Date: 27/05/2003
Source: National Assembly
Title: Carrim: Debate on study tour of municipalities, NA
ADDRESS BY YUNUS CARRIM, CHAIRPERSON: PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE, DURING DEBATE ON REPORT ON STUDY TOUR OF MUNICIPALITIES, National Assembly, 27 May 2003
Significance of Study Tour
The Portfolio Committee undertook a study tour of municipalities from 20 to 30 January 2003. Three multi-party teams of 5 MPs each visited 3 provinces each. In all we covered 63 municipalities, 3 metro sub-councils, 7 MECs and provincial departments, 4 ward committee and public meetings, 3 urban and rural nodes, and 3 Planning and Implementation Management Support Centres (PIMS). We interacted with over 2200 people.
We were rather surprised at how seriously the study tour was taken by the municipalities. Most of them prepared fully for it, with some even having preparatory workshops or meetings preceding our visit. We were very enthusiastically received.
Partly, we think, this is because municipalities are desperate for support. But it also, perhaps, reflects the inadequate relationship MPs and MPLs have with the municipalities we live in and in which our constituencies are. In other words, we are not doing enough, through our constituency work, to consolidate and advance the implementation of the new local government system.
It was a very successful study tour. But, ultimately, the success of the study tour will be measured by the extent to which our Portfolio Committee addresses the key concerns raised by the municipalities and reports back to them.
As part of this, we published a full report in the ATC of 13 May. We also produced 5000 copies of a special printed version and will have by this weekend distributed them.
I will offer a brief overview of the report and focus on some aspects of the way forward. Other members of our Portfolio Committee will focus on different specific aspects of the report.
An Overview
What emerges clearly from the study tour is that the core principles, values and features of the new local government system are sound. But there needs to be greater understanding among councillors, officials and communities, and other stakeholders, of the need for the two-tier system of local government, made up of district and local municipalities. Fundamentally the challenges of the new system are not around conceptual and policy issues, but implementation issues. It is about plans, strategies, programmes, funding and other resources, quality of leadership, capacity building and training, and the practical co-operation of all three spheres of government.
There have been constant ongoing major changes in local government for the past 10 years. In many municipalities a significant number of new councillors came in with the December 2000 elections. Officials are constantly changing. Overall, there is a certain measure of "transformation fatigue". A measure of stability has to be introduced. Given the magnitude of the local government transformation, there will be ongoing change - but precisely to ensure the success of this, a measure of stability is necessary.
Most municipalities have a core of councillors and officials who have a very good grasp of the challenges confronting local government and are committed to addressing them. But the gap between this advanced "elite" and the average councillor and official is great, and needs to be reduced through capacity-building and training. There is also an urgent overall need to improve management and practical implementation skills of councillors and officials so that they make better use of limited resources and more effectively convert plans, programmes and strategies into concrete delivery and development.
The new municipalities have progressed reasonably well in merging several different municipalities that existed before the December 2000 elections. Single administrations and budgets have been effected with hardly any disruption of service delivery. However, the new administrations need to be more developmental in character. There also needs to be a more co-operative and productive relationship between councillors and officials.
Relations between district and local councils vary from cordial and co-operative to conflictual and unproductive. There needs to be much more work done to effectively implement the two-tier system of local government. National and provincial government, SALGA and other role-players will have to offer considerable support to municipalities to effectively implement the new division of powers and functions between district and local municipalities to come into effect on 1 July this year.
Municipalities are aware that IDPs generally may not be of the required quality. But the notion of development planning has been internalised by municipalities. However, provincial and national departments tend to ignore IDPS in their plans and programmes. If they have reservations about the quality of IDPs, they must contribute to improving them. Provinces need to consider new provincial development plans that are shaped by and also shape municipal IDPs. It is vital that there is more integrated government. For significant improvements in service delivery and development, there has to be more co-operation and co-ordination across the 3 spheres of government.
Financial issues, certainly, constitute the biggest challenge confronting municipalities. Municipalities have to make far more effective use of limited resources. They also have to do far more to collect the debt owed to them by those who can afford to pay and to raise more of their own revenue. The private sector and government departments owe a significant part of the arrears. National and provincial government have to assist municipalities to recover monies owed to them by government departments for service charges, rates and agency functions.
Of course, the answer to the financial difficulties being experienced by municipalities does not lie in flinging more money at them. It is clear, however, that there is a need for a new local government financial system that is appropriate for the new developmental model of local government.
While the case for increases in the remuneration of some councillors is not sound, in the case of others it certainly is. There needs to be a much more open and informed debate about what the possibilities and limits are of any increases. Municipalities that have a very weak rates base need more financial support from the national government to meet the costs of councillors' remuneration. But, over time, careful consideration has to be given, within budgetary constraints, to the national fiscus meeting a significant part of the cost of councillors' remuneration.
The Minister's guidelines on the remuneration of municipal managers is welcomed. If it is constitutionally possible, the Minister should issue regulations instead, and if necessary, legislative amendments should be effected to allow him to do so.
While the considerable potential of community participation in the new local government system is far from developed, there has been reasonable progress. There is a need, however, to ensure greater and more consistent community participation, particularly through ward committees.
Significant progress has been achieved in the provision of free basic services, especially water. It is vital, however, that a much higher proportion of people living in rural areas, who are often those most in need, receive the free basic water service. The Department of Water and Forestry's handing over of full responsibility for the delivery of water to municipalities must be phased in sensitively and sensibly, taking into account financial, capacity and other considerations as they affect each municipality. Failure to do so could seriously undermine the free basic water programme.
There is an urgent need to review capacity-building and training programmes for both councillors and officials and to drastically improve them. Greater and more effective co-operation and co-ordination among the relevant service providers is crucially necessary.
Provincial governments can do more to assist municipalities, notwithstanding their financial and other limitations.
Despite its limitations of funds, resources and personnel, SALGA has to be far more effective than it currently is.
Some municipalities, without the most minimal financial, economic, revenue or other base, are simply not viable - unless drastic measures are taken, not just by the municipalities concerned, but by provincial and national government, the private sector, communities and other stakeholders. Of course, fundamental changes to municipal boundaries should be approached cautiously. Boundary issues, moreover, should not be conflated with the many other issues affecting the viability of municipalities. But the Municipal Demarcation Board might well have to reconsider the boundaries of these municipalities.
The quality of leadership in a municipality, especially councillors, but also officials and community representatives, signally influences its effectiveness, notwithstanding the constraints of funds and resources, and the magnitude of the challenges.
It is clear that unless municipalities get more resources and increase service delivery, the new local government system will not be effectively implemented. At the same time, unless the new local government system is more effectively implemented, municipalities will not be able to secure more resources and significantly increase delivery.
In short, municipalities are in the early stages of a major transformation to a fundamentally new system of local government. With huge challenges and limited resources and capacity, municipalities are certainly making more progress than is commonly made out, even if less than they should. However together with national and provincial government and other key role-players they have to be significantly more effective.
The Way Forward
The Portfolio Committee has made various proposals in the report on action to be taken. We will shortly be meeting the Ministry and Department to discuss a programme based on this and will, over time, actively monitor developments in this regard.
DPLG on its own cannot address the many issues raised in our report. Other national departments, provincial departments of local government, and other provincial departments, SALGA, community organisations, trade unions, the private sector and other stakeholders have a crucial role to play as well. So too do parliament and the legislatures, and in particularly our Portfolio Committee.
But municipalities also cannot become over-reliant on other spheres of government and other role-players. They have to do more for themselves.
The report has been published in the ATC and appears on several websites.
There will be briefings on the report with our respective party caucuses, various Ministries and national departments, SALGA, MECs and provincial departments, trade unions, traditional leaders and other structures.
We are also pursuing the possibility of securing a researcher for six months who would follow up on issues raised during the study tour and keep in touch with the relevant municipalities and inform them of developments. The researcher could also assist with our monitoring and oversight functions in regards to the issues for action raised in the report.
We are exploring the possibility with the relevant authorities in parliament of allocating a week of constituency work to local government. Ideally, this should involve all MPs from both Houses taking part and should take place in the second half of this year.
We must effectively fulfil our oversight functions, especially in respect of DPLG and SALGA, in regards to proposals for action in this report.
Obviously what and how much we can do to take forward the issues raised in this section depend on a very wide range of factors. Among these, obviously, are our legislative and other parliamentary responsibilities; constituency work; political party deployments; availability of research, technical and other resources; funding; and the co-operation of a wide range of stakeholders. Aspects of the programme set out above may not be realizable, but whatever we can do, we should actively seek to do! We should also, in other words, monitor ourselves!
Note of Appreciation
We convey our sincerest appreciation to the municipalities and othe stakeholders for the co-operation they gave us. The organisational details were dealt with by our outstanding committee secretary, Mr Llewellyn Brown - and to him too we express our gratitude. Ms Pikkie de Villiers of the Municipal Demarcation Board was especially helpful. We also thank the researchers who accompanied the 3 teams of MPs on the study tour - Chris Sibanyoni, Thys Liebenberg and Mcebisi Dingela - for the background reports they did which were helpful in drafting this final report.
Issued by the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, 27 May 2003
Source: National Assembly
Title: Carrim: Debate on study tour of municipalities, NA
ADDRESS BY YUNUS CARRIM, CHAIRPERSON: PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE, DURING DEBATE ON REPORT ON STUDY TOUR OF MUNICIPALITIES, National Assembly, 27 May 2003
Significance of Study Tour
The Portfolio Committee undertook a study tour of municipalities from 20 to 30 January 2003. Three multi-party teams of 5 MPs each visited 3 provinces each. In all we covered 63 municipalities, 3 metro sub-councils, 7 MECs and provincial departments, 4 ward committee and public meetings, 3 urban and rural nodes, and 3 Planning and Implementation Management Support Centres (PIMS). We interacted with over 2200 people.
We were rather surprised at how seriously the study tour was taken by the municipalities. Most of them prepared fully for it, with some even having preparatory workshops or meetings preceding our visit. We were very enthusiastically received.
Partly, we think, this is because municipalities are desperate for support. But it also, perhaps, reflects the inadequate relationship MPs and MPLs have with the municipalities we live in and in which our constituencies are. In other words, we are not doing enough, through our constituency work, to consolidate and advance the implementation of the new local government system.
It was a very successful study tour. But, ultimately, the success of the study tour will be measured by the extent to which our Portfolio Committee addresses the key concerns raised by the municipalities and reports back to them.
As part of this, we published a full report in the ATC of 13 May. We also produced 5000 copies of a special printed version and will have by this weekend distributed them.
I will offer a brief overview of the report and focus on some aspects of the way forward. Other members of our Portfolio Committee will focus on different specific aspects of the report.
An Overview
What emerges clearly from the study tour is that the core principles, values and features of the new local government system are sound. But there needs to be greater understanding among councillors, officials and communities, and other stakeholders, of the need for the two-tier system of local government, made up of district and local municipalities. Fundamentally the challenges of the new system are not around conceptual and policy issues, but implementation issues. It is about plans, strategies, programmes, funding and other resources, quality of leadership, capacity building and training, and the practical co-operation of all three spheres of government.
There have been constant ongoing major changes in local government for the past 10 years. In many municipalities a significant number of new councillors came in with the December 2000 elections. Officials are constantly changing. Overall, there is a certain measure of "transformation fatigue". A measure of stability has to be introduced. Given the magnitude of the local government transformation, there will be ongoing change - but precisely to ensure the success of this, a measure of stability is necessary.
Most municipalities have a core of councillors and officials who have a very good grasp of the challenges confronting local government and are committed to addressing them. But the gap between this advanced "elite" and the average councillor and official is great, and needs to be reduced through capacity-building and training. There is also an urgent overall need to improve management and practical implementation skills of councillors and officials so that they make better use of limited resources and more effectively convert plans, programmes and strategies into concrete delivery and development.
The new municipalities have progressed reasonably well in merging several different municipalities that existed before the December 2000 elections. Single administrations and budgets have been effected with hardly any disruption of service delivery. However, the new administrations need to be more developmental in character. There also needs to be a more co-operative and productive relationship between councillors and officials.
Relations between district and local councils vary from cordial and co-operative to conflictual and unproductive. There needs to be much more work done to effectively implement the two-tier system of local government. National and provincial government, SALGA and other role-players will have to offer considerable support to municipalities to effectively implement the new division of powers and functions between district and local municipalities to come into effect on 1 July this year.
Municipalities are aware that IDPs generally may not be of the required quality. But the notion of development planning has been internalised by municipalities. However, provincial and national departments tend to ignore IDPS in their plans and programmes. If they have reservations about the quality of IDPs, they must contribute to improving them. Provinces need to consider new provincial development plans that are shaped by and also shape municipal IDPs. It is vital that there is more integrated government. For significant improvements in service delivery and development, there has to be more co-operation and co-ordination across the 3 spheres of government.
Financial issues, certainly, constitute the biggest challenge confronting municipalities. Municipalities have to make far more effective use of limited resources. They also have to do far more to collect the debt owed to them by those who can afford to pay and to raise more of their own revenue. The private sector and government departments owe a significant part of the arrears. National and provincial government have to assist municipalities to recover monies owed to them by government departments for service charges, rates and agency functions.
Of course, the answer to the financial difficulties being experienced by municipalities does not lie in flinging more money at them. It is clear, however, that there is a need for a new local government financial system that is appropriate for the new developmental model of local government.
While the case for increases in the remuneration of some councillors is not sound, in the case of others it certainly is. There needs to be a much more open and informed debate about what the possibilities and limits are of any increases. Municipalities that have a very weak rates base need more financial support from the national government to meet the costs of councillors' remuneration. But, over time, careful consideration has to be given, within budgetary constraints, to the national fiscus meeting a significant part of the cost of councillors' remuneration.
The Minister's guidelines on the remuneration of municipal managers is welcomed. If it is constitutionally possible, the Minister should issue regulations instead, and if necessary, legislative amendments should be effected to allow him to do so.
While the considerable potential of community participation in the new local government system is far from developed, there has been reasonable progress. There is a need, however, to ensure greater and more consistent community participation, particularly through ward committees.
Significant progress has been achieved in the provision of free basic services, especially water. It is vital, however, that a much higher proportion of people living in rural areas, who are often those most in need, receive the free basic water service. The Department of Water and Forestry's handing over of full responsibility for the delivery of water to municipalities must be phased in sensitively and sensibly, taking into account financial, capacity and other considerations as they affect each municipality. Failure to do so could seriously undermine the free basic water programme.
There is an urgent need to review capacity-building and training programmes for both councillors and officials and to drastically improve them. Greater and more effective co-operation and co-ordination among the relevant service providers is crucially necessary.
Provincial governments can do more to assist municipalities, notwithstanding their financial and other limitations.
Despite its limitations of funds, resources and personnel, SALGA has to be far more effective than it currently is.
Some municipalities, without the most minimal financial, economic, revenue or other base, are simply not viable - unless drastic measures are taken, not just by the municipalities concerned, but by provincial and national government, the private sector, communities and other stakeholders. Of course, fundamental changes to municipal boundaries should be approached cautiously. Boundary issues, moreover, should not be conflated with the many other issues affecting the viability of municipalities. But the Municipal Demarcation Board might well have to reconsider the boundaries of these municipalities.
The quality of leadership in a municipality, especially councillors, but also officials and community representatives, signally influences its effectiveness, notwithstanding the constraints of funds and resources, and the magnitude of the challenges.
It is clear that unless municipalities get more resources and increase service delivery, the new local government system will not be effectively implemented. At the same time, unless the new local government system is more effectively implemented, municipalities will not be able to secure more resources and significantly increase delivery.
In short, municipalities are in the early stages of a major transformation to a fundamentally new system of local government. With huge challenges and limited resources and capacity, municipalities are certainly making more progress than is commonly made out, even if less than they should. However together with national and provincial government and other key role-players they have to be significantly more effective.
The Way Forward
The Portfolio Committee has made various proposals in the report on action to be taken. We will shortly be meeting the Ministry and Department to discuss a programme based on this and will, over time, actively monitor developments in this regard.
DPLG on its own cannot address the many issues raised in our report. Other national departments, provincial departments of local government, and other provincial departments, SALGA, community organisations, trade unions, the private sector and other stakeholders have a crucial role to play as well. So too do parliament and the legislatures, and in particularly our Portfolio Committee.
But municipalities also cannot become over-reliant on other spheres of government and other role-players. They have to do more for themselves.
The report has been published in the ATC and appears on several websites.
There will be briefings on the report with our respective party caucuses, various Ministries and national departments, SALGA, MECs and provincial departments, trade unions, traditional leaders and other structures.
We are also pursuing the possibility of securing a researcher for six months who would follow up on issues raised during the study tour and keep in touch with the relevant municipalities and inform them of developments. The researcher could also assist with our monitoring and oversight functions in regards to the issues for action raised in the report.
We are exploring the possibility with the relevant authorities in parliament of allocating a week of constituency work to local government. Ideally, this should involve all MPs from both Houses taking part and should take place in the second half of this year.
We must effectively fulfil our oversight functions, especially in respect of DPLG and SALGA, in regards to proposals for action in this report.
Obviously what and how much we can do to take forward the issues raised in this section depend on a very wide range of factors. Among these, obviously, are our legislative and other parliamentary responsibilities; constituency work; political party deployments; availability of research, technical and other resources; funding; and the co-operation of a wide range of stakeholders. Aspects of the programme set out above may not be realizable, but whatever we can do, we should actively seek to do! We should also, in other words, monitor ourselves!
Note of Appreciation
We convey our sincerest appreciation to the municipalities and othe stakeholders for the co-operation they gave us. The organisational details were dealt with by our outstanding committee secretary, Mr Llewellyn Brown - and to him too we express our gratitude. Ms Pikkie de Villiers of the Municipal Demarcation Board was especially helpful. We also thank the researchers who accompanied the 3 teams of MPs on the study tour - Chris Sibanyoni, Thys Liebenberg and Mcebisi Dingela - for the background reports they did which were helpful in drafting this final report.
Issued by the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, 27 May 2003
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
