TRAVEL EXPENDITURE: MINISTER OF HOUSING FEELING THE HEAT
Introduction
Last week, InsidePolitics revealed the department of home affairs admitted to having spent R82.6 million on travel from April to November 2006; yet, in this year’s reply, the department claims that spent just R71.5 million during the whole of 2006/2007 (April 2006 to April 2007).
A rather contradictory response, the reason for which we explored in a previous story
Since then, two further replies relating to this series of questions were received by the DA:
•First, a reply from the department of health, revealed that its total hotel, restaurant and travel expenditure increased from R60.4 million last year to R74 million for 2007 – an increase of some 23%.
•Second, a reply from the department of housing (DOH) last Friday, which is far more interesting – and has once again illustrated the low level of respect the executive seems to have for oversight and accountability.
Today we will look at this latter response – from the department of housing – in more detail.
Some background
While the department of housing did indeed reply to the DA’s question this year, it failed to do so last year.
The department submitted a reply in December 2006 (nearly two months after the question was submitted) which stated that the information requested – hotel, restaurant and travel expenditure for 2004/2005 and 2005/2006- was not readily available and then supplied figures only for the period April 2006 to October 2006. Restaurant expenses were also included in the accommodation costs as the department argued that officials ate at the hotels where they stayed.
The DA therefore submitted a follow-up question last month (September 2007) asking whether this information was now readily available.
Last Friday, the department officially responded with the following:
I am not sure why the Honourable Member bothers requesting this information from me, as the DA had already decided what these expenses are and made it public in a statement issued on 25 September 2007. I therefore suggest that he obtains this information from his own caucus.
A response that – if anything – can only be described as being arrogant as it is misconceived.
Indeed, one is almost forced to come to the conclusion that the minister of housing had not seen the reply sent by her department last year nor made any attempt to obtain it before signing off this reply – something which is rather disturbing given that the question was addressed to her and the reply came in her name.
If the Minister was aware of last year’s reply, she would have seen that the figures included in the DA’s press statement on 25 September were not random figures simply decided on by the DA, but rather, on the incomplete information supplied by her department last year.
Not only did last year’s question ask for the relevant information for two years – 2005 and 2006 – as opposed to just one year (which is what this year’s question asked) but as her department’s initial response to last year’s question failed to properly set out the answer, the DA’s document only contained partial information.
Conclusion
So what happened in the DOH, to get the Minister’s temperature so high?
Well, here is one theory:
(Before going any further, it is worth noting that housing topped the DA rankings with increases of 141% on accommodation costs, 142% on travel costs an overall increase of 151% across all three categories. In other words, in percentage terms, it was the worst of the lot.)
The day after the DA’s press conference the Minister probably saw the 7pm ETV news bulletin - on 26 September - which, in response to the DA’s press conference, ran a story on the department of housing’s increase in expenditure.
It was a damning bulletin, which focused almost exclusively
| Posted on 8/10/2007
 |  | |