harris, you said that.
Chairperson, a point of order.
You didn't put your hand up.
Chairperson, a point of order.
And I was about to ask if there was any further question. [Interjections.]
I am rising on a point of order.
Yes, Mr Watson.
Madam Chair ... [Interjections.]
Honourable ...
You cannot ask for an apology when you did not ask the House, or give the House the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. Mr Harris's hand was waving and you did not ask the House. [Interjections.]
Hon Watson, I am now addressing Mr Harris. Thank you. Hon Harris, do you have a follow-up question?
Yes, I do. Thank you, Deputy Chair.
Okay.
Deputy Chair, I believe I have already expressed my follow- up question in my first follow-up but, as a second follow-up, setting aside the advisory committee to the Minister of Economic Development, what if a ministerial decision by the Minister himself or perhaps the Minister of Finance himself, contradicts a long-term plan as developed by the Minister in the Presidency's planning commission? My question is: How does the deadlock-breaking function occur? Thank you.
It is actually a new question, but I will respond to it. Deputy Chair, ultimately you have to take the approach that allows for consensual decision-making. I don't think that matters are that fixed and firm ever, and in the short period that I have been a member of Cabinet, I don't know that we've ever had to vote on a decision.
There is a point of consensus and decision-making. One of the issues articulated in our Green Paper, and certainly dealt with by the National Planning Commission since, is that if you want the National Planning Commission to function properly, then it needs to be beyond the time range of decisions that the executive takes.
Let me cite an example. Minister Shiceka and I would be working along with the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, and the Minister of Human Settlements in a process to try to deal with spatial planning. Space is one of the issues that still have a large overhang from apartheid. The poor, primarily black people, live far from their places of work. This still continues. You need only look at the interrelationship between places along Moloto road - kwaMhlanga and others - and Pretoria, and the amount of time that people spend travelling. In dealing with the issue, it is incumbent upon the National Planning Commission to understand that we have to look at the longer term and set a series of normative conditions for that. Minister Shiceka, in working with the two provinces under local authorities, which would be Gauteng and Mpumalanga, would need to deal with some of the spatial planning norms that are immediate.
In understanding those relationships, it is also important that we are able to work through this, so that in the long-term interests of the country we are able to communicate collegially that a lock-in of a bad decision would have consequences. That's how we have to work through it. It is taking Chapter 3 of the Constitution, which is about co-operative governance and premised largely on the interrelationship between the spheres of government, but understanding that collegially we also have a responsibility towards each other.
This arises in a myriad of areas. If the Minister of Public Enterprises was heavily involved in coal fire power as the only option into the future, it would certainly have an impact on the international commitments we have made on climate change. We are looking at these issues and collegially have to be able to deal with them, so that the trade-offs are understood in the decisions in the short term.
Our interests are these. Because we are not involved in executive decisions, executive functions of government normally defined, we are out there ahead of the curve, if you wish. We have a responsibility to work collegially and mostly behind the scenes so that we can all take these decisions together. Thank you.
Number of employees dismissed and allowed to re-enter municipal employment 62. Mr K A Sinclair (Cope) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
Whether any statistics are available on the number of employees who were dismissed and allowed to re-enter municipal employment; if not, why not; if so, (a) from which municipalities were these employees dismissed and (b) what disciplinary action has been taken against these employees? CO384E
Deputy Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, I must express the fact that I am privileged to be invited to speak here. It is the first time that I am speaking in public. I said I couldn't miss coming to speak in the NCOP, irrespective of my state of health. As long as I am able to talk I'll come and speak here - even though one is coming from the jaws of death! But I have survived and I am here now!
On the question put by hon Sinclair on the issue of whether we have statistics in a register of people who were dismissed from one municipality and have gone to another, the response is that there is no requirement or obligation in terms of statutory requirements that a municipality must keep records of dismissed persons.
What is happening is that we have identified the problem; we have submitted the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act to the National Assembly where we are amending that. We want to ensure in regulation that if you are dismissed from one municipality because of wrongdoing, you can't be employed by another municipality.
As we speak, it is happening. For example, in one municipality, called Moretele, an employee stole money and a decision was taken by the High Court in Mafikeng about the punishment of this employee. This employee thereafter applied for work at Kungwini. He was employed at Kungwini, without any checking - a person who is a thief, having been found guilty by a court of law!
We are saying therefore that we are addressing the issue, but at this point in time there is no legislative requirement, which means therefore there are no statistics available in municipalities. Thank you.
This is through you, Deputy Chair, to the hon Minister. I hope it's not going to be out of context here. We have recently had a case where a municipal manager from the Free State - one of the municipalities there, to be exact Kroonstad, Moqhaka Local Municipality - was just promptly moved over and he took the position of municipal manager in Klerksdorp, North West province, and he is now under suspension on an allegation of mismanagement of funds to the amount of R500 million. Here we have a classic case which has happened recently. I would just like to ask the Minister for his comments on that. Thank you.
Mr Worth, what you are raising is something that we discovered last year, that the municipal manager from Moqhaka was employed at Matlosana. We raised the matter strongly with the mayor that the gentleman had not performed. On the basis of his performance in Moqhaka, why was he employed there? We don't take decisions about the employment of municipal managers and section 57 managers - it is a decision of the council - but what we can say is that we were proven right in saying the person was not suitable to be employed.
That is why we have taken a decision in regard to the Bill that we have submitted to the National Assembly and which will be coming to this House, that anybody who is employed must be qualified, must be skilled, and so on. We are setting the criteria for employment.
If that person is employed, we are also saying the municipality must give a report to the MEC for local government and the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs. In that report, if we find that procedures were violated or flouted, or the individual concerned is not properly qualified as we would want, the MEC must intervene within 14 days of having this matter come to his or her attention. If the MEC cannot intervene within 14 days, the Minister must intervene and ensure that that situation is corrected.
We are trying to ensure that local government is staffed with professionals. We want to avoid a situation in which we employ people for reasons other than the skills and contribution that they will make, because they are bringing local government into disrepute by not being able to deliver what is required. Therefore, in the case of Matlosana we are monitoring the situation very closely and we are happy that there is a new mayor there - he was a member of the National Assembly - who is promising to ensure that he gives direction. Thank you very much, Deputy Chair.
Hon Deputy Chair. I would just like to follow up on hon Sinclair's question. The Minister is referring to the future, what is going to happen. I think the second part wasn't answered. What disciplinary steps will be taken against those who have already committed fraud or have stolen money? I would like to know whether there is a process going on. Thank you very much.
Deputy Chair, of course, in every municipality it is expected of and it is incumbent upon that institution that it take disciplinary action against people who have violated the rules of the game. That is happening in regard to this issue.
The question that was raised was: Are there any statistics on people who have been dismissed by one municipality and employed by another? Therefore, the hon member is putting a new question completely concerning the issue that we are raising here, but to us it is immaterial; we'll respond to it. That is why I'm saying from our point of view that the issue that has been raised by the hon member is that this has been taken to all the people who have violated the law. In fact, we are looking at monitoring the situation, because we are saying that we want to stop a situation where you are employed by a municipality, you commit a crime - which is a problem - and then you are employed by another municipality. We want to ensure that, not only in the municipalities but also in other spheres of government. We are saying that the employees who undermine government by whatever action must be blacklisted and not be employed by government again. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Chairperson, in regard to section (b) of Question 62 by hon Sinclair, I would like to ask the Minister this. It says there: "what disciplinary action has been taken against these employees?" My problem is that very often a golden handshake is offered for the employee to leave and due process of disciplinary action does not take place. What action is being taken to prevent this? Thank you.
Deputy Chair, on the issue of golden handshakes, since I came into the Ministry I have said that no official must be given a golden handshake when they have committed a crime.
Secondly, nobody who resigns can be allowed to resign without facing the consequences of their actions. It happened in Tshwane - the municipal manager wanted to leave and get a golden handshake, but we refused. In many municipalities we have said no. If it comes to our attention we say no, they should face the consequences and be disciplined so that we know their fate and they don't go while having a cloud hanging over their head because we don't know what has happened. From our point of view, we believe that golden handshakes, if you have committed wrong things, cannot be allowed and cannot be justified in public.
The third thing is that we must make sure that you are disciplined if you have committed something, so that your name is cleared or you are found guilty. Thank you very much, Chair.
Madam Deputy Chairperson, one hears the argument of the hon Minister and it's fine to give that type of direction, but in reality local government is an independent sphere of government. In terms of the remarks that the Minister has now made, he can have the best intentions but if the local government decides to pay those officials golden handshakes there is very little that he can do. What is his response to that?
Well, hon Mr Sinclair, I am told you have been in the NCOP for some time. One of the things that is supposed to be known by a member of the NCOP is Chapter 3 of the Constitution. That is co-operative governance. That part does not talk about independence; it is about being interdependent and autonomous. There are two different things there. There is no independence of local government - it is autonomous and interdependent.
In responding to your issue let me say - and you must check the Constitution - we are putting it into law. That legislation is going to be tabled in this House and debated.
We are saying there must be interventions and, to be honest and frank with you, I think when we came up with the local government level, we gave so much to them. We created fiefdoms - 283 of them across the country - that is why we have these problems. We are trying to address that because in South Africa we have one country. Therefore, we can't have this situation where every person who is in local government wants to be a boss who cannot be touched by other spheres of government, because you bring the government as a whole into disrepute.
Therefore, I'm saying we are very clear about this, determined and committed to ensuring that local government is really dealt with in a proper way. Whatever may have been committed in the past, we are trying to address it now. We are going to intervene; there is no doubt in our minds. Thank you, Deputy Chair.
Plans to enhance municipal contribution through local economic development 63. Mr K A Sinclair (Cope) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
Whether, with regard to the problems that have been identified with the local government, his department has put any further plans in place to enhance municipal contribution to (a) job creation and (b) sustainable livelihoods through local economic development; if not, why not; if so, (i) what economic development plans are in place to ensure sustainable job creation through municipal contribution and (ii) how will this be (aa) monitored and (bb) implemented?