Signing of the National Credit Amendment Bill; Consumer and Corporate Regulation Division: DTI Induction briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

Trade, Industry and Competition

21 August 2019
Chairperson: Mr D Nkosi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee informed Members that the National Credit Amendment Bill [B 30 – 2018] had been assented to and signed by the President on 13 August 2019 as Act No 7 of 2019. It had been processed as a Committee Bill which originated with the Committee of the 5th Parliament rather than as legislation proposed by the Executive. It was designed to address over-indebted low-income individuals. The Department of Trade and Industry would be requested to brief the Committee on the analysis and recommendations of its recent socio-economic impact study relating to the new debt relief measure and to provide the Committee with a copy of the socio-impact study report.  The Department would also be requested to brief the Committee on the Department’s implementation plan to ensure that that Act was brought into operation as soon as possible.

Some Members acclaimed the signing of the Bill suggesting that it would bring enormous relief to the poorest of the poor and the elderly while other Members expressed concern about its impact on the tight fiscal space in which South Africa found itself and were concerned that it would be detrimental to the economy.

The Deputy Director-General for Corporate and Consumer Regulations presented a high-level but comprehensive overview of the wide-ranging work for which the division was responsible in the Department of Trade and Industry. This was an induction session to introduce new members of the Committee in the 6th Parliament to this aspect of the Department’s responsibilities.

The Division currently had three Bills in process. Both the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Amendment Bill had been passed by Parliament and were awaiting the assent and the signature of the President. The National Gambling Amendment Bill was currently with the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Should the Bills be approved, the Division would have to draft Regulations for each of the Bills. In addition, there was an urgent need for a comprehensive National Gambling Bill to deal with a multitude of issues that had been set aside when the current National Gambling Amendment Bill had been scaled down.  A comprehensive Credit Amendment Bill was needed to address some urgent challenges relating to credit.

Other pending legislation included an Amendment to the Companies Act, 2008 which is being drafted. An Amendment to the Liquor Regulations 2013 had to be drafted and the approved Policy Review had to be implemented through the Amendment of the Liquor Act.

Members asked whether cannabis fell within the scope of the division. The Members asked about the appointment of the fourth national lottery operator and the issues that had been raised by the media in respect of the allocation of lottery funds. Were the internet lounges, that were effectively gambling dens, actually illegal and what provisions in the gambling legislation provided for such situations? What informed the policy decisions of the chief directorate on policy and how did that chief directorate function?

How far was the Department in developing an integrated approach to reduce the turnaround time for all aspects of registration when one wanted to start a company in South Africa? Members also expressed concern about the people who hung around outside the offices of the Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission offering their services to people who wished to register a company and asked if there was a need for the services that those people allegedly provided. Members were uneasy about the large number of statutory forums that advise the Minister on matters relating to the ministry and asked for information on how the people on those forums were appointed and paid.

Members were also interested in the socio-economic impact assessments carried out by the Division and asked if a socio-economic impact study would be conducted on the appropriation without compensation of intellectual property.

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone. He noted that two documents had been circulated to Members: one was a memo giving an update on the National Credit Amendment Bill, and the second was a report from the Fifth Parliament that captured the detail on the Bill that would result in legislative business for the Committee.

The Chairperson noted the presence of the Deputy Director-General for the Consumer and Corporate Regulation Division and the Acting Chief Operations Officer, Ms Nontombi Matomela, from dti who would be taking the Committee through the presentation.

National Credit Amendment Bill

The Chairperson noted that there was progress regarding the National Credit Amendment Bill [B 30 – 2018] which, as had been noted in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports (ATC) of 15 August 2019, had been assented to and signed by the President on 13 August 2019 as Act No 7 of 2019.

The Chairperson read the memorandum that had been issued to Members:

-The National Credit Amendment Bill had been assented to and signed by the President on 13 August 2019.

-Prior to the Bill being signed, South Africa had had three statutory measures offering debt relief, namely sequestration, administration and debt review but those systems excluded poor and low-income debtors based on financial grounds, which was contrary to the Constitution, international trends and best practice.

-The Act was a product of the Fifth Parliament, started in 2016, to address over-indebted low-income individuals.

- On 6 December 2016, the Committee had sought permission from the National Assembly to introduce legislation to address the plight of those individuals.

-On 27 March 2017, the House had granted the Committee permission to introduce legislation amending the National Credit Act, 2005, Act no 34.

-The Committee had received a policy brief from the Department of Trade and Industry with input from National Treasury and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, among others.

-On 14 December 2017, the Committee adopted a resolution that it had developed the necessary draft legislation and intended to publish the draft National Credit Amendment Act in the Government Gazette in accordance with the National Assembly Rule 275.

-The public consultation on the Bill involved two calls in November 2017 and June 2018 with a total of 41 submissions received.

-The process was concluded after an extensive consultative process with stakeholders on 5 September 2018 when the Committee concluded its deliberations and adopted its report.

-The Committee requested the National Assembly to accept its report and approve the Second Reading of the National Credit Amendment Bill. During that process, the Committee requested the Department of Trade and Industry to commission a socio-economic impact assessment on the potential impact of the Bill.

- The process had been finalised and the Chairperson had been requested to ask the Department to brief the Committee on the analysis and recommendations of the impact study and to provide the Committee with a copy of the report and further to brief the Committee on the Department’s implementation plan to ensure that that Act was brought into operation as soon as possible.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would have to address the implementation of the Act.

Discussion

Mr M Cuthbert (DA) commented that if one looked at the aftermath of the Bill having been signed into law, one would see that the banks had put aside R20 billion that they assumed would be written off their books. The Banking Association of South Africa had also commented on the negative effects of debt relief and the future provision of debt for low-income earners. If one looked at contents of the report and the media reports, the DA had been in the forefront of opposing the measure. SA was in such a tight fiscal space that to make decisions like that was only more detrimental to the economy. Considering the condition of the economy and going forward in terms of the legislation that the Committee would be processing, the Committee would have to be aware that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was knocking on South Africa’s door. By implementing measures such as that one, the country was going to find itself in a very difficult position.

Ms P Mantashe (ANC) stated that the ANC was very excited that the President had assented to the Bill as it would bring relief to the poor of the poorest who had been victimised by illegal lenders. The ANC was very excited. It had done its research before it had started the process. No-one that the Committee had talked to had submitted a bad report showing that such relief had a negative impact on their economy. The poorest of the poor and elderly would be very excited.

Mr F Mulder (FF+) said that he had not been involved with the process and he had to study the documentation.  Point 10 indicated that the Committee had requested the dti to commission a socio-economic impact assessment. He asked if that report was available and, if so, where he could access it. He added that although the Bill would have an immediate effect on the poor, the Freedom Plus party was of the opinion that, in the medium-long term, it would have a negative impact on the SA economy.

The Chairperson said that political parties had expressed their views on the matter and the Committee would get time to look at the detail of the matters and to address the concerns that were being raised. The Act had been signed but there would have to be an implementation programme which might offer an opportunity for further consultation and engagement. The Committee would approve the implementation programme. The Committee was, at that stage, simply noting that the President had signed the Bill. Following the signing of a Bill, there were regulations issues but there was also much more to be done, including the assessment report. Paragraph 11 was a summary of where the Committee would start in dealing with all of the issues. The Committee would request the Department to brief the Committee and the document would then be circulated.

He added that there would be sufficient time to address all the issues that had been raised. It was a Committee Bill and the Committee would have to engage the Department and the Ministry. There might even be further engagement with stakeholders. He had simply wished to make an announcement of the signing of the Bill. The Secretariat would work on a programme for implementation. 

Presentation by DDG on Consumer and Corporate Regulations

Dr Masotja indicated that she was ready to present but required guidance about the format of questions by Members.

The Chairperson indicated that Members might ask questions of clarity during the presentation but, generally, the DDG should make her entire presentation before the Members commented. He was, however, flexible, depending on what emerged.

Dr Masotja explained that her division developed and implemented regulatory solutions that facilitated easy access to redress and created efficient regulation for economic citizens and to promote competitive, fair and efficient markets. The division was also responsible for policy and regulations in the areas of lotteries, gambling, liquor companies, intellectual property, credit and consumer protection. Certain of the regulations were a national competency but in some fields such as gambling, there was a concurrent responsibility with the provinces. She listed the policies for which her Division was responsible.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked about the three pieces of legislation emanating from the last Administration, the Copyright Amendment Bill, the Performers’ Amendment Bill and the National Credit Amendment Act. Was there any connection between the three pieces of legislation in terms of what the Committee had been looking at as intervention? What were the issues in terms of consolidation or getting the Bills through? One Bill was through but what were the implications of the other two not having been signed as yet? What would the benefits be of having all three Bills signed and what would be the environmental change around that?

Dr Masotja explained that the National Gambling Amendment Bill was also in the parliamentary process and was currently with the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Each piece of legislation had its own mandate. Only the National Credit Amendment Bill regulated issues of credit and aspects of consumer credit. As he had read in the report, it was intended to ensure that low-income earners also had a vehicle for relief from over-indebtedness. The National Gambling Act had been amended mainly to address corporate governance issues. The Bill intended to replace the National Gambling Board with a National Gambling Regulator.  It also addressed governance issues around the quorum of the statutory National Gambling Council and its ability to establish national norms and standards. The Bills were not related.

Dr Masotja added that two Bills were related: the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Amendment Bill. The Performers’ Amendment Bill was a neighbouring bill to the Copyright Amendment Bill. Both Bills were with the President, awaiting his assent and signature. The two Bills went hand-in-hand, although there was a view that the Performers Protection Amendment Bill could go ahead without the Copyright Bill as performers had never before had a legislative framework. Dti was of the view that the two Bills went together because of the issues around royalties and rights of performers. That was a point of debate and also depended on the Presidency.

Continuation of presentation

The DDG informed the Committee that she had six chief directorates in her Division, each one with its own area of responsibility to increase access economic opportunities for small businesses and previously disadvantaged citizens. Dti wishes to promote all businesses but also had to consider the socio-economic impact of certain businesses on the public, such as liquor and gambling. Two cross-cutting chief directorates related to Monitoring, Evaluation and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment on the one hand and Market Research and Trend Analysis on the other.

The DDG stated that she would be presenting issues around the legislation and policy managed by CCRD but asked the Committee to note that hers was a high-level presentation and that she was not going into all the details of legislation and policy.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted that there were recent developments in respect of cannabis. Did it fall within the scope of the DDG’s mandate because if it did, there was work to be done in that area? He joked that the DDG gambled and drank and he wondered if she also smoked. Would cannabis fall within the scope of dti? The legalities would have to be addressed because a decision had been taken at the highest level around how one dealt with that product.

Ms Mantashe said that she was interested in cannabis as it could be a good income earner, a gold mine for the Eastern Cape. Other provinces were interested in cannabis but the gold mine belonged to the Eastern Cape. There was an urgent need for legislation to regulate the industry.

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) asked about the Lottery Act Amendment.  The DDG had alluded to some issue about some law had not been implemented and he wanted to ensure that there was not a gap in the legislation there.

The Chairperson noted that he would entertain questions before the DDG moved onto specific details.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) asked which five posts on the organogram were vacant. What informed the policy decisions of the chief directorate? How did that chief directorate function?

Mr Cuthbert noted that there were plenty of internet lounges, that were actually illegal gambling dens. He had heard that they were illegal. What provision in the gambling legislation provided for such situations? From what he had seen, and had heard from the Gauteng Gambling Board, the internet lounges that facilitated gambling were illegal, and yet they continued to run.  In Ekurhuleni, there was probably at least two in each suburb and, once the Committee had an answer, perhaps the Committee, as an oversight Committee, should go out and look at things. There was an issue of tax avoidance and labour relations issues because the people working in the establishments were often not registered SA citizens and they were not paying tax, nor were they earning fair wages. Perhaps it was an issue that the Committee could address. What was the legislation and what was it missing?

Response by DDG

The DDG stated that cannabis was not in the mandate of her division. The Industrial Development Division was looking into cannabis and her division would assist if it was required. She suggested that Ms Mantashe should follow it up with the correct division. She informed Mr Mbuyane that she had not been referring to the Lotteries Amendment, which was currently in effect, but to the Gambling Act of 2008 which had not been implemented as Parliament had held up the implementation because Parliament believed that the regulatory infrastructure was not in place and that it would have had socio-economic implications. The readiness to manage the legislation was an issue. The legislation on gambling was there, but it had not been effected.

She responded to Ms Yako that she did not want to go into detail about specific posts but noted that one director had been posted in a position overseas in a foreign office and that position had to be filled to close the gap. However, the dti was being blended with the Economic Development Department (EDD) and so they were looking at the integration of EDD staff.  She added that a re-structuring process was, being undertaken at the time. The process would be carefully managed. She added that research was one of the measures used to inform policy. Issues came from many sources. One source would be a court judgement that informed dti that it had to make an amendment. Another source might be a finding from key research, or a problem that was known, such as the internet cafes. How a problem was identified and how the Department decided to legislate was obviously a process of consultation.  Even legacy issues, such as those that had come from the Fifth Parliament, would inform policies and regulations. The entities could find also find issues, such as a bottleneck, and they would inform dti of a need for legislative changes. New issues, such as the cannabis issue, would require legislation. There was no single way, but legislative reviews were always informed by best practice. Constitutionality issues and the socio-economic implications of proposed legislation were always addressed.

The DDG informed Mr Campbell that internet lounges were tricky. The Gambling Act prohibited internet gambling. However, there were those who found ways to masquerade as an internet café. It was an area that required collaboration with provinces as provinces also legislated on gambling. Some provinces were registering them because they saw it as a way to make money. She appreciated the suggestion to monitor the internet cafes as there was also a cyber security issue inherent in online gambling. Some of the internet servers were not situated in SA and that needed to be managed. She also noted that even a child could walk into those venues. It was a gap in the gambling space.

Mr Cuthbert asked if there was a way to regularise those places as he knew that there were not many gambling licences available or whether they should be shut down. He believed that the Committee should look at both opportunities before going forward.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was busy with training induction but suggested that those issues would need to be put on a short list of things that the Committee would need to review and act on, with the support of the dti. The Committee was learning about the issues and the DDG could explain how the Committee should deal with issues that arose.

The DDG informed Mr Cuthbert that the starting point was the policy stance, and that online gambling was a prohibited action, so it was an enforcement issue, but it was really difficult to pin the operators down. Even investigators could not pin them down as the operators turned off the site as soon as an inspector walked into the establishment. That meant that prohibiting online gambling in internet cafes was really a problem that required specific measures. Some things still had to be put in place.

Presentation continued

The DDG stated that the entities that fell under the Division were the National Liquor Policy Council, the National Liquor Authority, the National Gambling Council, the National Gambling Board, the National Lotteries Commission and the National Liquor Regulators Forum. The DDG discussed the main functions of the National Lotteries Commission.

Future projects that the dti was planning included an impact assessment to inform decisions around the implementation of the Lotteries Act. A fourth licence operator for the national lottery had to be appointed and the Committee would be involved in appointing the new National Lotteries Council Board Chairperson.

The DDG informed the Committee that the National Gambling Board had been dissolved and the Board was operating under administration. The National Gambling Amendment Act (NGAA) would allow the Department to appoint a National Gambling Regulator. That was a contentious issue as the provinces wanted a Board, which would reflect the Gambling Boards that existed in the provinces. The DDG elaborated on the concurrent functions with provinces. It was noted that the National Gambling Board had been under administration since 2014. Although administration had cleaned up the entity which had since had a series of clean audits, a Regulator could not be appointed until the National Gambling Amendment Bill was enacted.

Dr Masotja alerted the Committee to the fact that the NGAA, which was with the NCOP, had been scaled down to address only governance issues but that several issues that should have been included in the Bill had been set aside. Those issues had to be reviewed.

Discussion

Mr Mbuyane had a clarity-seeking question about the National Lottery Commission because there was media speculation about what was going on in the NLC. He asked the DDG to clarify the processes involved in appointing the fourth National Lottery Operator. In respect of the National Gambling Amendment Bill, which had been scaled down and a lot of issues taken out, when would those issues that had been omitted from the legislation be addressed? Some critical issues had been left out of the Bill. There was an everyday lotto that was different from the National Lottery. Were the everyday lotto people paying any taxes to government and were they licensed?

The DDG explained that the Minister was responsible for the appointment process. He had a committee of experts that assisted him in appointing a Lottery Operator. It engaged in a rigorous process. Regarding the gambling issues that had been excluded from the Bill, the Committee could guide dti as the Bill had already been in the parliamentary process when the issues had been removed, but dti would also have to consult the Minister. Concerning those who were gambling on lottery winnings, the DDG noted that in some provinces it was legal but not in others. That made it a grey area, but it would have to be addressed in an amendment of the legislation because there were those who were making profits but not paying taxes.

The Chairperson noted that here might be a bigger management issue where both province and national had responsibility for regulating that space. There had to be absolute clarity about how far national’s responsibility extended and likewise that of the province. The relationship between national and provincial would be important because the operators who would try to use any gap between national and the provinces to avoid regulation.

Dr Masotja agreed that the relationship between the provinces and national had to be strengthened. The Council Gambling Council was a statutory forum that had been established to help with that harmonisation, because there were tensions, so much so that there had even been litigation against national. A major problem was that the National Gambling Council was also not functional. Those issues had been addressed in the Bill presented to Parliament.

Continuation of presentation

Dr Masotja informed the Committee that the Corporate and Consumer Division was also responsible for Liquor Regulations and there the relationship with provinces was very positive. Issues to be addressed in respect of liquor was the Amendment to the Liquor Regulations 2013 and the implementation of the approved Policy Review through the Amendment of the Liquor Act. It was necessary to enhance the capacity of the National Liquor Authority to make it more efficient as it moved towards automation. There had to be active participation in the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) and implementation of the action plans adopted by the IMC. The role and impact of National Liquor Policy Council had to be strengthened.

The DDG noted that one of the key functions in terms of Corporation Regulations was Company Law and Policy. Social and Ethics Committees (SECs) had been established to promote corporate governance and socially responsible business practices. The removal of the burdensome regulatory framework had enhanced company registration. Innovations in company registration and adoption of the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) for financial reporting had been introduced.

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) had turned around from a dysfunctional entity to a highly successful one that managed companies extremely well. The intention was to improve the ease of doing business as SA was currently ranked 82 out of 100 countries.

Future work included an Amendment to the Companies Act, 2008 to provide for preparation and presentation of directors’ remuneration reports and to provide for the filing of securities registers and a register of disclosure of beneficial ownership and to empower the courts to validate irregular dealings with shares. The Amendment would reduce the administrative requirements when a company provided financial assistance to its subsidiaries.

Dti had to align the Companies Act with international corporate trends.  For example, the Group of Twenty’s (G20) Global Framework for Tracing Beneficial Ownership required members and affiliated countries, such as South Africa, to encourage beneficial owner disclosure in all their legislation governing business and investment institutions. The Department of Public Service would be spearheading that project.

Dti also had to conduct an impact Assessment on the Companies Act and then propose comprehensive amendments in a new Bill.

Discussion

Mr Mbuyane required clarity about the integrated approach concerning turnaround time when one started a company. It took two days to register a company with CIPC, but it took seven days to register with the South African Revenue Services (SARS) and more than 14 days to register with the B-BBEE Commission. Was the dti doing anything to enable a business owner to do all those things so that a small business could be up and running within five days?

The DDG stated that there were discussions between entities involved in the comprehensive registration of a business. She agreed that there needed to be alignment and she could say that there were discussions in the Department to improve the ease of doing business. The ranking of countries considered all aspects of registering a business and not just one aspect. The fact that CIPC was doing extremely well did not count in international studies as CIPC was only one component in registering a business. She would report back on the issue after consulting with her colleagues, but assured Mr Mbuyane that improving that process was part of the drive to improve investments in the country.

Continuation of presentation

Dr Masotja stated that Intellectual Property Law and Policy entailed dealing specifically with industrial intellectual property contained in trademarks. Dti was responsible for the legislation but CIPC enforced the legislation around trademarks. She elaborated on the work that dti was actively working on in the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers Protection Amendment Bill.

Future work included the development of Regulations on the Companies Amendment Bill, Regulations on the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill and Regulations in the Copyright Amendment Bill, if and when the latter two were passed into law. The Department would be undertaking an impact assessment of the retrospective application of royalties in the Copyright Amendment Bill.

The entities promoting consumer protection included the National Consumer Commission, the National Credit Regulator and the National Consumer Tribunal. The National Consumer Protection Act, 2008 provided for national norms for consumer protection and a fair and sustainable marketplace for consumer products, as well as the establishment of the National Consumer Commission, amongst other issues.

Future work in respect of consumer protection included an impact assessment on the Consumer Protection Act as well as mechanisms to strengthen collaboration with provinces on consumer complaints resolution which was one of the areas that needed clarity to prevent overlapping or gaps between national and provincial levels.

Credit law and policy was administered by CCRD. The National Credit Regulator was responsible for credit providers and credit bureaux as well as alternative dispute resolution agents and debt counsellors. The National Consumer Tribunal adjudicated on consumer protection complaints.

Future work included the process of developing Regulations for the National Credit Amendment Bill, which was the debt intervention Committee Bill, and which had recently been signed by the President. The Department would also have to, in conjunction with the Minister and the Committee, begin developing a comprehensive bill for credit legislation

The DDG informed the Committee which statutory committees reported to the CCRD, including the Patent Examination Board, the Specialist Committee on Company Law, Financial Reporting Standards Council, etc. She provided a summation of the legislative projects that her division was engaged with as well as the research and other key projects and activities for 2019/20. She mentioned that one the most successful projects in the past couple of years had been the training that her division offered to women directors on company and entity boards.

Discussion

The Chairperson had observed the situation at the dti campus. He asked for a comment on the company registration situation. It was a vibrant environment with lots of people sitting outside to offer assistance in facilitating the registration of companies. Did the CIPC arrangement allow people to contribute in that way? Did it affect the main structure of CIPC within the campus of dti, did it add any value or was it a new challenge of everyone wanting to be in that space?

The DDG asked that she be permitted to come back to him on that matter. Everything in respect of registration could be done on the system. It was automatic. There used to be a challenge with the external service providers who offered to help with registrations and so on, but people are no longer supposed to be doing that. She agreed that there were people standing around and stopping cars offering to assist applicants, but she would check with dti and CIPC what was going on and whether it was a new challenge that needed to be addressed. She would come back to the Committee with a response.

Mr Cuthbert asked the Chairperson if that was the entirety of the programme for the day. The meeting had gone through the CCRD presentation rather speedily, which he commended, but what was the rest of the programme?

Ms Yako thanked the DDG for the presentation.

Ms N Motaung (ANC) thanked DDG.

Ms R Moatshe (ANC) had no questions but thanked the DDG for the presentation.

Ms J Hermans (ANC) appreciated the presentation. She was happy to see that dti undertook corporate governance training for women because they did not always feel welcome in that space. Dti needed to look at the target audience and expand that programme. How did dti identify where training was needed?

Ms Mantashe applauded the improvement of CIPC, but she was under the impression that the hangers-on outside the CIPC offices had been moved away.

Mr Mbuyane noted on slide 47 that there were a lot of forums advising the Minister. In line with his function of oversight, he asked if the members of those forums were employed by the Department. How were those people appointed? Regarding the research and activities in CCRD in terms of education and awareness, he noted that Members of Parliament had an obligation in terms of constituency work and dti should be advised of what the Members gleaned from their constituencies and Members should be able to tell constituencies exactly what the dti was doing.

Regarding impact assessments, Mr Mbuyane asked whether dti made a study before they presented a Bill to Parliament and another one afterwards because he noted that there had been an impact study on Credit Amendment Bill after the Bill had been passed. 

He added that his first question had not been fully answered. There was media speculation that the NLC were fighting over the space of making grants and queried whether they were able to allocate the grants to the proper people. Investigative journalist Raymond Joseph had said that the NLC had ulterior motives for reporting on alleged corruption. What was the current status and what was the status of the court order?

Response

Dr Masotja responded to the question about women being trained on boardroom strategies. Dti ran the programme and then there was a demand from other women who approached dti directly. Dti would invite them to inform women who wanted to attend such training and that was one way in which women were recruited for the training. Much of the training was for officials who had to sit on boards. Dti had offered the programme the previous financial year but not planned for a programme in the current year. Additional programmes would be run in the future.

Dr Masotja informed Mr Mbuyane that the legislation determined how people were appointed to the Minister’s advisory forums. They were independent of the Department. They were like board members and were outside people. The people were appointed by the Minister and the appointments confirmed by Cabinet. Details of members who could be appointed to the forums was contained in the relevant legislation.

As far as constituency work was concerned, Dr Masotja was not sure of the relationship between the executive and the political commitments. The Member could correct her. She agreed that the dti did not, but should, go into deeper rural areas and other areas that were not serviced. The reach of dti should be extended, especially concerning awareness and education. The DDG had raised the issue of the impact study as she wished to inform the Committee of the work that CCRD was currently involved with. Impact assessments informed the work that the dti did and so impact assessments informed processes, but an impact assessment could be conducted at any stage.

Dr Masotja added that the NLC had processes determining how the NCL should distribute grants. Each sector had a different process with the distributing agencies. The licence of the Lotteries Operator was a different process. She was not aware of the case that the Member referred to and perhaps they could follow up together.

Ms Mantashe informed the DDG that there had been a complaint by NLC to the SA National Editors Forum (SANEF) as journalists had said that projects were not completed. Ms Mantashe wanted to know whether the case was genuine or whether it was a rogue journalist blackmailing the agency. In the past, there had been journalists who had been eager to destroy the agencies of the government.

The Chairperson requested that Members got together with the DDG so that there could be a follow-up.

Mr Mulder referred to the impact assessment and research on copyright and royalties noted on slide 49. Why did he not see any assessment and research on the impact of the appropriation of property without compensation on intellectual property. In the House and the media, everyone spoke only of expropriation of land, but the clause spoke of property generally and it would certainly impact on the intellectual property. He would like to see some research and study on the impact of appropriation of property without compensation on intellectual property.

The DDG was aware of the complaints of the journalists but she would follow up and come back with a proper report. There were challenges about the allocation of funding, and she did not wish to muddy the waters with an inaccurate statement. She informed Mr Mulder the land issue fell outside of the scope of her division. She conducted research and assessments on costs and impact based on what had been identified as an issue. She requested Mr Mulder to assist by explaining the context of his question.  It was clearly an important issue.

Mr Mulder stated that appropriation without compensation applied to any property which included intellectual property such as patents, including medical patents, copyright, royalties etc.

The DDG suggested that dti could follow up on that point when doing the work on the Copyright Regulations.

The Chairperson referred to slide 12. He asked what had informed the choice of Arts, Charity and Sport as the three areas that received lottery funding. Why had the reconstruction and development programme been removed?

The DDG stated that those areas were the ones that requested funding. There had been a problem with reconstruction and development, and she promised to check on that matter and come back to the Chairperson.

The Committee Content Advisor explained that during the debate on the relevant Bill, the Committee had become aware that zero percent had been spent on reconstruction and development in recent years and that was why it had been dropped from the allocations and the funds re-allocated to the three categories plus the category of miscellaneous which dealt with any other funding and proactive funding.

Committee business

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee look at what was next on the programme. Tuesday 27th August 2019 was another training day. It would be a full day programme on international trade.

The Secretary explained that there would be two training sessions – one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Professor Faizel Ismail would provide some reading material prior to the meeting and that would be sent to Members as soon as it had been received. Professor Jaftha was doing the training on the Wednesday afternoon and she had already submitted her documents and had requested that Members read the material in preparation for the meeting. All the reading material for Members would be issued to them by Friday.

The Chairperson noted that the consideration of minutes would take place in the morning on the 27th. Training was scheduled to take place on the Friday. The Chairperson understood that it was awkward for Members on a Friday, but it was a date issue as those who had to do the presentation were not available on another date. He apologised for using 30 August 2019 from 8:30 to 12:30.

Ms Hermans asked that the Secretariat check whether the Women’s Parliament was being held on 30 August 2019.

The Secretary stated that that training session was the most important of all the training sessions and the presenter was only available on 30 August, but, if necessary, the Committee would have to re-programme it.

Mr Cuthbert informed the Chairperson that he had oversight visits on 30 August as Friday was an oversight date for his party and he offered his apologies, but he definitely would not be able to attend on 30 August.

Ms Mantashe explained that Friday was difficult for Members from the more rural areas. For her, there were no flight after 11 a.m. on a Friday morning.

The Chairperson stated that he would request the Secretary to re-organise the Friday training session.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson thanked everyone for attending the meeting.

Meeting was adjourned

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: