Social Housing Regulatory Authority Regulations: public comments received by the Department of Human Settlements: consideration; Report on Overview of Municipal Presentations

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson welcomed Members and all present. The agenda was lengthy and the Chairperson proposed that it be cut as there was insufficient time to deliberate that day and suggested that some items be left for the following meeting after the constituency period and “people’s assembly”. 

Social Housing Regulatory Authority Regulations: public comments received by the Department of Human Settlements: consideration
The Chairperson proposed requesting the Legal Unit to advise the Committee on legal issues pertaining to the Social Housing Regulations. The report from the Research Unit in Parliament was also to be analysed as it would assist the Committee ahead of the meeting with the Provincial Department in Bloemfontein the following day.

Mr A Steyn (DA) suggested that the Committee go through the Analysis Report and work on the changes as to what was included and what had not been included should the need arise.

Ms G Borman (ANC) concurred.

The Committee then proceeded to deliberate on amendments to the Regulations proposed by the Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA) and the Department of Human Settlements (DHS).

Mr Steyn asked whether the Department or the SHRA had made the amendments. It appeared that the Department had effected the changes after public hearings. The document appeared to contradict the original document.

Ms Borman had a query on the wording of Regulation 2(2)(1) which seemed to suggest some other form of documentation other than that prescriptive form supplied by the Department.

Mr Steyn agreed as that wording seemed to allow for some deviation and it was not prescriptive as co-ops were not included in the Act.
The Chairperson commented on that same issue adding that the Social Housing Act was not user friendly towards co-ops and the SHRA could not start without the Regulations to the Act being passed. Thus the process could not be delayed even where the co-ops did not derive benefit.
Mr Steyn was worried that Regulation 2 (2)(3), which dealt with the manner by which documents could be submitted, stated three types but never made mention of hand delivery: many institutions might be required to submit lengthy documents. He asked if hand delivery could be inserted as a sub category.

The Department had recommended an insertion which would clarify the three types;  this was not in the previous document.

Mr Steyn then stated that, in the Act, municipal entities were not allowed to be accredited. It had to be asked if it was then possible to have such entities accredited whereas they had specifically been barred from being accredited in the Act. The legal advisors should be consulted in that regard.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) sought clarity on the functions and duties of the co-ops.
Mr Steyn drew attention to Regulation 2(3)(2)(d) from which it appeared that municipal entities would derive profit, which was against the Subsidy Act and the Social Housing Act.
The Committee noted the point and would look at it.
Mr Steyn detected that the comments were “all over the show”.  The present version [of the document] was  totally different [from the previous version] without notification to the Committee. Municipal entities were making a profit and the beneficiaries would not be able to benefit if profit were to be derived.

Ms Borman suggested that this document be taken to the Legal Unit together with those comments made by the public and the changes made by the Department, and tables used to show what changes were effected.

The Chairperson said that the “new” document did not speak to the public comments, as the comments made by the public were based on the “original” document.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) moved on the premise that in order for regulations to be effective they indeed needed to be implemented, and not just put on paper, to ascertain their effectiveness. The present documents looked completely different from those that were used at that previous meeting. She therefore suggested that the Members give themselves time to study both documents and that, when the Committee reconvened, identify the comments which would be used, and the Department would come to answer these discrepancies.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) agreed with the latter speaker and added that regulations were by and large the responsibility of the executive but what had been important was the consideration of whether they were not contradictory to the Act. The Committee was also to be advised that it should not get caught in a situation where amendments to the Act were introduced through the back door. The focal point was to amend the Regulations and not delay the amendment of the Regulations.

Mr Steyn suggested that the document was a complete new document as the Department had made major changes to the original document – this was suspicious.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee continue going through the documents as they would assist on the issues to be addressed by the legal unit and help the Department know what had been complained about.

Ms Borman detected that in pages 10 to 19 a new section had been inserted and headings were switched around without any notification being made in the new documents. Chapter 3 on page 21 was also changed without being highlighted and new headings inserted; “wool is being put over our eyes”.

There appeared to be numerous changes as on page 19 some items were taken out and new items inserted without any reflection and sentences worded to give an opposite meaning.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that there should have been notification of the changes. The  SHRA was quick to respond that it had picked up on the issues but what it had done was effect insertions without the Committee's knowledge.

Some Members suggested that the document before the Committee be treated as a new document and the original document be cast aside. The Whip  should schedule a meeting with the Department for it to answer on the issue. 

The Chairperson then suggested that the issue be laid to rest and a date be chosen to deal with the Regulations. Most Members were in favour of coming back on a day before Parliament reconvened. (Date to be confirmed.)

The Regulations also needed to be numbered correctly and numerically, and the correct headings ought to be printed and typed in bold letters in the correct sequence.

Report on Overview of Municipal Presentations
The Chairperson read the reports presented by the municipalities, and proposed page by page deliberations.
Ms G Borman (ANC) asked if there was a list of Members and delegates present when these reports were made, who had made the presentations,  and if the executive mayors were present at these presentations. 
The Chairperson replied that most of the mayors attended and some were amongst the presenters, but most presentations were by planning managers.
Most Members complained that the report needed better numbering and headings to enable better reading, comprehension and reference.
Ms Njobe flagged an incomplete sentence at bullet 4 of paragraph 3.3.1 on page 10.
Mr Steyn flagged a discrepancy at the bottom of the page 13. The figure would be checked by the Committee. An incomplete sentence was noted on page 15, at the last bullet above paragraph 3.5.
Ms Njobe said that the word “providing' not 'proving' should be used at the bottom of the page of 27 at paragraph 3.9.2 “From the province' should be changed to “to the province' on page 28 in the last line of the last paragraph, as the original wording was contradictory.
Mr Steyn noticed an anomalous amount on page 31.
Ms Njobe said that “grant” should replace “grand” on page 32 as use of the latter word changed the meaning.
The report was adopted with amendments and corrections.
Committee business
The Chairperson had requested that some Members be released early for caucus and other engagements and asked the Committee Secretary to make an announcement regarding the Bloemfontein oversight trip the following day.

The Committee Secretary said that the flight took off at 05h00 in the morning and all Members who required transport to the airport must indicate where they needed to be picked up.

The Committee's reports on the Mpumalanga oversight visit and on the Urban Settlement Development Grant were postponed to the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.