Our reply to Mr Bloem's question is that the department was informed of the allegations of corruption in the Matjhabeng Municipality during the 2009-10 financial year.
The MEC then appointed an investigating team in terms of section 106(1)(b) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act. Details of maladministration and irregularities at the municipality are contained in the report of the investigating team. This report will soon be tabled in the municipal council and thereby become a public document.
I am informed, by the way, that the Select Committee on Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs invited the relevant people to appear before it, I think on 23 August, but the meeting was postponed. I gather that the committee will very shortly be seeing the representatives of the municipality who are relevant here. So, presumably there too, through the committee, you will get a first-hand idea of how things stand.
In reply to part (2) of the question, the department has indeed conducted an investigation through an investigating team appointed by the MEC in terms of the relevant section of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act.
Concerning subsection (b) of part (2) of the question, the municipal council will take appropriate action regarding these allegations, once the report has been tabled before it. The provincial department will assist the municipality in this regard, if and when it is required.
In reply to subsection (ii) of part (b) of the second part of the question, the provincial head has informed the office of the Minister about the section 106 investigation, as required by subsection 3. The report will be forwarded to the office of the Minister in due course.
Regarding subsection (iii) of part (b) of the second part of the question, the amount of the municipality's budget which was found to be wasteful and fruitless expenditure is as follows: Unauthorised expenditure is R216 million; fruitless and wasteful expenditure R14,1 million; and irregular expenditure R14,3 million.
Subsections (iv) and (v) of part (b) of the second part of the question are replied to as follows: The council of the municipality will identify allegedly corrupt employees when the report is tabled before it. It will then take appropriate action against those found to have transgressed the law. To date, no employee has been suspended or dismissed following the report. Thank you.
Chair and Deputy Minister, thank you very much. Minister, it was reported on 12 June 2011 that the Matjhabeng Municipality went on a wild spending spree. It was also reported that the municipality spent R1,6 billion of its budget of R1,7 billion on expenditure unaccounted for. Deputy Minister, this is in the latest Auditor-General's report.
This report further says that R200 000 was paid into the account of former Mayor Mathabo's husband by a company that was irregularly awarded a tender of R15 million. It also says that the former municipal manager, Dr Benny Malakoane - I know him; he's from Kroonstad - signed questionable tenders worth R80 million. He signed ten of them in one day, before he resigned and joined the company that benefited from the tenders. He signed them. Minister, I am very sure that you will agree with me that this is a very serious problem.
Please put a supplementary question, hon Bloem.
Chair, I would like to know whether the Deputy Minister agrees that this is not their business, but something for the law enforcement agencies of this country to investigate further.
Chair, firstly, if all of these allegations are correct, then what is going on is outrageous and reinforces the case for us to intensify our campaign against corruption.
Obviously the law - the legal and investigative processes - must take its course. However, there is nothing to stop Mr Bloem from writing a formal complaint. Maybe you should write to me directly rather than to the acting Minister, and I will forward your letter to the investigating authorities to expedite the matter.
We don't know about these matters and we can't sit in Parliament and decide on the guilt or otherwise of those involved. Regrettably - I'm not saying that this is necessarily such a case - what does happen, elsewhere in the world too and not least here in our own country as an emerging democracy, is that if you want to deal with your political adversary, you will tend to smear them, and one way of doing so is to accuse them of corruption. We have repeatedly said that we must separate political smearing from genuine cases of corruption. If this is a genuine case of corruption, let the law take its course and let us all - not only the municipality, but also the MEC and the provincial legislature, you as the national legislature, and we as government - learn the lessons.
So, can you please write to us so that we can send the letter to the relevant investigating authorities? We will also CC the letter to the municipal officials and councillors of that municipality. We think that this should be thoroughly pursued. Yes, indeed.
Chair, through you to the hon Deputy Minister, I would also like to have a copy of the Deputy Minister's replies, as Matjhabeng is part of my constituency.
My other question concerns a report on Matjhabeng Municipality that was compiled a year ago, called the Ramathe Fivaz report. An investigation took place, and there was a detailed report on Matjhabeng and the goings-on there. This report has never seen the light of day. Is there any chance whatsoever that we could get a copy of that report which was compiled at that time? Thank you.
I'm not very clear about the nature and meaning of the report and its legal status but, again, if the gentleman, the hon member, could write to me, I will contact the mayor and ask if the report can be released.
Sometimes these reports cannot be released for legal reasons, because the evidence against people who are identified in them as having transgressed the law is not substantial enough. Such persons have the right to take a municipality to court for suggesting that they have transgressed the law when there isn't substantial evidence of that. As a matter of interest, we have suggested to municipalities that where there are aspects of a report that are legally vulnerable, they could exclude such and give us the rest of the report. But I think that we will be quite prepared to pursue getting a copy of the report. I'm not aware that we have a copy of it. Thank you.
Particulars regarding financial difficulties faced by municipalities in relation to service delivery
78. Mr M J R de Villiers (DA) asked the Minister for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
(1) Whether any municipalities are facing any financial difficulties in addressing their service delivery duties and responsibilities; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) which municipalities, (b) in which provinces and (c) what programmes are to be implemented to assist these municipalities;
(2) whether his department is in possession of the information regarding the amount of money owed to financial institutions by these municipalities; if not, why not; if so, when will his department gather such information;
(3) whether he will make a statement on the matter? CO432E
We reply as follows. In response to section (1), municipalities are owed over R64,6 billion in debt. National and provincial governments owe R2,9 billion of that, and I think it is very interesting for us as legislators. All this throttles the capacity of municipalities to deliver quality services. We are working with the National Treasury to assist municipalities to implement revenue-enhancement strategies to assist them to raise more revenue to help them meet their service-delivery demands.
Firstly, we have started a process to review the Intergovernmental Fiscal Framework. A fiscal review summit, which hopefully the Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Cogta, members in this House will play a role in, is planned for February 2012. Secondly, we do not have the information asked for under (2). However, according to the Fourth Quarter Local Government Section 71 Preliminary Report released by National Treasury on 1 September 2011, municipalities owed R16,2 billion to their creditors as of 30 June 2011. As to what percentage of this is owed directly to financial institutions is unfortunately not yet known.
Thirdly, on whether we will make a statement on this matter, the Minister will consider making a statement as soon as the final section 71 report is released. May I point out that this matter of the debt owed to municipalities has been, if you like, a challenge that many of us, not least the Chairperson when he served on the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government in the National Assembly, have been preoccupied with. The most unacceptable part of it is that the provincial and national departments do not pay! We will be very keen on it if the NCOP can also put pressure on them, especially on provinces.
One lesson was drawn from the Eastern Cape province at one stage. At every second provincial cabinet meeting a standing item on the agenda was: What do provincial departments owe municipalities? How much has been paid? How much has not been paid? Why has the money that is supposed to have been paid not been paid? We think that this should be the norm in all provincial cabinets, including our national Cabinet really.
Municipalities simply must get the money that is due to them, especially from the provincial and national government departments. It is untenable, unacceptable and almost ridiculous that these monies are not paid. We should finally say, too, that there is a section of consumers who are not paying but who can afford to pay, like civil servants, teachers, businesspeople and others. They must pay.
However, there are those who are indigent and they just cannot pay. With over one million people having lost their jobs in the post-2008 global crisis, obviously the national government must come to the rescue of municipalities in respect of those who are genuinely indigent and cannot pay. We cannot expect local government to bear the burden of joblessness and a lack of economic growth. That is really ultimately the function of the national government to attend to.
Chairperson, I would like to ask the Deputy Minister whether can he provide us with the details of the different municipalities? That applies to sections (1) and (2). Thank you.
The National Treasury, as the institution responsible for the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, has such information. Obviously, I don't have it here, but our parliamentary liaison officer is noting this and will reach out to the members concerned, and no doubt to the Chairperson's office, and we will give you that information. It is not information that comes from our own investigation and work, but from the National Treasury. They have quite detailed statistics in this regard. Thank you.
Ministers' stance on calling for release of investigative reports on specific municipalities
79. Mrs E C van Lingen (DA) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
(1) Whether, with the view to encourage transparency and anti- corruption, he will call upon the MEC for Local Government and Traditional Affairs to release certain investigative reports (details furnished) requested on specific municipalities; if not, why not; if so,
(2) whether these reports (details furnished) will be released; if not, why not; if so, when? CO433E
Chairperson, section 106(4) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act indicates that the Minister may request the MEC to conduct an investigation on fraud, corruption, maladministration or any other serious malpractice which, in the opinion of the Minister, occurred or is occurring in a municipality. The MEC must table the outcome of the investigation in the provincial legislature within 90 days from the date the Minister requested the investigation, and must simultaneously submit a copy of the report to the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Cogta, the Minister of Finance and the NCOP. The above section does not give authority to the Minister to instruct the MEC to table the reports. However, once the investigation has been conducted, either at the instance of the MEC or the Minister, the MEC has an obligation to table the outcome thereof within 90 days from the date the Minister requested the investigation.
Therefore, the Minister does not need to instruct the MEC, since a legal obligation already exists. As you, in this House, know better than anybody else, in terms of section 41(1)(g) each sphere of government must obviously not exercise its power and function in a manner that encroaches on the geographical, functional or institutional integrity of government in another sphere. Therefore, it is questionable whether the Minister can do what the hon member suggests. However, nothing stops us from engaging informally with the MEC concerned, and that is something we would be prepared to do.
In reply to subsection 2, the section does not give the Minister the power to conduct an investigation at his or her own instance. However, the MEC has this obligation that we spoke of, and this is something that we need to engage on with the MEC. Thank you. Mrs E C van LINGEN: Hon Chairperson, this House is where the three spheres of government get together, and one of the issues that you constantly raise for us is making the various levels of government communicate with one another. I would like to call on the Minister to understand that when we bring questions like this to the Ministry, it is because we are not getting any response at local level or at national level. That is why we are coming to the Minister.
Now, he quotes section 41(1)(g) that says he may not ask the MEC to do so, but the MEC is under the obligation in terms of section 106(4) to produce the documents within 90 days. How are we going to resolve this, because this is now in a stalemate situation?
Order, hon member. Hon Chief Whip?
Chair, I think the member is completely out of order now. She is now reading to the Minister what he is not supposed to get. I think he knows that. Let us get the question.
Ms van Lingen, what is your supplementary question? Just come to it. We have heard the first part. It is all right. What is your supplementary question?
Mrs E C van LINGEN: What is the next option that I have which I can take?
Chairperson, firstly, I did give an indication there. You see, we have to abide by the very laws that this House passes, and, no doubt, you passed the law! So, if we do transgress the law, then you will hold the executive to account and say, "You have done something outside the law."
Secondly, I am very struck by the contradictions in people. They will say, "No, no, no, national government, do not interfere. Local government is autonomous; it is independent. It is a sphere. Do not interfere." On the other hand, if we tell them that we cannot interfere in some of these things because a law that you as legislators have passed prevents us from doing so, and it is not consistent with the view that we have three spheres, then we are told, "No, no, no, we want national government to interfere, intervene and intrude on the powers of, in this case, provincial government." So, you cannot have your cake and eat it.
What I also want to say, though, is that I have indicated in my answer to the question formally that while these are the legal prescriptions, we can engage with the MEC informally, and I commit myself on behalf of my Minister to seeking to do that. If you give us a month or so - there are three people here from my office and from the department who are taking notes - we will come back in regard to this. You can hold us to account, because Hansard will cover what I have said on behalf of the acting Minister, who regrettably cannot be here, but who conveys his good wishes to this House.
I also want to say that in my humble view it is important for us to hold the executive to account without abdicating our responsibilities as legislators, who are really the power. Parliament is the organ of popular power, not the executive. So, when a Member of Parliament asks what he or she is to do, in the first instance it is the provincial legislature that must actually put pressure on the provincial MEC. That provincial legislature must hold the MEC to account and, if that process fails, then presumably the NCOP has to say, "The provincial legislature has done its bit, and now you are holding us to account."
So, in short, we will work through informal channels to attend to this matter. As the executive we are accountable to you as the NCOP, but we have to act within the law. While we do what we can do, the power does not reside with us as the executive. The power resides with you as Parliament. That is where the people's power is. We can do what we can, but we can also be fobbed off, as sometimes happens.
Look at Education, for example. We have a section 100 intervention. It is quite open, in the public domain. There are people in the Eastern Cape who have required of the President to go there and intervene and say, "We have a section 100 intervention. We are one government with three spheres, not a federal state, and if you are meeting challenges in Education, the national Minister must come in," and so on.
So, we have these issues, and they are inevitable. There is nothing unique about South Africa. This happens all over. In fact, we have far fewer problems than elsewhere where you have this three-tier or three-sphere government. Thank you.
Position regarding procedural correctness of election of incumbent Mayor of Koukamma Municipality
80. Mrs E C van Lingen (DA) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:
(1) Whether the election of the incumbent mayor of the Koukamma Municipality was in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, Act 117 of 1998; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,
(2) whether there will be a re-election in this regard; if not, what procedure will be followed to rectify this matter; if so, what are the relevant details? CO434E
Chairperson, firstly, on section (1), the Minister will request the MEC for Local Government and Traditional Affairs in the Eastern Cape to investigate whether all the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act were adhered to in the election of the Speaker/Mayor of the local municipality concerned.
Secondly, if the investigation reveals that they have not adhered to all the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, a request will be made to the MEC. Yet again it is this point, that as the national sphere we can't intervene; you would be the first people to attack us. As the NCOP, you represent the power of the provinces. You would be asking us what we were doing there. So, here again it is the MEC, madam, that we have to work with. We will be requested to ensure that the matter is referred back to the municipality and that the Act is followed to the letter.
With regard to section (2), the re-election would obviously only be considered after it had been confirmed that Schedule 3 of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act had not been adhered to during the election of the Speaker/Mayor. Thank you.
Chair, through you, on the same question, could the hon Minister assist and give a timeframe for or the duration of the process of dealing with this matter?
Chairperson, well, it would be reasonable to say that on Monday we will write to the MEC and convey the concerns of the House, and our need for information. We will CC the letter to you. If we don't, you can hold us to account the next time the Minister or I appear before your House or in any other forum. You can obviously call us before the committee.
We are quite happy as Cogta. In regard to whatever we have committed ourselves to doing, if the Cogta select committee can call us before them in a month, we can give them a reply. Thank you.
All right. There is no other follow-up question. Somebody is whispering there, and I don't know what you are saying. If you are asking a question, do so, and don't whisper. Are you asking a follow-up question, Mr Sinclair? [Interjections.]
Chairperson, you said I mustn't whisper! I've just asked where the real Minister is. [Laughter.]
What do you mean? You are out of order. [Interjections.]
Hon members, that concludes the business of the day. Members are just reminded to stay behind. There is a briefing after I have adjourned the House.
Hon Chairperson, I rise on a point of order: Let me first thank the Deputy Minister because he is always willing to come and speak to the NCOP.
We postponed this meeting last week because Ministers couldn't make it, and today the only Minister appearing before us was the Deputy Minister for Co- operative Governance and Traditional Affairs. I would like to register our disappointment that the Ministers still regard the NCOP as an inferior priority on their list of priorities. Thank you.
Thank you. That's noted. Hon members, you are requested to remain seated until the procession has left the Chamber. Thank you very much.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.