VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J described the constitutional distribution of housing roles amongst the three governmental spheres in Grootboom, he did not delineate absolute and inflexible divisions of governmental responsibilities among the three spheres.57 [55] At the time of Grootboom there was no— ―express provision to facilitate access to temporary relief for people who have no access to land, no roof over their heads, for people who are living in intolerable conditions and for people who are in crisis because of natural disasters such as floods and fires, or because their homes are under threat of demolition.‖58 Therefore, the essential question was— ―whether the nationwide housing programme is sufficiently flexible to respond to those in desperate need in our society and to cater appropriately for immediate and short-term requirements.‖59 [56] By virtue of the glaring gap in the national housing framework this Court accentuated the need for national government to legislate and ultimately fulfil the right of access to adequate housing. Without a national policy to get the ball rolling from a legislative and budgetary perspective, it would be impossible for the other spheres of government to do anything meaningful. It is in this light that this Court in Grootboom held: ―Effective implementation requires at least adequate budgetary support by national government. This, in turn, requires recognition of the obligation to meet immediate 57 Grootboom above n 12 at paras 39-44. 58 Id at para 52. 59 Id at para 56. 27