Voting on the Bill had originally been scheduled for 18 February 2015, but the Chairperson decided that voting had to be deferred on that date, as a submission by the South African Institute for Professional Auditors (SAIPA) had not yet been responded to. A meeting between the Independent Regulatory board for Auditors (IRBA) and SAIPA took place on 20 February 2015, and a report was made available to Members.
Amended clauses were read through with a quorum present. There was a move for adoption which was seconded, and the Bill was adopted.
Voting on the Auditing Profession Amendment Bill
The Chairperson asked if the South African Institute for Professional Auditors (SAIPA) submission had been heard.
Adv Empie Van Schoor, Chief Director: Legislation, National Treasury, replied that there had been a meeting between the Independent Regulatory board for Auditors (IRBA) and SAIPA, and that a report was made available to Members.
The Chairperson asked Adv Van Schoor if Treasury considered the Bill ready to be voted on.
Adv Van Schoor replied in the affirmative.
The Chairperson took the Committee through the amended clauses. He again asked Adv Van Schoor if everything had been checked.
Adv Van Schoor affirmed this.
A motion for adoption of the report was received and seconded, and the Bill was adopted.
Committee Report on the Auditing Profession Amendment Bill
The Chairperson read the Committee Report on the Auditing Profession Amendment Bill. The report noted that the Committee had examined and considered the Auditing Profession Amendment Bill. It further noted the low representation of the previously disadvantaged in the auditing profession. Only 8% of auditors were African. The figure for women had increased from 14 to 23 %, but this was unacceptable. The Committee recommended that new and innovative ways be found to make the profession more accessible to the previously disadvantaged and to specifically increase both racial and gender representation. The report also noted that the DA had reserved its position on the Bill.
A Member pointed out that the DA was not present at the meeting.
The Chairperson replied that the DA had previously indicated its position concerning the Bill. As far as he was aware, the party had done so in the past and it was standard practice to record this in the report.
The report was adopted by the Committee.
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.