Kevin Patrick Wax

Attendance

Present

60

Leave of absence

4

Absent without leave

0

Arrived late

0

Left early

0

Reasons given for leave: Private business (2), Other (1), Party business (1).

"Absent without leave" means the signed minutes of a meeting held while they were on council neither list them as present nor excuse them, and no similar name appears that day, so misspellings in the minutes don't count against anyone. Each square links to the minutes.

In the chamber

From the 10 sittings transcribed so far in their term. Times are approximate, to the nearest transcript line.

Not present when called

0

Times given the floor

5

Average wait to start

7 s

Average greetings first

0 s

Apology or leave of absence (1)

• 27 Aug 2026 · 00:05:12Leaving early. Listed among councillors leaving early; time not stated. sitting

Warned or stopped by the chair (1)

• 30 Sept 2026 · 09:53:47Chair declines to take a point of order from Wax. sitting

In their words

Every time the chair gave them the floor in a transcribed sitting (5), newest first. The words are the AI transcript of that stretch of the livestream (Argon), so they can include the chair or an interjection; the time link is the place to check.

• 30 Sept 2026 · 09:06:56Item 30: DDM institutional arrangements · 5 min 23 s

  Read what they said (659 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I speak to item 30, which deals with the institutional arrangements for the effective implementation of the DDM model in the city as per the District Development Model Circular Number 2 of 2026. Madam Speaker, colleagues, and residents, all protocol observed. Madam Speaker, we reject the whole

  path that this model is taking us on, and where it's taking us. And so we reject the entire idea of this of this paper that's, or this report that's before us. But let me tell you why. Today we are asked to note item 30. It is a document that on the surface speaks the language of coordination, cooperation, and alignment. But beneath that language lies a deeper concern:

  the steady centralization of municipal authority under the District Development Model, and the quiet erosion of Johannesburg's constitutional autonomy as a sphere of government. The report before us, Madam Speaker, outlines a dense, multi-layered governance architecture: extended PCCs, extended Premier forums, extended metro IGR forums, clusters, work streams, and cross-cutting

  structures at national, provincial, and metro level. Speaker, this is not coordination. This is bureaucracy. And Johannesburg cannot afford more bureaucracy when our residents cannot rely on water, electricity, or safe infrastructure. The circular requires our Executive Mayor to report biannually to the Premier on the state of this institutionalization. It requires our City Manager to align the city's IDP and budget

  with a national One Plan. Let us be clear. The IDP is a municipal instrument adopted by this council, rooted in the needs of our residents, not a national planning template. Speaker, this council is being asked to accept a model that shifts accountability upwards, away from residents and towards provincial and national forums. When the Executive Mayor must report to the Premier, and national and provincial

  departments are expected to align their plans to the city's One Plan, the lines of accountability become blurred. And when accountability is blurred, service delivery suffers. The report claims, Madam Speaker, that Johannesburg is at the forefront of institutionalization of DDM, and it is recognized as, and I quote, "a leading practice" by national and provincial spheres.

  But Speaker, if Johannesburg is the model, then the model is failing. Our residents are living through daily outages, collapsing infrastructure, unsafe roads, and service delivery breakdowns. They do not experience this leading practice. They experience a crisis. The city's administrative capacity is already stretched, yet this report expects senior officials to participate in multiple IGR structures, clusters, work streams,

  while the secretariat must prepare agendas, minutes, calendars, reports, and track resolutions across all these bodies. This is an unfunded mandate. It diverts scarce capacity away from fixing substations, repairing water infrastructure, stabilizing finances, and restoring basic services. Speaker, cooperative governance is a constitutional principle, but it is not a license for centralization. It is not a license to create parallel

  governance structures that overshadow elected councils, and it is not a license to dilute accountability for service delivery failures. Johannesburg needs empowered local leadership, clear lines of responsibility, and a governance model that strengthens, not weakens, municipal authority. We need a model that delivers water, electricity, safety, and dignity to every community, not one that adds more committees, more reporting lines, and more

  administrative burden. Speaker, we cannot simply note a report that entrenches a governance system misaligned with the constitutional status of municipalities, misaligned with the urgent needs of our residents, and misaligned with the principles of accountable, transparent, and effective local government. We therefore reject this report. We reject the creeping centralization it represents, and we stand firmly for a Johannesburg where accountability is local, service

  delivery is prioritized, and the constitutional autonomy of this council is respected. We cannot wait for the 1st of November to arrive when the results are declared and we take charge of things and sort everything out. Madam Speaker, we note this report with grave, grave, grave concern. I thank you.

• 26 Aug 2026 · 02:28:113 · 5 min 41 s

  Read what they said (847 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable Speaker, comrades, colleagues, and residents of the City of Johannesburg, allow me to say protocol observed. I rise in support and noting of the April and May Section 71 reports. Let us allow the numbers to speak, because the numbers tell us that the ANC-led

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, colleagues and guests, all protocol observed. Nothing demonstrates the brokenness of ethical leadership in the city more than this report. For seven years they struggled from initial collaboration through summits on anti-corruption and ethical leadership to the final development

  Please speak into the mic, Councillor Wax.

  To the final Thank you, Ma'am. To the final development of a Code of Ethical Leadership, supposedly grounded in good governance and to be institutionalized across various structures in the city. Let us not pretend today is normal. We are sitting in the last meeting of this political term, staring at a city dragged to the edge financially, institutionally, and morally, and only now at the 11th hour we are asked to adopt a Code of Ethical Leadership.

  Speaker, the timing is is not just ironic, it is damning, because of ethical leadership If ethical leadership had been present in in this term, even in small measure, Johannesburg could not be in the perilous condition we see today. Johannesburg did not wake up one morning with collapsing infrastructure. It did not accidentally lose billions to irregular, wasteful, and unauthorized expenditure.

  Johannesburg did not mysteriously fall into financial distress. Johannesburg also did not simply struggle to deliver water, electricity, sanitation, and safety. No, Madam Speaker, Johannesburg was broken by leadership choices—repeated, deliberate, reckless choices.

  administration is making measurable progress in stabilizing the city's finances while continuing to invest in infrastructure. Madam Speaker, in April, the city was approximately 1.8 billion above its year-to-date revenue budget. By May, we remained approximately 1.4 billion above budget. That is important.

  made by those entrusted with power. Speaker, the chronic absence of ethical leadership has bankrupted confidence in the city's finances, destroyed infrastructure that residents depend on for survival. It collapsed basic services to the point where outages are not a crisis. They are routine. And impoverished communities leaving

  families unable to fend for themselves in what should be the economic engine of South Africa. It also eroded public trust so severely that residents no longer believe that this institution can protect them. This is not misfortune, Madam Speaker. This is a serious governance crisis. Speaker, let us speak plainly. During this political term, the following was normalized.

  Governance by political deals instead of public interest, appointments based on factional loyalty instead of competence, procurement driven by connections instead of value, oversight that is performative instead of protective, and consequence management that is promised, but never, never delivered. Excuse me. And now, at the end of the term, Madam Speaker, we are presented with a code

  for ethical leadership, as if ethics is a discovery, as if integrity is a fresh idea, and as if accountability is a fashionable accessory for the final meeting. Speaker, this is little effort coming far too late. The residents of the city deserves ethical leadership, and they deserved it right from the beginning of the term. And it started out very promising, and it needed to have gone right throughout the term

  and not now in its closing moments. The irony we cannot ignore is that we are asked to adopt a code that speaks of integrity, transparency, accountability, and service to the people. Speaker, the irony is not subtle. I must say that it is loud, it is glaring,

  it is the lived experience of millions of residents. And yet, Speaker, despite the irony, despite the lateness, despite the failures that define this term, I will say this. If this code is implemented with seriousness, not as political theater, not as a PR exercise, not as a symbolic gesture, then it can be a step in the right direction. But let us be clear. A code does not make leaders ethical.

  Ethical leaders make a code meaningful. To the residents of this once great city, I want to say, Johannesburg cannot survive another term of ethical neglect. It cannot survive another term of governance driven by political convenience instead of constitutional duty. It cannot survive another term where residents pay the price for leadership failures.

  Please do not gamble with your own future and that of your children and your grandchildren. Come November 4th, please vote wisely. Vote wisely. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, we will support this code cautiously, critically, and with full awareness that its adoption today does not erase the damage of the past, and neither does it guarantee a successful future.

  But perhaps if this Council chooses to learn from its failures rather than repeat them, this moment can mark the beginning of something better, a city built rebuilt not on slogans, not on coalitions of convenience, not on political theater, but on ethical leadership that is lived, practiced, and enforced. Johannesburg, Madam Speaker, deserves nothing less. I thank you.

• 30 Jul 2026 · 00:47:06Item 1: Annual Report · 2 min 55 s

  Read what they said (384 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable Speaker, councillors and residents. I would like to talk to the Integrated Annual Report for the year ending 30th of June 2025, sorry. Today's Auditor-General's report. This report is not just an accounting document. It is a mirror held up to the soul of the city, and what it reflects is deeply disturbing. The outcome

  of the report is an unqualified audit opinion with key findings. The Auditor-General confirms that Joburg's group accounts may appear sound, but the city's own books tell a different story, one of adverse opinions, irregular expenditure, and governance decay. Let us be clear, Madam Speaker, an adverse opinion of this nature is not a technicality. It is a warning, a red flag that the city's financial statements cannot be trusted. Behind those

  numbers lie broken systems, missing records, and a chaotic leadership culture that has normalized non-compliance. The report, Madam Speaker, exposes weak asset management, where infrastructure worth billions cannot be properly verified. It reveals procurement failures, where contracts are awarded without transparency, and fruitless expenditure, where public money evaporates without consequence. It speaks of performance

  reports that mislead, audit committees that lack teeth, and senior management instability that has crippled accountability. These are not isolated errors; they are symptoms of a governance system in distress. Colleagues, when the Auditor-General warns of going concern risks, it means Joburg's ability to sustain itself is under threat. This is not opposition rhetoric. It is the sober assessment of

  the nation's highest audit authority. We cannot continue to treat these findings as routine. Every rand wasted is a street left in darkness, a clinic without medicine,

  50 seconds left.

  a community without water. The people of Joburg deserve a city that values integrity over conscience. Madam Speaker, we need what the DA has always called for: a decent forensic review of all irregular and wasteful expenditure, strengthening of internal audit and risk management, and a leadership accountability framework that will serve the city well. So, Madam Speaker, the political administration has failed dismally to lead and govern the city. It is said

  that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. November 4th will be your day of reckoning. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

• 24 Jun 2026 · 07:24:5383 · 5 min 19 s

  Read what they said (667 words)

  Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to talk on item 83, on the Service Level Standards Framework. We welcome any previous any serious attempt to set measurable standards, Madam Speaker, for the services that our people rely on every day.

  The City's Service Level Standards Framework rightly recognizes that each SLS will specify the service description, turnaround time, quality metric, responsible party, and legislative reference. That captures what residents have been demanding for years, clarity about what the City promises and who will deliver it.

  But words on a page, Madam Speaker, are not the same as water in a tap, lights in a home, or a road you can drive on without risking your suspension. We must be blunt. This framework is positive in principle, but weak in execution. It builds dashboards and committees and then leaves residents waiting for enforceable service guarantees. It allows municipal entities to set their own

  standards with no clear binding consequences when those standards are missed. That is not reform, that is delegation without accountability. Our residents, Madam Speaker, do not need more reports. They need outcomes. They need clear, firstly, clear non-negotiable turnaround times for the basics: when water will be restored and electricity restored, fixing burst pipes, clearing blocked drains, etc.

  Secondly, independent verification of performances, not self-certified dashboards. Thirdly, escalations and consequence mechanisms that are effective, because it's important that our residents see that we are dealing with the consequences of poor performance.

  Um, transparent costing and resourcing so residents know whether a missed standard is a management failure or a funding gap. And if it's a funding gap, how will we fix that so that they have the confidence that we are dealing with the issues correctly. Madam Speaker, we are particularly concerned about the over-centralization of oversight in the Mayor and Mayoral Committee without strengthening the Council's oversight role.

  Section 79 committees and oversight structures are described as reviewers. They must be made drivers of corrective action. If a municipal entity misses its targets three times in a row, the Council must be able to demand an immediate remedial plan with timelines, named accountable managers, and a public hearing within 30 days. Implementation risks are real. The framework itself admits our systems are fragmented and our ICT is inconsistent.

  Yet the document proposes a single integrated platform without a funded rollout plan, timelines, or pilots. We will not support a digital promise that becomes another expensive under-delivered project. Any integrated system must be piloted, independently evaluated, and budgeted for in the medium term before it is mandated across entities.

  We also, Madam Speaker, sound a warning about the human cost. New standards mean new responsibilities for frontline staff. Investing in training, adequate staffing, and protective measures for workers who fix our infrastructure should be priority. Performance targets without capacity are a recipe for failure and scapegoating. So, Madam Speaker, for the DA to provide its support, we really want to just make sure that

  we understand each other. So, what do we require? A public legally binding Citizen Service Charter; secondly, automatic escalation rules in the framework; three, independent verification by the Auditor-General or an accredited third party; an integrated dashboard with milestones and an independent evaluation before City-wide rollout; stronger a much stronger role for Section 79 committees; and monthly public dashboards and ward-level scorecards

  so residents can see performance where they live, not buried in technical reports. Let me conclude, Madam Speaker. We will support any measure that moves beyond governance theory and delivers tangible improvements for residents. We will work constructively to tighten the framework, to make standards enforceable, and to ensure that the City's promises become measurable, verifiable, and, most importantly, delivered.

  Our message to the administration is simple. If you want our support, show us the plan, show us the funding, show us the consequences, and show us the results. Our people deserve nothing less. We support the item with some serious reservations. Thank you, Ma'am.

• 24 Jun 2026 · 02:27:4762 · 8 min 1 s

  Read what they said (921 words)

  Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on item 62, the updated strategy for the prevention and reduction of UIFWs in line with the National Treasury Circular 111. Madam Speaker, fellow councilors, guests, and residents, all protocol observed. We stand today not to grandstand,

  but to hold this administration to the basic standard of governance, accountability. The document before us is presented as a corrective strategy. Yet it reads more like a public relations exercise than a serious plan to fix a fiscal crisis. Crucially, this report did not come before the Governance Oversight Committee for scrutiny, debate, or any form of deliberation.

  That omission, Madam Speaker, is not a technicality. It is a failure of oversight. Let me be blunt, Madam Speaker. The city's own numbers tell a story of neglect. The report admits in 2023-24, the opening UIFWE balance of 23.6 billion, which was an astronomical jump from 12.86 billion in the 2019-2020 year.

  It further notes ongoing UIFWE declarations of 3.6 billion in the current year, which includes unauthorized expenditure linked to bulk purchases and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The document itself warns on page 62.2, and I quote, "The total accumulated balance at the end of the financial year 23-24 of 23.6 billion led to the Minister of Finance

  formally raising concerns with the Executive Mayor regarding the city's non-compliance with the Municipal Finance Management Act." Those are not abstract criticisms, Madam Speaker. They are a red

  flag that should have triggered urgent, transparent oversight, not a neatly packaged strategy that bypasses the very committee charged with governance. Further on page 62.12 of the report it states, and I quote: "The draft plan for the implementation of the UIFWE prevention and reduction is under development. This previous plan is being reviewed and updated." Those sentences,

  Madam Speaker, should chill every councillor in this chamber. We have a multi-billion rand problem, flagged by the national Minister of Finance, and the administration's response is a draft? So, what critical flaws must we expose today? Firstly, the strategy lacks independent scrutiny. A document of this magnitude proposing targets to reduce billions in UIFW

  Es must be stress-tested by the appropriate oversight committees. We need forensic interrogation of assumptions, timelines, resources, and allocations. Instead, Madam Speaker, the report was circulated without that essential step. That is governance by memo, not governance by process. A quick glance reveals that the balance reduction claimed by the city in 2024/25 was the result of regularization

  and not effective prevention. Secondly, Madam Speaker, the targets are aspirational, but under-specified. With headline reductions 50%, 60%, 70% over successive years. But it fails to show exactly how these will be achieved.

  Councillor Wax, just hold on. Can we get a a roving mic because we can't hear? Oh, there your mic is on. Okay.

  Mic is still on.

  Hear you. Thank you.

  Right, let's try again. Um, that is governance, sorry. Now I've lost my place. Um, targets without a credible resource plan, Madam Speaker, uh can be considered wishful thinking. We need line-by-line action, specified ownership, and budgeted resources. The public deserves to know whether these targets are policy or prophecy. The fallacy here, Madam Speaker, is that while council

  is requested to approve these targets, the information provided is incomplete, with a clear admission that these declarations are incomplete or delayed, and with ongoing Gee, I'm getting too old for this. Um, that they are delayed and with ongoing um AG identified irregularities and undeclared spending on the non-specialized fleet contract.

  Madam Speaker, in the third place, the report admits systemic failures, but offers weak remedies. It lists root causes such as weak internal controls, poor record-keeping, delayed investigations, and inconsistent declarations. Yet, the proposed responses are largely procedural: centralize investigations, adopt combined assurances, and draft protocols. These, while they are necessary steps,

  they are not sufficient. Where is the timeline for disciplinary action? Where is the commitment to recover funds? Where is the independent audit of historical contracts that continue to bleed this city? Fourth, Madam Speaker, the governance architecture is muddied. The report repeatedly refers to MPAC, the Disciplinary Board, municipal entity boards, and Group Legal, but it does not clarify

  the escalation path when these bodies disagree. Who has the final authority to stop ongoing payments on contracts deemed irregular? Who signs off on cost-benefit decisions to pursue civil recovery? Ambiguity here equals delay, and delay equals loss. And in the fifth place, Madam Speaker, the report skirts the political dimension of consequence management. We all know what serious problem we face in the city

  with the lack of consequence management, and we are not dealing with it as effective as we should. Madam Speaker, this strategy does not come before did not come before the Governance Oversight Committee, as I pointed out earlier. This is not a minor lapse, it's a dereliction of duty. If the administration cannot be bothered to subject a multi-billion rand recovery plan to proper oversight, how can we trust its implementation? The plan in and of itself lacks

  the credibility to serve as an effective bulwark against financial mismanagement and needs to be revisited urgently.

  50 seconds.

  This is not about scoring political points; it's about protecting our finances and our residents. If this administration is serious about fixing the rot, it will welcome oversight, publish the detail, and act with urgency. And if it refuses, the people will decide. The 4th of November is coming. We reject this report. I thank you.

Spoke on

• 30 Sept 2026 · 09:06:35Item 30: District Development Model institutional arrangements
• 30 Sept 2026 · 09:46:48Motion 1: DA speech and points of order about 'ANC motion'
• 26 Aug 2026 · 02:28:03Item 3: DA and ActionSA on the ethics code
• 30 Jul 2026 · 00:46:56DA on Auditor-General findings
• 24 Jun 2026 · 02:27:23Item 62: Cllr Wax (DA)
• 24 Jun 2026 · 07:16:51Item 83: Service Level Standards Framework