Chairperson, the DA welcomes the idea of establishing a Community Schemes Ombud Service. We are of the view that this service will bring relief to hundreds of thousands of homeowners who at times find themselves victim to a lack of access to fair and just representation on property matters. However, we are concerned about the costs associated with the establishment of regional offices and we requested the department to consider sharing offices with other agencies, for example the rental housing tribunals, where possible.
Secondly, the ongoing operating costs are of concern to the DA, adding to the R20 million to be provided in the establishment. At this stage it is envisaged that owners of community schemes will be levied and we are concerned about the added financial burden on the consumer. The department will have to guard against a situation where we will have another inefficient state entity that will continue to depend on homeowners.
The committee undertook a study visit to Australia at the end of November 2010 because our service is based on the Australian model.
I represented the DA on this visit. Notably, the sectional titles scheme owner in Australia does not fund the ombudsman, as envisaged in our Bill. It forms part of the Department of Justice in Queensland, Australia. Of interest is that in Australia the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management - as it is known there - operates within a single state and this is not replicated across the whole country, as is envisaged in South Africa.
In South Africa, an increasing proportion of housing is being developed in the form of community schemes, in which there is governance by the community owners involved in shared financial responsibility and land or facilities used in common. Community schemes include sectional titles schemes, share block companies, homeowners' associations and housing schemes for retired persons.
Because a community scheme involves the regulation and administration of finances, facilities and behaviour, it often gives rise to problems and disputes amongst participants, which require effective resolution on time. There is currently no effective and affordable dispute resolution mechanism available to parties involved in community schemes in South Africa.
Since the demise of apartheid in 1994, an increasing number of members of previously disadvantaged communities are acquiring ownership in community schemes, and are not familiar with the process and technical aspects of ownership of the scheme. The Community Schemes Ombud Service Bill seeks to address this need, since it will establish a simple and inexpensive recourse for owners involved in any dispute. Furthermore, the Bill promotes uniformity and consistency in handling disputes, and provides a remedy for the protection of this good administration.
Chairperson, notwithstanding the concerns mentioned earlier, we will seek to keep the proposed increase in existing levies to fund the service as low as possible. A possible figure of between R10 and R50 per month has been mooted and will possibly work on a sliding scale. This will be contained in the regulations which will have to be brought before the committee before the Minister can gazette them.
Ngalo mazwi ke, i-DA iyawuxhasa lo Mthetho uYilwayo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] [With those words, the DA supports the Bill. [Applause.]]