Division of Revenue Second Amendment Bill: Final Mandates & Committee Report

NCOP Appropriations

25 November 2020
Chairperson: Ms D Mahlangu (ANC, Mpumalanga)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Documents handed out: National Treasury Report [awaited]

Video: Select Committee on Appropriations, 25 November 2020

Tabled Committee Reports

The Committee met virtually to consider the final mandates on the Division of Revenue Second Amendment (DORSA) Bill [B24–2020] and the accompanying report.

Before indicating their mandates, Members gave input on National Treasury’s response to the negotiating mandates provided by provinces.

Members felt that the National Treasury Report provided responses but no answers as it did not provide solutions to the problems. Further, Members felt that National Treasury’s engagements were largely disingenuous and unsatisfactory, as it appeared to serve more of a compliance function. Examples were provided in relation to the equitable share formula, infrastructure backlogs, budget cuts, contingency fund and undue reference to the drought disaster. Members asked how many times the Division of Revenue Bill (DORB) had been changed in the past as per the inputs from provinces and questioned how much value was placed on provincial inputs. It seemed as though National Treasury took note of provincial inputs but did not make any changes as per the requests of provinces. Members also discussed local government’s role and the current public sector wage bargaining process. Going forward, Members agreed that a better process was needed to ensure that adequate time is given to the processing of Bills.

In terms of the final mandates, six provinces voted in favour thereof. The Free State abstained from voting, the Western Cape did not support the Bill, and nothing had been received from Limpopo.

In terms of the Draft Report on the DORSA Bill, Members thought that the two recommendations made, regarding the timeframes and inadequate response from National Treasury.  The DA, EFF, and FF+ reserved their position on the Report. Notwithstanding this, the report was adopted by the majority.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting. The meeting was scheduled to consider and adopt the final mandates on the Report of the Committee on the Division of Revenue Second Amendment (DORSA) Bill [B24 – 2020]. As promised the previous afternoon, this morning National Treasury had submitted its written responses to the issues raised by the provinces and Members had all received that report. She requested that Members raise issues and, by so doing, she was not saying that the wheel should be reinvented and that engagements should be restarted as per the issues raised by the provinces. Rather, Members were to raise issues as per the responses of the National Treasury team. She explained that it would help the Committee to enrich the report. She asked whether National Treasury would be reflecting the report and speaking to it.

Ms Wendy Fanoe, Chief Director: Intergovernmental Policy and Planning, National Treasury, indicated that, in terms of the Report submitted that morning, it would be useful if Members could raise anything in the Report that was unclear or where further information was needed. National Treasury would then respond to what is raised. National Treasury had taken all of the recommendations raised and responded to each of them. What National Treasury had tried to do the previous day was to take the main concerns arising from each of the provinces and highlight it to the Committee. Thus, if there was any need for further clarification, National Treasury would be more than willing to assist. She asked if the Committee could proceed in this way.

The Chairperson thought that the process suggested by Ms Fanoe would be progressive. She asked if Members wanted to raise any issues on the responses from National Treasury.

Discussion

Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) applauded National Treasury noted that it had been given a very short time to respond. Similarly, the Committee had been given a short time to process the DORSA Bill at the behest of National Treasury and the Minister of Finance, so not too much sympathy could be expected from the Committee. He raised the point that the Report was just responses and not answers. It was an old political trick, when one got asked a question that they were uncomfortable with, to respond and not answer the question. Instead, one would talk around the question and throw in a few good words that tied to the original question without answering the question. He explained his point in terms of the first page which dealt with the Eastern Cape’s questions.

The first question related to the equitable share formula whereby the Eastern Cape indicated that it would appreciate if the regional nature of provinces was taken into consideration and wanted the equitable share formula to be re-evaluated. The response from National Treasury went a long way around saying that they were busy with the equitable share formula and that Members were involved etc. However, National Treasury failed to acknowledge the fact that two years prior the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) highlighted the matter in their submission. This issue of the equitable share formula not seeming to do its job had been spoken about for a long time. The response provided by National Treasury did not give the Committee any degree of comfort and it waffled on and told the Committee that it would be done. The response was intended to keep the Committee busy so that it did not place too much pressure on National Treasury.

Referring to infrastructure backlogs, the next response was that National Treasury had always promised to engage with the FFC and respond on the matter. National Treasury indicated that engagements with the FFC were ongoing and that most of the grants in the system were formula-driven and responded to in the backlog. However, the FFC on record, in front of the Committee, said that National Treasury’s engagements with them were largely disingenuous and just took place to tick boxes. The FFC did not feel that they were being taken seriously, and this was not responded to properly.

The next issue raised concerns around the budget cuts in terms of the Public Sector Wage Bill (Wage Bill). National Treasury’s response said that it noted the concern, that it could not afford to pay the Wage Bill and would not pay it, and that Members would have to deal with this and implement what National Treasury said. National Treasury then made two ridiculous comments, stating that it would not appropriate for government to comment on a matter that could negatively influence negotiations currently underway with the Department of Labour (DOL) about options for a settlement which must go to the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC). Thus, they were saying that it would not be appropriate to comment to the decision-makers who had to sign off the budget. He did not think that this was an acceptable comment and he took massive unrest to the fact that government was not going to comment because they felt that they were better than the people who had to approve the budget. National Treasury’s comment then went on to say that their contingency included a settlement with the DOL and measures to manage the head count. He did not know what this meant but National Treasury’s contingency fund had already been illegally committed to bailouts and he was not sure what other contingency they had.

He added that he could go on and attack every single paragraph of the Report but he just felt that it was made up of responses and not answers. The Committee still sat with provinces that felt like they were step-children further down in the food chain that had to pick up the scraps. He imagined how local government felt if provinces felt this way because local governments were not even step-children.

Mr W Aucamp (DA, Northern Cape) fully agreed with what Mr Ryder had said. He took one example of what he thought did not provide solutions to the problem. When it came to the drought, the answers in the Report continuously referred to what could happen with regards to the drought if disasters were declared. National Treasury was still handling the matter as if there was still a drought disaster that had been declared. This was not the case as the drought disaster declaration had fell away a few months prior. He could not understand why National Treasury kept asking this question as if the drought disaster status was still in place. The answers that National Treasury had given to the province was null and void because it could not be implemented. He added that he could also carry on but that this was one issue that he wanted to point out.

The Chairperson thought that the criticisms from the two Members were that what National Treasury was giving to the Committee was not answers but responses. According to her understanding, Members were expecting responses in terms of what the provinces had raised as concerns regarding the budget cuts etc. Members were not happy with the responses and felt that they were more for compliance than for giving direct answers.

Mr SF Du Toit (FF+, North West) asked how many times National Treasury had changed the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) in the past, after receiving feedback from the different provinces. His feeling was that National Treasury took note of the comments and concerns but then it was business as usual. He asked that the Committee be provided with information with regards to changes made in the past, if it had happened.

The Chairperson sought assistance from those who had been in the NCOP and the Committee before herself and Mr Du Toit. Has National Treasury ever changed the DORA or adjusted their revenue as per the inputs from the provinces? What impact have the provinces had on the division of revenue? Has it ever happened in the history of parliament? She asked that the support staff help her with this.

Adv Frank Jenkins, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that he could not recall that provincial input had ever led to a change in the DORA. The DORA had been changed but that was because of technical errors and corrections and due to a new government – not because of provincial input. Changes usually occurred through the FFC but this was a long process and National Treasury had to answer to that.

Mr Phelelani Dlomo, Committee Content Advisor, could only speak on behalf of the NA experience because his history was with the National Assembly (NA) Portfolio Committee on Appropriations (Portfolio Committee), where he had dealt with DORA input from National Treasury. He could highlight a number of things that had been changed at the time and as a result of the recommendations of the NA Portfolio Committee. He was not sure about the provincial inputs because it was a separate process of the NCOP. However, as far as the NA Portfolio Committee which he had been part of for the past 12 years, he knew for a fact that there were conditional grants that the NA Portfolio Committee made recommendations on and National Treasury responded positively. While some also responded negatively, important reasons had been given as to why the recommendations were not being taken into account. It had to be remembered that in the next budget, together with a part of the review document, responses would also be provided to recommendations that were being made today insofar as DORA was concerned. Thus, whatever recommendations Members made through the Report, if the recommendations are not taken into account by National Treasury, the Minister of Finance would have to explain as to why they have not been implemented. If the recommendations had been implemented, some of the changes would be seen in the DORB or in the Appropriations Bill, depending on what it affects. Insofar as the NA Portfolio Committee was concerned, he had thus witnessed some of the changes in the past. He added that it also had to be remembered that different executives and committees were in National Treasury at the time.

Adv Mongana Tau, Unit Manager, Parliament, said that one incident that he could remember was the issue of the Moloto road. He believed that in one year Mpumalanga province had made a submission with regard to the road, which was factored in and received attention. He added that, in terms of the grants, there was a time where the issue of whether the grants should be run by the national department or the province was looked at. In some cases, provinces did not show capacity to implement the grants and those grants had to be run by the national department. In some cases, where provinces showed capacity, National Treasury allowed those grants to be run by the provinces. This was not to say that there was an amended DORA.

Mr Dlomo added another example. In the NA there had been a situation where certain conditional grants would come to an end after a three year period. Therefore, the NA Portfolio Committee support staff would review whether the specific grants had managed to achieve their intended objectives before they were terminated after the three year period. This was because National Treasury would be pushing and insisting that they were terminating the grant because it had completed the three year period. Therefore, based on the exercises and recommendations, the NA Portfolio Committee would then tell National Treasury that the particular grant could not be terminated because it had not achieved its objectives and provide National Treasury with the evidence and research that had been done. There was quite a number of issues and examples of changes that Parliament had made. Regardless of how insignificant or small these changes were, they made an impact.

Mr Du Toit said that it was obvious that changes were made in the NA. However, it felt as if the correspondence between National Treasury, the NCOP, and provincial legislatures were of such a sort that National Treasury took note but no real changes were being made on the requests of the different provinces. This was the assumption that he had taken from the feedback that had been provided up until that point. He thought that this was something that needed to be looked into because thousands of Rands were being spent with regards to public participation etc. and the correspondence between the provinces, the NCOP, and National Treasury. The question then stood as to what extent the value of the input given from the provinces and the NCOP towards National Treasury was, and whether they were really looking into the matters that were of concern to the provinces.

Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) indicated that the general point being made about the value of the NCOP in respect of this process was a legitimate one. It was a fair one that should affect the ANC even more than other parties because the ANC is a majority. He did not think that this was a matter that could be resolved in the Committee meeting as it was something that needed to be put in their report. This was not just about the DORB but also about the Tax Bills that were preoccupying the Committee. He had just come from a one hour meeting with the research team and Mr Njadu on the Tax Bills and the issues that it posed, which were unprecedented. Many submissions had been received on the section 75 Bill and it was uncertain where to go from there. However, he indicated that he would report back on these matters the following evening.

Secondly, he felt that the concerns should be noted and addressed in another forum – both in the structures of the majority party and the Committee, as well as beyond the Committee in the NCOP. Members had a workshops in January or February the following year and he thought that this should be put onto the agenda. Insofar as Members were making general points that National Treasury’s responses were not good or adequate, he thought that this was a fair thing to say. He had the greatest respect for the National Treasury team and he thought that they worked very hard but their answers, in general, were not great and they had probably given the same answers before. He thought that Mr Ryder was out of line, which Members might not agree with. It was getting heated up unduly so he asked that the Committee start with the two issues of debate as too many issues had been raised and he himself could reply for days on end. The Committee would not get anywhere because National Treasury and himself would be saying the same thing since May the previous year.

On the first issue about the equitable share, he did not know what was expected. The other issue was that it depended on whether a Bill was a section 75 or 76 Bill. In the case of a section 75 Bill and what the provinces had said.  The truth was that the Constitution and the rules of Parliament provided for a different treatment by the NCOP and the provinces of a section 75 and 76 Bill. Thus, there could not just be a blanket view of the matter. He then went onto the two issues raised by Mr Ryder which he though was questionable. In terms of the equitable share, this was first raised by the Committee in 1999. It has since been raised almost every year and a half in both the NA and NCOP, as well as in various other forums. This was a big concern of the former Minister of Finance and himself, whereby he had been delegated work on the review. It was correct that the review had to be done but the Committee could not be one-sided. Local government could justify getting more money if it spent the money that it had raised in its own revenue from those who could afford to pay – not from the unemployed or marginalised. Local government had to ensure that they used the money that they raised more effectively and productively. The same applied with the conditional grants and equitable share.

There was a litany of examples that the NCOP had been raising since 1996 about this not happening at local government level. It thus worked both ways. If local government made more effective use of the limited resources that they had, they would have a stronger case for more revenue in terms of the economic share. His second point concerned why this was very important. Members had picked it up in terms of their visits to municipalities three weeks prior. It had been picked up at the local government conference that he had gone to where the people shaped the model. He mentioned that it was a wonderful conference that he had participated in that morning, and that it would be on the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) website. At the conference, the same issue was raised by technical experts concerning the equitable share and structural problems. This was a big issue and National Treasury could not be expected to reply. He felt that Members in the Finance and Appropriations committees had failed more than National Treasury as they were not taking a strategic and tactically sound approach. The Committee had to deal with the matter and keep it as a separate discussion.

On the issue of the public sector wage bargaining, this had already been covered in the Fiscal Framework and nothing new was being said. It was a perfectly reasonable thing for government to respond the way that they did and he refused to find any reason in what Mr Ryder had said. His and Members’ sympathies were with the trade unions given their background but he questioned what government was supposed to say. If government said that they had a plan, the bargaining council then became irrelevant and the balance of forces changed. Trade Unions would then say that government had a plan and could not say that there was no money. On the other hand, it was wrong for the trade unions to be high-bound because the Fiscal Framework and appropriation matters defined how much money government had before the bargaining took place. In both ways there was a problem and therefore the bargaining process had to be reviewed. There was a legitimate problem for the trade unions and government. Government could only express its own point of view. How could the DOL express the point of view of the employer? How could the employer express the point of view of the DOL?

The same issue had been covered at the NA. What was being said was correct in that the court should be left to decide after going to bargaining. If that failed, then one had to consider what to do. There were various options apart from the statutory bodies, such as alliance structures etc. It was quite complicated and the South African Communist Party had a specific position on this but was not present to share it. However, nothing was hidden as everything that was said in the government structures was reported in the papers. At this stage it was unfair to expect a mechanical crude answer concerning what the plan B was. Furthermore, if in fact the money had to be found, was it the provinces’ that had to pay from their bill or, since it was a national bargaining process, was the national fiscus meant to assist the provinces in paying for any increases that might happen? It was not the end of the world. What would happen is that there would be an open and transparent process and there would be a Bill. Mr Ryder could then rant and rave about it, which was fine as it was his right. However, as a province, it was the provincial mandate that counted. He did not think that this should be continuously repeated and he did not think that it was fair to expect government to provide a plan B. How could government anticipate the outcome of both the statutory and non-statutory processes? He agreed with the other points that Members had made in general and thought that they should be discussed.

Mr Ryder commented that it was a section 76 bill and asked that Mr Carrim not divert. The Committee had to first agree that the responses needed to be improved upon going forward and that the process needed to be enhanced to allow for proper inputs and potential for amendments. He agreed that local government needed to prove their ability. He asked that his speech be listened to the following day as he would make that point. The Fiscal Framework was a separate issue and the discussion related to the provincial impact, as it was by design a different discussion.

The Chairperson said that she would not allow the meeting to lose its direction. Members had concerns and sought assistance from those who had legal and work experience from previous years. The Committee had entertained the issues and concerns that Members had raised. When the meeting started she had mentioned that the wheel should not be reinvented because Members had been allowed to raise issues the previous day as had been raised in the provinces. She could only understand the point of view of Mr Aucamp who had said that he was not sure that his concerns were discussed in the meeting, and his matter had been addressed as she had committed to address it. She asked that Members not try to create a dialogue and to do what was expected of them by consolidating the mandates. She had seen Members comment that the Committee should wait for their debate the following day, which some of the issues were meant for.

She added that she had just wanted the Committee to take from those who had work experience and legal expertise. The issue of the Wage Bill was a non-starter and she did not see why the Committee needed to waste time talking about it. There were other structures mandated to deal with these issues and Members had enough on their shoulders. If government was adamant to do what it decided to do, even after engaging with those affected structures and coming up with another outcome, the Committee would have to see how they would deal with that. However, the Committee was not mandated to take issues of negotiations from the national bargaining council. She thus begged Members not to do so. This matter had to be compared with the question-answer sessions in the House of Parliament. If one asked an Executive Member or the President a question, he or she would give an answer in terms of how they respond to the information that they have. However, one might not be happy with the answer because of the expectation of a certain answer in a certain manner. This was unfortunate but the Committee noted the issues raised but Members had been given enough opportunity to engage on the matters in their provinces, in the Committee the previous day, and even in the present meeting as per the responses.

Mr Ryder thought that he and Mr Carrim agreed on more than they disagreed on. He made a strong point, saying that the matters that were dealt with in the Fiscal Framework discussions should not be confused with the matters that were being discussed presently. The matters were coming from a different angle entirely, specifically because the current meeting was to deal with the provincial inputs and concerns that were raised by the provinces. The deliberations and discussions that took place during the Fiscal Framework were very different and the concerns that were raised in this meeting related to the impact on provinces of those decisions in the Fiscal Framework. That was exactly why the Committee went through the process of interrogating the impact of the decisions on provinces after discussing with the provincial legislatures. He did not think that any arguments or discussions should be dismissed. He did not want to enter into a dialogue, although he thought that there was a lot of space for it. He thought that he and Mr Carrim agreed largely on the fact that the answers were not really adequate. The Committee and National Treasury needed to get to a better process and needed to ensure that, going forward, there is adequate time given to the processing of the Bills. The last two processes had been rushed and the reasons therefore were understood but the Committee did  not want to find themselves in the situation where every single time a budget was being processed it was just before a recess, before parliament rises, or is shoved between other things and not given enough time to process. It was unfair to give the provincial structures a day to go from negotiating mandates to final mandates. This timeline was really harsh and he did not believe that the process should be rushed. Members were to give themselves and National Treasury enough time to adequately assess the response from National Treasury and the provinces and see if changes can be made because he did not believe that they had had the opportunity to interrogate and see what could be changed at the present stage. This was the opening of the discussion, which was one for a different day.

The Chairperson thanked Members for the input and thought that the discussion needed to be taken in such spirit – especially on the issue that Members had raised regarding timeframes. It was unfortunate that this was the second amendment of the year but there was nothing that the Committee could do. It was thus an unfortunate situation that National Treasury had found itself in and they had no choice. The other matter that needed to be raised and which had been raised before, and was a resolution that the NCOP had taken, is that provinces needed to be given enough time to deal with mandates and issues that needed to make an impact on the decisions that were taken as this level of parliament. Everyone agreed on this and a decision had been taken on it – nobody was disagreeing with the important decision. She asked if National Treasury wanted to comment. 

Ms Fanoe clarified that National Treasury was really not trying to not respond to the Committee. With regards to the issues that were raised, she assured the Committee that National Treasury took all of the recommendations that came out of the provincial legislature very seriously. National Treasury would strive to respond better going forward as well. All other issues had been addressed in subsequent discussions.

The Chairperson said that National Treasury needed to look into the issue of planning so that their planning did not inconvenience the Committee’s planning. The Committee found itself in its current situation because the NA had just finalised the process last Friday and the NCOP was required to start the next Monday. There was thus not much time. The Committee understood the circumstances that had required this but going forward they were saying that more planning needed to be done unless there were unforeseen circumstances as was currently experienced.

 

Consideration of Final Mandates on the Division of Revenue Second Amendment Bill

The Chairperson requested the provinces to read out their final mandates.

Free State

Mr M Moletsane (EFF, Free State) read that the Free State province wished to abstain from voting on the DORSA Bill [B24 – 2020] and would not be able to vote due to NCOP-related challenges which had set a date for provincial briefing and public hearings for Monday 23 November 2020. When the provincial committee meeting could not take place as Mondays were set aside for political work, they attached NCOP section 76 updates for their ease of reference.

Gauteng

Mr Ryder indicated that he had in his possession a letter signed by the Speaker of the Gauteng province. The Gauteng legislature had monitored their position from the previous day and were in support of the DORSA Bill in terms of both its content and principle.

KwaZulu-Natal

Mr Carrim said that the KwaZulu-Natal legislature had met earlier that day and agreed to mandate the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to the NCOP to support the DORSA Bill.

Limpopo

Ms M Mamaregane (ANC, Limpopo) said that she had spoken to the Chief Whip, MEC: Treasury, and the chairperson. There was nothing that she could report as she had not received anything from the Limpopo legislature.

Mpumalanga

The Chairperson indicated that she had received the letter the previous night regarding the DORSA Bill [B24 – 2020]. The mandate was that the delegation representing the province should vote in favour of the DORSA Bill [B24 – 2020].

Northern Cape

Mr Aucamp noted that the Northern Cape committee had had their meeting earlier that morning. The legislature voted in favour of the DORSA Bill.

North West

Mr Du Toit said that the mandate that he had received from the North West provincial legislature was to vote in favour of the DORSA Bill [B24 – 2020].

Western Cape

Mr E Njadu (ANC, Western Cape) read the Western Cape Provincial Parliament’s final mandate to the NCOP regarding the DORSA Bill [B24 – 2020] . The vote of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament conferred on the Western Cape delegation in the NCOP, authority not to support the DORSA Bill. 

Eastern Cape

Mr Njadu read the Eastern Cape’s final mandate to the NCOP regarding the DORSA Bill [B24 – 2020]. The vote of the legislature was in support of the DORSA Bill and mandated the Eastern Cape permanent delegate to the NCOP to vote in favour of the adoption of the DORSA Bill.

Mr Ryder raised a point of order. He was trying to establish what the process was with Limpopo not venturing any inputs. Were they noted as absent or as abstaining? How was this treated in the current circumstances?

The Chairperson mentioned that she had consulted after realising that there was this problem with the two provinces. However, at least the Free State responded as an abstainer. Limpopo had provided no answer so they would not be counted in the votes. She asked Adv Tau if she was correct on her take.

Adv Tau clarified that if the mandate of a province was not available then it would be noted as such because, at this stage, the Committee did not have the final mandate – which should be recorded as such. The Committee needed to check whether the provinces supporting the Bill were more than five provinces. This was because the Committee needed to have the majority of provinces supporting the Bill, as that would guide the Committee on the adoption of the Report.

The Chairperson asked, if Limpopo legislature had a sitting and decided on the mandate the following day, or after the Committee adjourned, whether the Committee was going to count the vote. This is because what the Committee would be presenting was what they had entertained as the Committee. If it was not part of what the Committee heard, then the Committee would not count it in.

Adv Tau confirmed that in the House the provinces could still vote even if they had not submitted their final mandate. The procedure was that, when it came to the House voting, provinces that had not submitted their mandate could still support or vote in the way that they had been mandated. For now it was the Committee process but in the House provinces could still express themselves according to his understanding.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Ryder was on the same page.

Mr Ryder accepted the response.

 

Consideration of draft Report on the Division of Revenue Second Amendment Bill

Third Draft Report of the Select Committee on Appropriations on the Division of Revenue Second Amendment Bill [B24 – 2020] Dated 25 November 2020

The Chairperson read through the Draft Report of the Committee.

Mr Ryder thought that the Report had been extremely well put together and commended the team who put it together.  He thought that the two recommendations that had been made should be reflected in the recommendations, indicating that the Committee needed to look at the timeframes. Secondly, the Committee did not believe that National Treasury was providing good enough responses to both the Committee and provinces. He had not seen any comments about the recurring issue around the revisiting of the equitable share formula. He had not seen any comments about that in the recommendations but it could have just been him working through the Report too quickly. He thus asked that it be pointed out if he missed it.

Mr Carriim thought that something should be said about, the delay of the presentation of the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) by a week due to the unprecedented circumstances of Covid-19. Covid-19 had hamstrung the Committee from fulfilling its responsibilities to the full extent. Secondly, he thought that the Committee should note that the issue of the review of the Fiscal Framework had been on the agenda of Parliament and government for a good many years, and while there had been some progress, the Committee felt that the matter needed a substantial review involving parliament and all civil society actors. He added that the Chairperson should be mandated to engage with the NA chairperson Committee on Finance in that regard and consider a discussion by parliament sometime in the first quarter of the following year for the Committee to look at. He added that the Committee might want to add something about, given the deteriorating financial and governance circumstances due to Covid-19, the review being another angle or reason for the Committee to review it.

There had been another matter that himself and Mr Ryder had agreed on and there were three things that he had said which were reasonable. He knew Ms Fanoe for many years and he had spoken to her a few times over the phone to clarify certain technical concepts. Ms Fanoe was a very hardworking and helpful member of National Treasury – as the rest of the team was. He had seen the way that they had managed the discussions and he thought that they were really good. He hoped that Ms Fanoe did not see the matter as personal. There were issues that National Treasury could not respond to. He thought that what the Committee should say was that they appreciated the hurried circumstances, particularly in the current year, regarding the processing of the DORB and the added pressures on National Treasury to respond swiftly to the provincial concerns. The Committee should also note the provinces’ difficulties in securing the negotiating and final mandates given the circumstances. He thus thought that the Committee should say that they understood but that the answers were not adequate and that National Treasury was urged to give fuller and more effective responses. The specific wording could be sorted out.   

Mr Ryder agreed. The time constraints were as unfair on Treasury staff as they were on the Committee.

The Chairperson asked Mr Dlomo if he had captured what Mr Ryder had re-emphasised regarding the issues that had been raised in the meeting and needed to be captured.

Mr Dlomo confirmed that he had captured both Mr Ryder and Mr Carrim’s inputs because the two inputs were more or less the same – it was just that each Member was putting it differently. He would try and consolidate the inputs and send it to Mr Carrim as would normally be done before the Report.

The Chairperson pointed out that Mr Carrim’s input had new additions.

Mr Dlomo noted Mr Carrim’s new additions. He said that he would share it with his colleagues and see if they agreed on what had been captured and then send it to Mr Carrim who would send it back to the Committee. The Report would then be taken to the next level.

Mr Carrim mentioned that Mr Dlomo and his team were excellent and that the Committee was very lucky to have them. He had been doing this sort of thing for many years and thought that there was no need to do it. Mr Dlomo’s wording and the Chairperson’s approval of it was really great. He did not disagree with Mr Ryder and he thought that the Committee and him agreed with Mr Ryder. He was just saying that some qualifications were needed to take account of sensitivities. There were staff who worked 25 hours a day. He had the highest regard for Ms Fanoe and her team although he did not agree with them ideologically half the time. National Treasury was treasured staff and the Committee needed to respect and value them even if they disagreed with them. He was thus just adding some qualifications to what Mr Ryder had said – whether Mr Ryder agreed with him or not was neither here nor there because he did not have 51%+ and so could not ultimately shape the hearing but could have a say.

The Chairperson said that after the additions were made the minutes would be sent to Members with the additions and inputs that they had raised. She moved on to the adoption of the Report.

Mr Carrim moved for the adoption of the Report.

Mr Ryder indicated that the DA would like to reserve its position on the Report at this point, until such time as they had had time to caucus.

Mr Du Toit indicated that the FF+ also reserved its position on the Report.

Ms Moletsane indicated that the EFF also reserved its position on the Report.

The report was adopted by the majority.

Consideration of draft Minutes of previous meetings

The Chairperson continued onto the adoption of the outstanding minutes. A package of minutes had been sent to Members for them to review. The reason why she wanted the Committee to deal with the minutes was because she did not want them to go to 2021 dealing with minutes of 2020. She added that there were six sets of minutes.

Minutes 7 October 2020

The Chairperson read through the minutes and asked for any amendments and movers for adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the discussions.

Mr Njadu moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Ryder seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were approved.

Minutes 29 October 2020

The Chairperson read through the minutes and asked for any amendments and movers for adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the discussions.

Mr Du Toit moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mamaregane seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were approved.

Minutes 3 November 2020

The Chairperson read through the minutes and asked for any amendments and movers for adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the discussions.

Mr Ryder moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Njadu seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were approved.

Minutes 11 November 2020

The Chairperson read through the minutes and asked for any amendments and movers for adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the discussions.

Mr Mkiva moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mamaregane seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were approved.

Minutes 12 November 2020

The Chairperson read through the minutes and asked for any amendments and movers for adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the discussions.

Mr Njadu moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mamaregane seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were approved.

Minutes 13 November 2020

The Chairperson read through the minutes and asked for any amendments and movers for adoption of the minutes as a true reflection of the discussions.

Mr Aucamp moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mamaregane seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were approved.

Closing Remarks

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their contributions, dedication, and hard work. She added onto what Members had reflected on the dedication, hard work, and support that the Committee had received from the support staff in terms of the work that was being done. It was known that if it were not for the Members the Committee would not be able to achieve what they were mandated to do. She asked Mr Lubabalo Nodada, Committee Secretary, to give an announcement regarding the next meeting.

Mr Nodada said that the next meeting of the Committee was a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Appropriations, which was scheduled for this Friday at 09h00. The meeting was public hearings on the Second Adjustments Appropriation Bill and the 2020 MTBPS. About nine submissions had been received from stakeholders who would address the joint meeting. The meeting link and the documents would be sent to Members the following afternoon.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would meet the following day at 12h00 in the House for the debate on DORA.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

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: