Update on Preparation for Strategic Planning Workshop & Outstanding Matters

This premium content has been made freely available

Public Enterprises

21 February 2012
Chairperson: Mr P Maluleke
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee met to consider and adopt several outstanding minutes from the previous year as well as that from the previous meeting. Members expressed unhappiness that they had to review so many minutes at once and some were long after the actual proceedings had occurred. They pointed out that the piling up of minutes was undesirable. The Committee did not come to Parliament for minutes but for the contents captured in those minutes. It was agreed that committee minutes would be dealt with regularly going forward.

Members felt strongly that the Committee needed to examine all the recommendations, observations and conclusions it had made. The Committee should not just put the minutes aside, it needed to do justice to what was raised. The Committee asked the researcher to identify those specific recommendations that required follow-up on the Committee’s side. The Committee would set aside time during the planned workshop to go through the list of recommendations. Two key issues that needed to be revisited concerned the resolution on the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and the Transnet Sub-Fund as well as the losses incurred by South African Airways and South African Express in 2010.

The Committee looked at the preparations for the Strategic Planning Workshop. It was originally scheduled for 24-25 February- this Friday and Saturday. Thursday had been ruled out because there was supposed to be a joint plenary sitting on that date. This was no longer the case and Members decided to bring the date for the workshop forward. Some Members noted that the Department had scheduled its own strategic meeting for the Friday. As a result they felt that the workshop should be postponed because they doubted whether the Department would be prepared or available to attend. Ms September thought that these Members were being unfair, and said that they should state openly whether they had no appetite for a workshop. She highlighted that the first term was short and the Committee did not have time to defer matters. Furthermore, she stressed the importance of oversight and pointed out that the Committee was assuming that the Department would not be ready and available and not contacted them to find out if this was the case. It was agreed that the workshop would go ahead on Thursday and that the Department would attend session that afternoon with the Committee.

Meeting report

Welcome and Apologies
The Chairperson welcomed all those present and thereafter asked if any apologies had been received.

Mr
Disang Mocumi, Committee Secretary, informed the Committee that apologies had been received from
Ms N Michael (DA), Mr E Marais (DA), and Mr K Dikobo (Azapo).
Mr M Nhanha (Cope) was expected to join the Committee later.

The Chairperson noted that this was a scheduled meeting and all Members had been informed timeously about it. The Committee did have a quorum and would therefore proceed with the meeting.

Adoption of Outstanding Committee Minutes
The Chairperson tabled several outstanding minutes for consideration. These were dated 13 September 2011, 1, 8, 15, 22 and 25 November 2011 and 1, 8, 15, 22 and 25 January 2012.

The Chairperson enquired if all Members had copies of the minutes and had an opportunity to go through them. Members nodded in agreement and the Chairperson indicated that the Committee would go through each set of minutes individually.

A Member reminded everyone that there was a previous undertaking that the Committee would not deal with so many minutes at once. In addition, she pointed out that it was difficult to work through minutes that were old and did not understand why these (committee minutes) did not come up as a regular item.

The Chairperson agreed that there was such an undertaking in place and that the Committee should be approving minutes regularly. He further explained that these minutes were part of a backlog from the previous year. The Committee would consider the last batch of outstanding minutes in the next meeting and this situation would not be repeated thereafter.

Committee Minutes dated 13 September
The Chairperson tabled the minutes and asked if the Committee could approve it.

Ms C September (ANC) noted that there were minor discrepancies in the minutes.

The Chairperson said that Members could raise whatever issues they wanted to. These would be noted and the minutes would be adopted with the amendments.

The Chairperson noted that Ms Borman had underlined the discrepancies in her copy of the document and requested that she provide this to the Committee Secretary.

The Committee then approved the minutes.

Committee Minutes dated 1 November
The Chairperson tabled the minutes for consideration.

Ms September asked why there were minutes for this meeting because the record of this was supposed to be the actual report. It was good that the Committee was being thorough but this was a duplication as it had been previously agreed that the report would be adopted as the record of the proceedings. This would be the case whenever any entity presented an annual report to the Committee.

Mr Mocumi explained that the Committee was required to have minutes for every meeting. There was no problem if the Committee then chose to have an additional report. The report would be informed by the minutes and there should be a correlation between the two documents.

Ms G Borman (ANC) again handed over the minor amendments to the Committee Secretary.

The Chairperson said that Members should agree that all amendments would be noted and corrected in the final minutes but the Committee would nevertheless go through each set of minutes individually.

The minutes were accordingly approved.

Committee Minutes dated 8 November
The minutes were tabled and then approved.

Committee Minutes dated 15 November
The minutes were tabled and then approved.

Committee Minutes dated 22 November
The minutes were tabled for consideration.

Ms Borman referred to the final page of the document and noted that Ms September had recommended that the Committee Secretariat categorise all the resolutions. In light of this, she asked if the Committee was picking up on all the issues that were highlighted in the minutes that it was passing otherwise these get forgotten.

Mr Mocumi replied that in the strategic planning workshop, there would be a presentation about all the resolutions taken by the Committee, the actions taken and what the successes and failures where.

The Chairperson added that this information would be included in the review of the Committee.

Mr C Gololo (ANC) asked if the observations of Members would be incorporated in the review.

The Chairperson confirmed that these would appear in the final report.

Mr Gololo highlighted an example where South African Airways (SAA) and South African Express (SAX) had indicated that they were making a lot of profit but during 2010 they made major loses especially at a time when the opposite was expected. How did the Committee make follow-ups on that?

Ms September stated that she was going to raise some of the issues that were highlighted but would do so at the end.

The Chairperson sought clarity on whether this was a point concerning the minutes under discussion or SAA and SAX.

Ms September clarified that she wanted to express views about the issues raised by Ms Borman and further expanded on by Mr Gololo. She enquired if her comments could be parked in the interim and revisited later.

The Chairperson agreed to this request.

The minutes were approved.

Committee Minutes dated 25 November

The Chairperson tabled the minutes for consideration.


Ms Borman referred to the Committee's resolution on the The Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (TSDBF) and the Transnet Sub-Fund (TSF). The Committee resolved that it would monitor the implementation of the funding solution and was committed to ensuring that the conditions of pensioners were improved. Had this actually been implemented? It was important that the Committee did not lose sight of this important recommendation.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) recalled that the Committee had decided that the two funds would report to the Committee every year. He sought clarity on whether his recollection was correct.

The Chairperson confirmed that this was the case and indicated that this matter could be revisited after all the minutes had been approved.

The Committee approved the minutes.

Committee Minutes dated 25 January 2012
The Chairperson tabled the minutes for consideration.

The minutes were approved with no changes.

Issues emanating from earlier discussion

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would refer back to all the outstanding matters that were raised earlier in the meeting and asked Members to elaborate on their points.

M Gololo stressed that the Committee needed to examine all the recommendations, observations and conclusions it had made. The Committee should not just put the minutes aside, “it needed to do justice to what was raised”.

Ms September agreed with Gololo and argued that this matter had nothing to do with the workshop. It was a legacy matter that was raised continuously. The Committee needed an answer from the Chairperson about what follow-ups were done concerning all the recommendations. The difficulty was that the Committee was only considering minutes of 13 September 2011 at the end of February 2012-more than 5 months later. One could be technical and argue that the minutes were not adopted and therefore no action could be taken. Therefore the piling up of minutes was undesirable. More than that, there should be a catalogue of all decisions taken. This matter was continuously raised because it had to do with oversight. The Committee did not come to Parliament for minutes but for the contents captured in those minutes. The Committee would have to leave this to the Chairperson to see how this matter would be dispensed with.

Mr A Mokoena (ANC) suggested that the Committee should ask the researcher to identify those specific recommendations that required follow-up on the Committee’s side. The Committee should the set aside time during the workshop to go through this list (of recommendations). Such a list would assist Members in holding the State Owned Entities (SOEs) accountable. The researcher should focus on the key priorities between now and Thursday. The rest could be dealt with at a later stage. This would remove from Members’ conscience this burden of not doing justice to oversight and follow up.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee Secretary had been doing that previously- immediately after the meeting writing letters that emanated from the resolutions of the Committee. At some point that fizzled out but that practise would now be reintroduced. He would have to accept some responsibility for allowing that to happen.

Mr Mokoena said that he deliberately wanted to release the burden from the Chairperson and the Committee Secretary and therefore suggested that the researcher should complete this task. The Committee would deal with the essential recommendations first and with the rest progressively in the official meetings.

The Chairperson clarified that this matter would still come back to the Committee Secretary as he would be responsible for writing the letter to whoever needed to be corresponded with.

Ms September asked why the Committee did not have a Content Advisor as it dealt with so many entities. This was an important Committee and pointed out that just to dig into SAA’s finances was a mammoth task.

Ms Borman supported the idea of the tabulated recommendations. The Committee could then take matters off the list as it worked through the document and issues were dealt with. At the moment, things were all over the place.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should address Ms Borman’s concern about the TSDBF and the TSF the notwithstanding the fact that both Funds needed to report to the Committee annually.

Ms Borman asked if the Committee had followed up to see if anything had happened. Were all the payments made and was everything settled?

The Chairperson replied that payments had been made and reminded Members that the Committee had discussed this towards the end of the previous year.

Mr Mokoena sought clarity on whether what was paid was a pension and not an actuality.

The Chairperson reiterated that as far as he could remember, the payments had been made.

Mr Mokoena pointed out that there were supposed to be 2 tranches of payment- one in November and another at the end of February.

The Chairperson said that a follow-up would need to be made on this. There should be written report and this would be circulated to Members.

Mr Mokoena asked where the Presidential Review Committee (PRC) had started because 2-3 weeks ago he attended a joint meeting with the energy committee where a document was circulated which was a summary of the report of the PRC to the President. That document had not gone through the proper channels and the Committee-in terms of its profile- was supposed to be at the forefront of dealing with it.

The Chairperson replied that this matter was before the Committee a while ago and it was referred to the economic cluster. The Committee still needed to formulate its approach to the cluster before this could go forward.

Ms September reminded the Chairperson that the Committee’s position had been formulated.

The Chairperson accepted Ms September's correction and highlighted that the Committee had not had sight of whatever the cluster came up with. Accordingly, he asked if the cluster had finalised its work.

A Member replied that the cluster had not finalised its work.

Dr Koornhof explained that the cluster had subgroups and that the matter had been referred to each of the subgroups but the latter had not reported back to the cluster.

The Chairperson said that this matter needed to be followed-up on.

A Member maintained that the Committee needed to be “bullish” about this and that it needed to be at the forefront. The Chairperson should be mandated to communicate with the other chairpersons in the economic cluster to say that the Committee had raised this issue and that there was a need for all parties to meet.

Dr Koornhof informed Members that there was a cluster meeting on Thursday after the caucus. The agenda included the work priorities for the year and this should be raised at that forum.

Ms Borman supported the idea and felt that it was very important that the Committee actually received a report. When she had raised this in the programming section, she was told that the report was coming in the second term.

The Chairperson said that “we would interact with other chairpersons to get the matter finalised by the other clusters”.

A Member joked that the Chairperson was royalty and should not use the word “we” because the Committee was mandating him to raise the matter with his peers. He was horrified to hear Ms Borman say that this report would only be available in the second term as there was the ANC policy conference and so forth later this year. The Committee needed to be hands on. The Committee would be meeting all the heads of SOEs and there critical issues that were hanging on the direction of the report.

Update on Preparation for Strategic Planning Workshop
Introduction
Mr Mocumi explained that the strategic planning workshop was planned for 24 and 25 February- this Friday and Saturday. The dates were informed by the parliamentary programme which had indicated that there would be a plenary sitting on Thursday. That plenary sitting had been cancelled. It was important to note that the Department was having its strategic management meeting on Friday. This would be attended by the Minister, Director-General and all the DDGs. In view of the fact there was no plenary on Thursday, perhaps the Committee could schedule the workshop for Thursday and Friday instead.

Mr Mokoena felt that it was important for the Department to be present at the workshop. However, it was clear that the Department would not be prepared or available to attend the workshop given that its own strategy meeting was scheduled for Friday. As a result, he suggested that the Committee could either have an internal meeting or postpone the workshop until such time that the Department was available. The internal meeting would assist the Committee to deal with all the backlogs. Furthermore, a postponed would ensure that the Department would not have any excuses for not being prepared.

Mr Gololo stated that the Committee could not have the workshop without the key people from the Department present. He therefore agreed that it should be postponed to another date.

Dr Koornhof advised that the Committee should first look at the draft agenda and then decide whether it should postpone the workshop. The Department needed to provide an explanation if it did not attend as this had happened in previous years. The Committee should look at what it wanted to achieve and then make a judgement call on whether to postpone.

Ms Borman agreed that the Department should be present at the workshop. If the Department came on Thursday, it could do its presentation on that day and then leave the Committee to carry out its own work on Friday. The Committee must look at the programme, see if it was workable to switch things around and if not to cancel the meeting.

Ms September asked when the Department had received notice of the workshop.

Mr Mocumi said that the programme had been sent to the Department last Friday.

Ms September asked if this suggestion of Thursday was canvassed with the Department.

The Chairperson said that the Committee first had to agree to Thursday before the Department could be approached.

Ms September highlighted that this was a short term and the Committee was already behind with its work.  She favoured meeting with the Department on Thursday but was not sure if Saturday was an option. If the Department could not come then nothing could be done about it. The Committee had the capability to discuss matters on its own but it would be preferable to have the Department present.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should leave on Thursday around lunch and ask the Department to join it that afternoon.

Mr Mokoena said that going ahead would defeat the purpose because the objective was to have a successful and accountable workshop. The Committee should not settle for a compromised workshop. The Committee should congratulate itself because the workshop had spurred on the Department to have its own strategic meeting. It was just unfortunate that they could not have earlier so that it did not clash with the Committee’s meeting. The Committee should have an in house session to deal with matters that were germane to its internal management. The workshop should be postponed.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee did not need all the officials from the Department. All the Committee wanted was a mid term review of what goals it had set, what it managed to achieve, where were the challenges and what was the way forward. The Committee should request that the Minister, the deputy, the Director-General and other senior officials attend the workshop on Thursday.
 
Mr Gololo agreed with Mr Mokoena. The Committee had to ensure that all the officials that were supposed to be at the workshop would be there. The Department would not be prepared. In addition, he highlighted that the Budget Speech would be presented the following day and there could be issues therein that the Department needed to consider.

Ms September stated that the Members were being unfair. If they had no appetite for the workshop then they should say so and not waste time. “Everything that they argued was rubbish”. The Cabinet Lekgotla fed into the President's State of the Nation Address and the budget speech. Therefore there would be nothing new coming out of the Budget Speech. The Members had previously argued very vociferously about the Committee's oversight responsibility and now they were saying something different. The Department had not even been asked whether it was prepared for the workshop.

The Chairperson noted that this was a short term. On that basis, the Committee should continue with the workshop on Thursday, after the caucus and ask the Department to attend on that day.

Mr Mokoena asked Ms September to withdraw her remarks. He was certain that the language she used was unintentional.

Ms September withdrew her comments and enumerated the plan for the workshop. The 3 elements of the workshop included the presentation by the Department, the budget review and a review of the Committee. 


Mr Mokoena then suggested that the Committee should arrive at the venue at 3pm on Thursday; therefore they should leave at 2pm.

Ms September stated that the Committee should leave earlier and have lunch at the venue.

This was supported by Ms Borman.

It was agreed that the transport would leave Parliament at 1pm.

The Secretary confirmed that the other parties would all be going to the workshop.

Ms Borman noted that the strategic planning workshop would be strategic planning for the year; therefore it would have been important to have the PRC findings.

The Chairperson replied that even the President had not seen the findings yet.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: