Committee Report on Department of Public Works Budget

Meeting report

The Acting Chairperson at the outset made it clear to Members that the Committee was under pressure as its Budget Vote debate was scheduled for Tuesday, 16 May 2017. He noted that Members had not been notified about the previous week’s committee meeting and apologised for this. Many members had not made it to the meeting in question.

Ms S Kopane (DA), noting that many members had missed the presentations by the Department of Public Works’ (DPW’s) entities, asked whether they would be returning to Parliament to redo the presentations.

The Acting Chairperson responded that the entities would not be returning to Parliament to redo the presentations.

Ms Q Madlopha (ANC) said that the presentations by entities were done and over with and that Members who had missed the meeting could be provided with the documentation. She added that the problem in Parliament was that there was a lack of consequence management when staff failed in their duties.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said that the apology by the Acting Chairperson was accepted. However, he pointed out that Members never received documents from entities. Even those from 2 May 2017 had not been received.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) felt that the previous week’s meeting was null and void as Members had not been informed of it as was protocol. No proper communication took place. If entities had to come back to Parliament then it had to be at their own expense. On a personal level there was no problem in accepting the apology of the Acting Chairperson but the fact of the matter was that the previous meeting was an unlawful gathering. Why was it cast in stone that the Budget Vote debate for the DPW had to be done on 16 May 2017? He asked how time constraints could be given as the reason why the Committee should continue with consideration of the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report when most, if not all of the opposition were not present when entities did their presentations to the Committee. The issue was an administrative one and should be dealt with as such. Members who were absent - not of any fault of their own - were not being allowed to do their constitutional work.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) said that the reality was that the Committee did have time constraints. All Committee members were aware that meetings of the Committee took place on a Tuesday. Members should also take responsibility for missing the meeting as they should have enquired as to whether meetings were taking place. She had not been informed of the meeting by Committee Staff but had called around to find out if there was a meeting. It was a mishap that had happened but the meeting had continued. She pointed out that Mr Filtane was present in the meeting. The Committee could not call entities back to Parliament. She reiterated that she had still attended the meeting even though she had not been invited to it.

Ms Madlopha stated that it was only fair for Members to have concerns about not being invited by Committee Staff to the meeting and not receiving the documentation. Even members of the ANC had not received the documentation.

The Acting Chairperson said that the Whips were dealing with the matter. He made an appeal that Members had to at least be provided with the documentation of the entities by the end of business today as the Budget Vote debate was on 16 May 2016. In the previous meeting, he had said that Members should be provided with the entities’ documents. He emphasised that the Committee wished to see consequences for the person responsible for the mistake that had happened. He felt that the Committee should nevertheless continue with its work.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) said that the issue at hand was sort of the fault of the Acting Chairperson. She was hugely concerned that Parliament had appointed such a Committee Support Staff member to the Committee. The person in question had been kicked off the then Portfolio Committee on Police as well. In as much as Members wished to support the Acting Chairperson in his suggestion that the Committee continue with the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report she pointed out that members still did not have the documents that entities had presented in the previous week. Like the ANC, members of the opposition had phoned around to enquire about a possible meeting but by then it was far too late to be able to catch flights to Cape Town in time. Members could not be expected to fly to Cape Town without confirming that there was a meeting taking place. It would be a waste of time and money if no meeting was taking place.

Mr Sithole said that the opposition parties were not blaming the Acting Chairperson or the Committee for what happened. How could the Committee adopt the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report if there were members who did not understand its contents in its entirety?  

The Acting Chairperson responded that he had raised the issue with Committee management. The Committee could simply not be expected to work with such a Committee Support Staff member. The matter had also been raised at the Chief Whips Forum. He explained on the day in question he had obtained permission from the Chief Whips Forum to continue the meeting even though there were opposition members who were absent from it. Besides it would have been a total waste of money to have sent 20 people from four entities back to Johannesburg. On that basis the Committee continued with the meeting. There had also been a quorum of members. He emphasised that he had asked that the presentation documents be circulated to Members. The Budget Vote debates would be done and dusted within half a month. Efforts had been made to horse trade with other departments to accommodate the DPW on its Budget Vote debate but this had been unsuccessful. The Committee was stuck with the date (16 May 2017) for its Budget Vote debate. He did however hear the sentiments that Members were expressing.

Mr Filtane conceded that he had been present at the start of the meeting of the previous meeting but had left before the presentations had started. He also conceded that he had received the presentation documents but had not gone through them as the meeting was improper. The fact was that not a single member had been invited to the meeting. Why did members converge when there was no meeting? No notices were sent to members and no documents had been provided. Now members were expected to adopt the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report without knowing its content. The Committee could not be expected to rush things because of time constraints. He felt that the constitution was being flouted.

Ms Kopane requested five minutes for opposition members to caucus.

The Committee agreed.

When the meeting reconvened Ms Kopane said that opposition parties felt that there was no way that the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report could be adopted until such time that opposition members received the presentations of entities that they had missed. If opposition members had received the documents after the 2 May 2017 meeting then they would have had no problem to consider the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report at present.

Ms Madlopha said that the Committee understood where the opposition parties were coming from. The Budget Vote was however on the main vote of the DPW. All members had been present when the DPW had presented their main vote. The Draft Committee Budget Vote Report was on the main vote. So there was no problem for the Committee to go through the Draft Report and make inputs.

Mr Sithole understood what Ms Madlopha was trying to say but said that entities formed part of the Budget Vote debate on Tuesday 16 May 2017.

The Acting Chairperson said that there were two ways to do things. The first was to leave out details on entities or to include the DPW and the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE) budget information that was presented to the Committee. The second issue was that the Committee could not waste taxpayers’ money and thus had to go ahead in considering the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report. He even suggested that entities be left out of the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report and that only detail on the DPW and the PMTE be included. 

Mr Filtane remarked that the suggestion seemed to be a reasonable one but asked what about transfers that the DPW made to entities. The DPW was primarily involved in the Nkandla upgrades. The DPW was after all a strategic department. There would be consequences to what the Acting Chairperson was suggesting. There were technical issues that had to be taken into consideration. It would seem that the Committee could not rely on Parliament to resolve administrative issues.  

Ms Madlopha asked that the Committee continue with its work. She said that the entities had their own budget votes. The PMTE was the main portion of the DPW’s budget. The DPW, when it requested its budget, asked for funds for its entities as well. Entities were thus included in the main vote of the DPW. The Committee needed to consider its Draft Committee Budget Vote Report.

The Acting Chairperson stated that he did not wish to belabour the point as it would seem as if the Committee was undermining Ms Kopane’s point. Ms Madlopha had appealed to the Committee to discuss the budget of the DPW and the PMTE and leave entities out. Entities could be dealt with later. The funds of entities were dealt with by the DPW and the PMTE. 

Ms Kopane said that the opposition had stated its case. Members who had attended the meeting the previous week had been privy to information that the opposition did not have.

At this point in time all members of the opposition parties walked out of the meeting. It included Ms Kopane, Ms Kohler-Barnard, Mr Filtane and Mr Sithole.

The Acting Chairperson appealed to Committee Support Staff to provide the presentation documents of the meeting of 2 May 2017 to members of the opposition. The majority party - the ANC - would be continuing with the meeting. This had been communicated to opposition parties before they had exited the meeting. The Office of the Chief Whip was of the view that the process could not be derailed. The opposition would be non partisan to decisions the ANC made. The meeting did quorate.

Ms Adams asked if opposition parties would participate in the Budget Vote debate.

The Acting Chairperson confirmed that opposition parties would participate in the Budget Vote debate.

Ms Masehela said that what had happened on 2 May 2017 was unacceptable and that the Committee needed to close administrative gaps.

Ms D Mathebe (ANC) agreed with Ms Masehela.

Draft Committee Budget Vote Report on the 2017/18 Budgets and Annual Performance Plans of the Department of Public Works and its entities.
Mr Shuaib Dennysen, Committee Content Adviser, and Ms Ines Stephney, Committee Researcher, were tasked with taking members through the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report page by page. Before commencing with the presentation Mr Dennysen, in light of what had happened earlier in the meeting, pointed out that the DPW was a coordinating department and was therefore placed first when it came to Budget Vote debates. It was therefore not possible to shift the DPW around. He did note that the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report did have detail on the entities of the DPW. Members should be able to speak freely at the Budget Vote Debate and the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report would be circulated to all members including the opposition.

Mr Dennysen and Ms Stephney took the Committee through the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report.

When it came to the recommendations, the Acting Chairperson instructed Mr Dennysen and Ms Stephney to leave the recommendations as they were for the present and to forward changes made to them to members.

Mr Dennysen stated that he had additional recommendations to add to the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report. He added that members could also forward additional recommendations to him.

The Acting Chairperson asked Mr Dennysen to have the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report ready by 11am the following day inclusive of changes and to distribute it to members.

Mr Dennysen agreed.

Discussion
Ms Madlopha asked what programmes the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) had in place to empower emerging contractors.

Ms Adams suggested that perhaps the Committee could make a recommendation about the candidacy phase that employees were stuck in at professional councils.

Ms Masehela felt that regular subcontracted contractors should support emerging contractors.

Ms Mathebe raised the issue of the DPW’s asset management register.

The Acting Chairperson felt that the DPW needed to brief the Committee on its updated asset management register. It was a huge concern. The Committee also needed a strategic session with the entities. If the Committee was to do justice to the White Paper the strategic session was needed as entities were part of the White Paper process. The issue was whether entities spoke to one another.

Ms Adams said that the DPW had a new ministry and had just completed it turnaround strategy. The Committee was more or less 65% through its term perhaps the Committee needed a progress report.

The Acting Chairperson agreed and said that the Committee needed a legacy report too.
 
Ms Masehela noted that each year the Committee had to hear the excuse that there was a scarcity of professionals hence vacant posts could not be filled. How could this be when each year there were professionals graduating? There were professional people out there that were unemployed.

Ms Madlopha pointed out that when young persons were hired they were not given jobs in their relevant careers but were hired as secretaries and assistants. She said that there were gate keeping practises at play. The Committee needed a report in this regard. Members had to understand what the challenges were.

The Acting Chairperson said that it seemed that the Committee needed a strategic session with the whole family of the DPW behind closed doors. He placed the Draft Committee Budget Vote Report before the Committee for consideration and it was adopted as amended. 

The meeting was adjourned.