Committee Report on strategic plan of Department of Public Enterprises and its entities

Meeting report

Outstanding Minutes
The Chairperson began the proceedings by tabling the outstanding minutes of the Committee’s previous meeting held on the 8 March 2011.

This was swiftly adopted without any amendments.

Committee Report on Department of Public Enterprises strategic plan and its entities
The Chairperson noted that the main item on the agenda was the Committee’s consideration of the report on the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) Strategic Plan and Budget made earlier in the month.

The Chairperson requested Members to peruse the document and give their input.

Members made multiple amendments and corrections to grammar and spelling mistakes that were identified in the report. It was agreed that the Committee secretary would make the changes as soon as possible.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) referred to page 1 and suggested that the 9 State Owned Enterprises (SOE) should be named in full early on in the report, to help those reading the report for the first time.

Mr P van Dalen (DA) commented that the report did not make adequate reference about the Department’s intended focus on job creation. This should be highlighted more clearly in the report.

Dr Koornhof noted on page two ambiguity arising from the sentence 3.3.1 [The Minister, on behalf of the state, exercises the following specific powers – appointment of all directors after cabinet approval; executive directors are appointed upon recommendation of the Board]. He questioned if the Minister really did appoint all directors on the Board

The Chairperson clarified that the Minister appointed directors to Boards but not all directors, such as CEO’s. He noted that this would be clarified in the final draft.

A Member referred to page 2 of the report and voiced uncertainty about the wording of the key challenges facing South Africa, questioning where these had originated from.

Mr Disang Mocumi, Committee Secretary, replied that those were the challenges that had been outlined by the Department itself. The Department had specified that it would have to overcome those obstacles if it wanted to achieve its mandate.

Mr Koornhof proposed that the report should have introductory sentences and paragraphs in between the headings and sub-headings for easier readability. He also highlighted some glaring mistakes in the document when compared to what had been presented (and appeared) in the Department’s Strategic Plan. To illustrate, he highlighted that where the sum of R555 million and R210 million were stated to be the decreased amounts in expenditure, these were rather the total appropriated amounts as outlined in the Department’s strategic plan handout. He felt that by not keeping to the headings and language that the Department had used, they were conflating and mixing things up.

Dr S van Dyk (DA) agreed with the previous Member.

This was accepted, and the Committee Secretary agreed to rectify these changes as well as fix up a few numbering problems that arose.

Members then focused on the Committee’s Findings, which would be changed to Questions raised by Committee. It was felt that more emphasis needed to be put on the engagement between Parliament, DPE and SOE’s; with increased oversight where necessary.

The Committee then focused on clarifying their recommendations made on page 10. Clause 12.2 [The Committee recommended that a retention strategy be put in place to retain critical and scarce skills in the Department] was amended to read [The Committee recommended that a retention strategy be put in place to retain technical and specialist skills in the Department]. This was done to avoid any possible misreading by certain personnel (including CEO’s) who would take advantage of such a clause and pay themselves more by claiming they qualified as critical and scarce skills. A further clause was also added to clarify that the Committee’s role was one of activist oversight with regards to SOE’s, while the Department’s should be one of proactive and hands on management.

The Committee also felt it appropriate to include a 13^th section that would commend the job done by the Department so far, noting some of the achievements that had been documented in their Strategic Plan as well as the progress made concerning the SOE’s.

Mr A Mokoena (ANC) expressed satisfaction with the outcomes that had been set and that there would be a big emphasis on job creation. He also commended the Department on having no roll-overs or un-used surpluses for the financial year ahead.

Other Matters
Mr Koornhof then bought two matters to the Committee’s attention. The first had to do with the dramatic increased costs currently documented by Transnet with the building of their new pipeline and the other had to do with the Dube station explosion on the 9 February 2011. He asked what the Committee’s planned reaction to these two events would be, as well as why the Department to date had failed to neither notify the Committee, nor present a report to them of their findings.

The Chairperson said that he had written letters to both the Department as well as Transnet, requesting information about what had happened, what measures had taken place and what of the future. He was still awaiting a response but noted that these indeed were serious matters and the Committee demanded answers. He suggested that perhaps the Committee visit both the factory where the explosion occurred and Transnet to get answers.

While Members were in agreement about this suggestion, Mr M Oriani-Ambrosini (IFP) voiced his concern over the benefit that such an outing would have.

The Chairperson then called for the consideration of adoption of the report, to which it was agreed that it would be adopted with amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.