Government Immovable Asset Management Bill: briefing
PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
28 February 2007
GOVERNMENT IMMOVABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT BILL: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr F Bhengu (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Government Immovable Asset Management Bill briefing
Government
Immovable Asset Management Bill [B1-2006] - as of February 2006
SUMMARY
The Department of Public Works gave a briefing on the Government Immovable
Asset Management Bill. It highlighted the objectives, principles, roles and
responsibilities governing the life-cycle management of immovable assets in the
national and provincial spheres of government that this Bill introduced. It
aimed at minimising the costs of new immovable assets and increasing
maintenance of existing assets.
In order to achieve the objectives of Government
Immovable Asset Management at municipal
level, the Department is assisting the Department of Provincial & Local
Government in developing the regulatory framework to govern immovable asset
management in local government, in terms of existing legislation (Local
Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 and Municipal Finance Management Act,
2003). Given the varying levels of autonomy of public entities, extensive
consultation was required before legislation applicable to such organs of state
could be finalised.
MINUTES
Government Immovable Asset Management Bill (GIAMA): briefing
Mr Zingi Ntsaluba (CFO and Acting Director General) presented the aims,
objectives and responsibilities of the Bill. He emphasized the legal
frameworks, objectives and the need for GIAMA. The Department of Public Works
(DPW) had determined that it should be more efficient and effective with its
limited available resources to address South Africa’s enormous delivery needs.
Mr Ntsabula presented the objectives of and principles behind GIAMA as given in
the document.
Discussion
Mr B Radebe (ANC) asked about the applicability of the Bill to local
government. He suggested that property owners should not be involved in the
Bill. He also mentioned that there should be an indaba amongst stakeholders. He
referred to the comment in the presentation that "Decisions on immovable
assets…should be based on the full impact of the costs over the expected life
span of such assets" (page 4) and asked what was meant by that. He also suggested that the issue of
historical disadvantage should be emphasised. He did not see the practicality
of the time frame suggested for Asset Management Plans being submitted annually
(page 11) and the Department should rather work according to the Medium Term
Framework time period. He asked for clarity on the issue of state enterprises
and the role the Minister should play.
The Chairperson noted that that part of the presentation done by the Department
was based on their own studies and asked for elaboration on that.
Ms P Ramotsamai (ANC) was concerned that the issue of local government asset
management was skimpy in the presentation and asked if that issue could be
tightened up. She believed that decisions about leases should be made with the
relevant portfolio committee. She commented that prime properties are disposed
of for next to nothing and one finds out later that the buyer of the property
had benefited. She suggested that they should not get rid of buildings but
rather renovate them.
Mr N Gogotya (ANC) stated that there was a need to formulate policy on
traditional land. He suggested that the government should move to a strategy
where land is used to its maximum whilst still in the custody of the state.
This would free government from having to lease property. He suggested that the
property should be used for a fixed period and after that it should revert to
the state.
Mr L Maduma (ANC) suggested that the Department could assist in identifying
buildings and property. However, the
Department has the problem of being understaffed and this would impact on its
service delivery.
Mr Gogotya stated that the sanctions for defaulting were not mentioned in the
presentation, and he wondered why that was the case.
Mr J Blanche (DA) stated that he would like to see local government more
involved. Government buildings were decaying and the cause of the damage in
certain areas is because they are not taken care of at a local level. He
suggested that local government should become the agent for asset management.
The Constitution mandates national government to draft legislation on how it
wants its properties to be managed for all spheres of government including
local government.
The Chairperson stated that it is clear that committee members are still
harping on the local government issue. He asked the
Department to discuss the impact of Project Consolidate.
Mr Gogotya stated that in the guidelines the Department opted for the
minimalist approach and he asked what informed them to do that. He suggested
that they go for a maximum approach.
Mr Ntsaluba replied that the Directors General of Housing and Public Works were
going to work together to look at the property issue. The Department would also
look at management and accreditation of these properties. In the case of
redundant properties, a model would be placed before them at a later stage, that would try and address the issue.
Chief of Staff in the Office of the Minister, Mr Mandla Mabuza, noted that the
transformation of property in South Africa is a long process that would take
time unless there is state intervention. The issue of leased land was an
example of this. There was a need for a developmental state that was able to
create space.
Mr Maduma asked the Department if they were able to bring black property
developers on board.
Mr Mabuza answered that they have looked into the matter and had interacted
with black-owned companies.
Mr Manye Moroka (Director General Designate) stated that asset management is
something that would have to be done annually. He pointed to the DPLG
involvement in asset management at local government level. He also mentioned
that state owned enterprises have their own enabling acts and would thus need a
different approach.
Mr Ntsaluba commented that state-owned entities are recognized as autonomous
bodies and have discretionary power over properties. The Department would look
at key properties in all the nine provinces. He promised that the Department
would give a report-back to the Committee in six months time.
The Chairperson commented that the multi-purpose community centres are given to
municipalities, but the problem is that these municipalities do not take care
of these centres properly.
Mr Blanche suggested that optimal use of the property should be listed as an
objective in the Bill.
Mr Moroka pointed out that the Communal Land Rights Act takes care of
traditional land and its policies.
Mr Mabuza stated that the previous year the Department had 900 vacancies and
now the number had been reduced drastically so the issue of the high vacancy
rate had been taken care of.
Mr Radebe asked if the Department would have the capacity to take care of asset
management.
Ms. Ngcingwana (ANC) asked what happened to the people who owned properties but
did not come forward.
Mr Blanche suggested that it be written into the Bill that the Department
should appoint one person who would be responsible for the maintenance of a
building and the quality thereof.
Mr Ntsaluba commented that the Department does not annually revamp strategic
plans but instead revises them. There would be an active programme to monitor
the implementation of what has been passed in the Bill.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee would communicate with the Department
about meeting to discuss its budget and strategic plan for 2007/08.
The meeting was adjourned.