A Review of the KZN Slums Bill Public Hearing Process

(A Closer look at the Slums Clearance Bill Public Hearing Process)

By: Zama Mkhize

Introduction

There are various pieces of legislation that support the concept of public participation in the processes of government. These pieces of legislation encourage ordinary citizens to take part in the decision making process. This was recently witnessed when members of the public where invited by the Provincial Housing Portfolio Committee to attend a public hearing on the Slums clearance Bill which was held at Kennedy Road Community Hall on the 4th of May 2007. The level of attendance by Abahlali Basemjondolo and other community members from the surrounding informal settlements was very high.

It would not be wrong to presume that this high level attendance is indicative of the interest that people have in engaging to influence policy. Policies such as the Prevention of Re-emergence of Slum and other pieces of legislation that affect their lives, such as the current Same Sex Marriage Bill, now an Act of Parliament.

The Process

Prior to the chairperson of the portfolio committee opening up this process for community input, one of the members of the Portfolio committee who took part in the drafting of the Bill, gave a very brief summary of the purpose and objectives of the Bill, after which he then opened the floor for questions of clarity. Having attended a couple of public hearings one had expected that the Portfolio Committee would go through the Bill section by section, before giving the community the opportunity to put their views forward, this would have given people a clearer understanding of what the Bill sought to do, thus enabling people to engage with the Bill effectively as it was quite evident that not everybody understood the purpose, not to mention the contents of the Bill. Some people were convinced that they had to register for houses that government was going to build for them.

When the floor was opened for questions relating to the Bill, this was definitely an opportunity that the Abahlali supporters and community members had been waiting for. The following are some of the questions that were raised by members of the community:

• How does the Department plan to eradicate informal settlements such as Kennedy Road when the population in that area is on the increase?
•  What plan is place to accommodate those who are currently leaving the rural areas of the Ethekwini?
• What protective measures do you have in place for those of us who have built on someone else’s piece of land, as I understand it the current Bill allows the land owner to evict such people?
• The houses that you say you are going to build will they be free or will we have to pay rent?
• The subsidised houses that government has built for us are being occupied by the professionals i.e. teachers and nurses, people who can afford to buy their own houses, those of us who cannot afford to purchase a house find ourselves being homeless, so what plan is in place to ensure that this does not happen?
• What assurance do I have that if I am moved from the jondolo’s I will have a permanent place to live and not be moved, I ask this question because where I live in Pinetown, Motala Heights, there have been incidences of people being moved from their shacks into the two room houses, only to be moved again.

At this point the atmosphere in the room was getting tense, people were getting restless some had even begun to walk out, because they felt that the Housing Portfolio Committee was lying to them and that they were being made fools because all the questions that were being asked fell on deaf ears, the response that they kept getting was that the issues raised would be taken up with the municipality. What was astonishing, is the fact that the Housing Portfolio Committee of the Legislature did not have a clue as to what the Municipal plans were in terms of housing, one supporter actually asked why the legislature had no idea as to what the Municipality was planning in terms of housing in the Province, this really makes one wonder what happened to the concept of intergovernmental relations? Surely the Provincial Department of Housing is supposed to know what Ethekwini Metro is planning in terms of housing!

During the hearing it further emerged that people from the Abahlali Basemjondolo movement did not want anything to do with the Bill as they felt that the Bill was suppressive and taking them back to the apartheid era. They felt that the legislature did not understand the circumstances and conditions that people from the informal settlements were living under.

Thus for most of these communities the Bill is not seen as means to change their circumstances, instead it was going to make life difficult in terms of travelling, as one lady from the informal settlements clearly stated, that all 7 of her children attend school in Mayville, if they had to be moved, she would have to pay double the amount she is paying for transport, her view was that, decent houses can be built in Kennedy road without having to move the residents.

The walk out was seen to some as the indication of unsatisfaction about the presentation.

It has been noted that immediately after this meeting the Abahlali Committee representing informal settlement communities has realised a statement saying “No house, No land, No Bill” which is sought to challenge the government to ensure provision of proper housing. It is however known that there is still a huge argument that these communities have rejected proposals to be moved to far away areas from where they are, alluding to the fact that this would worsen or impact adversely to the socio-economic conditions as the new areas proposed are said to be far away from their employment areas.

Although the legislature acknowledged the grievances raised by the community members of Kennedy road, one can state that this hearing has been an eye opener for them, in that the challenges that are faced by people living in slums and informal settlements cannot be dealt with at a provincial level only. There is therefore a need for a much-concerted effort by the government in all spheres to work together and to integrate as far as possible their actions in the provision of services, alleviation of poverty and the development of our people and our country¹. Thus had there been a concerted effort between Ethekwini Metro and the Department of Housing to work together in regards the housing issue in KwaZulu Natal, the portfolio committee would not have had to succumb to the hostility and disinterest that was shown by the community members. Currently, the housing portfolio committee is now tasked with setting up a meeting with the municipality and give feed back on some of the issues raised, and plan together with the municipality as to when they would jointly visit the residents of Kennedy road, to talk to the Bill and the current housing issue.

In as much as Abahlali and their supporters did not concur with the Bill as it was expected, the feeling is that these communities did not use this invited space wisely to critically engage with the housing committee, on the following issues:

• Concern about the timeframe for critically engaging the Bill.
• Upgrading of existing slums and informal settlements ( What is the plan in place?)
•  Interaction and support between provincial and local government in the provision of affordable housing as set out in the preamble of the Bill. It was quiet clear in the hearing that such interaction does not exist.
• Seeking and lobbying for Provincial government support on the concerns they have with the local municipality (Ethekwini).

Instead it seemed as if this was just an opportunity for them to simply vent out their anger against the provincial government and Ethekwini Metro, which defeated the whole aim of this process. Members of civil society need to respect and understand their duty to make full use of spaces such as public hearings, ward committee meetings and submissions (to name but a few) to critical engage and hold government accountable on issues of poor or non-delivery of services, without being hostile to these processes their messengers or incumbents.

It is clear then that this Bill present an opportunity to engage rather than closure to the quandary of informal settlement communities. Given the above the same can be said about government that when initiating these processes, it must not undermine the views and ideas that have been put forward by the legitimate citizenry of the country.

* Zama Mkhize is Manager of CPP Parliamentary Monitoring Program

Preamble, Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act, 2005

back

Click here to view
the latest edition.