Rates Bill and Tax Bills: discussion
30 November 2022
Chairperson: Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KZN)
The Select Committee on Finance discussed the Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill (TALAB), Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (TLAB) and Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill (Rates). The Committee discussed the broader policy issues and agreed to the bills in principle.
In respect of the Rates Bill, a DA member said that the additional impact of the health promotions levy has had a dire impact on many of the farmers in the rural areas of KZN. Whilst the health benefits can certainly be considered, there is a balance that needs to be achieved. The Member proposed that a strong comment could be included in the report stating that the Committee would like to see the impact that the tax had already taken into account when any assessment is made about increasing the tax and the implementation date of any increases.
The Chairperson indicated that nobody wants to see job losses and the destruction of the economies of provinces. There should be some consideration when the provincial equitable share is allocated, whether a national policy disadvantageously impacts one province more than another province and if this should be made up.
In respect of TLAB, a proposal was made for National Treasury to ring-fence revenue for the health sector. National Treasury explained that this can become problematic for budgeting. If there are no programmes in the health sector, this would mean that the money cannot be used for any other thing. National Treasury is not opposed to soft earmarking in the sense that when the department of health requests additional money for health promotion, National Treasury can also motivate the public finance unit to make additional money available for the programmes they want to do without necessarily putting in legislation that says that all the money raised from the Health Promotion Levy has to go to the Department of Health. It will be based on the budgetary needs and the programmes that need to be implemented. National Treasury agreed to provide a paragraph clarifying this position.
Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill: Outstanding issues
The Chairperson asked each political party to spell out what their positions are on the increase on the customs and excise on tobacco. As far as he knows, the ANC is fine with what is in the Bill.
On the health promotion levy, he stated that the issue here is the negotiated trade-offs that National Treasury and other stakeholders go through. There is a general commitment to ensuring the right balance is found. Mostly, the Committee agreed that there should be a delay.
Mr Peter Ucko, CEO, TAG, stated that he had a meeting with Mpho and they did what the Chairperson asked them to do.
The Chairperson said he is glad that the meeting took place. This should be noted in the report. The balances that the Committee struck in 2017 are correct. It is about how you think about the rates. This is not something the Committee can decide here. It is not the Committee’s job. It is for National Treasury and the stakeholders to come with the Bill to the Committee and the Committee listens to them once it is here and see what merit it can find in it. The object of engaging around the Rates and Monetary Bill is mainly to prepare some consensus between stakeholders and National Treasury. HEALA would have to accept that this process is unfolding, no one is saying no, and the Committee is trying to find the right balances. The country is slowly edging toward urgency and being more sensitive to environmental health matters, which is a related matter.
On e-cigarettes, he stated that he does not think anyone has anything new to say about this.
The Chairperson welcomed the Secretary of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) commented on the impact of the HPL. He stated that the impact of legislation on provinces is a key part of the NCOP’s role. All members of the Committee were fairly alarmed when they were in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) as they saw the impact of the legislation. While he agrees with the Chairperson that it is not really the Committee’s place to comment on the tax in place. However, the movement of the rate lies firmly with the Minister. There was a deferment of the implementation of the increases in the past. He certainly thinks that with all of the issues that have come together to create a perfect storm in KZN, the additional impact of the health promotions levy has had a dire impact on many of the farmers in the rural areas of KZN. Whilst the health benefits can certainly be considered, there is a balance that needs to be achieved. He would appreciate it if a fairly strong comment could be included in the report stating that the Committee would like to see the impact that the tax had already taken into account when any assessment is made about increasing the tax and the implementation date of any increases.
The Chairperson stated that Mr Ryder’s suggestion is fine; however, the Committee should hear from other members. The Committee’s job is to focus on national issues. The Committee’s role is particularly what it does about the way a particular tax impacts a province. Nobody wants to see job losses and the destruction of the economies of provinces. Those are the balances that the health and finance committees in processing the Bill should have sat for hours and hours on. We should do that and point to how it impacts KZN in particular. There should be some consideration on when the provincial equitable share is allocated, should there not be some consideration that if we take a national policy that disadvantageously impacts one province more than another province, that should be made up in terms of the Provincial Equitable share (PES). The Chairperson asked National Treasury to give input on this.
Ms Yanga Mputa, Chief Director: Tax Policy, National Treasury, stated that she cannot respond to this as it falls under Ms Ngqaleni, who is responsible for intergovernmental relations. They are better positioned to answer the Chairperson’s question.
The Chairperson stated that he is not requesting an official response. He is asking whether this is not part of the criteria used in how PES is allocated. Does anyone know? For example, the e-toll affected Gauteng. A decision was then made to scrap e-tolls. The national executive said the money must be found in the province. Is there some consideration that the national government will allocate some compensation to Gauteng to take that into account? Does anybody know? You cannot say that Ms Ngqaleni is responsible. However, National Treasury is shaping the tax [part it takes into account how a tax impacts different provinces. Then presumably Ms Mputa’s division in National Treasury should go to Ms Ngqaleni and say this is the impact in KZN. It is a general question, not a question asking Ms Mputa to account on behalf of National Treasury.
Ms Mputa apologised that she cannot simply answer this question because the purpose of the tax bills as indicated in the constitution is to impose taxes on the National Revenue Fund and its taxes are national taxes hence she is saying that in terms of allocation, Ms Ngqaleni would be best to answer. Perhaps she can pose that question to Ms Ngqaleni and come back to the Committee in the following year so that the Committee can have a full spectrum of it.
The Chairperson accepted the explanation and requested that this be included in the Committee’s recommendation.
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (TLAB): Outstanding issues
The Chairperson noted that this is about e-cigarettes.
There were a few key issues that pervaded the public hearings and there was a cluster of people. Although there were many submissions, there was actually a few major themes, this included: tobacco, e-cigarettes, and the health levy. The Committee does not have to go through it clause by clause in terms of policy. The policy applies and if the Committee is at ease with that, then it can begin with the clause-by-clause treatment of each bill.
Before he moved on, he asked if any Member wanted to say anything.
[The Chairperson had to take a quick call related to this matter]
On return, he said that there has been some confusion. The Committee has received an extension till the 13th of December to finalise the General Laws Amendment Bill but that extension does not apply to the tax Bill. The tax bills are being voted on in the house on 6 December. This means that the Committee would have to vote on the Bill by Friday. However, he has a feeling that the Committee would probably finish the processing of the clause by clause today because the policy issues seem to be sorted, distribute the report today, and vote on it tomorrow. He did not think that the Committee needs an extension given where things are.
He asked whether the DA or EFF have anything to say.
There were no responses.
The Chairperson paused as he needed to get some clarity about the process.
The Chairperson asked Mr Ryder if he has any other policy issues he would like to raise.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee agreed with his point about the HPL.
Mr Ryder replied that he would like clarity on the difference between vaping and smoking. The finance committee does not have much information on this. Historically, the health impact of smoking has meant that the sin tax was introduced to ensure that the burden of the state as a result of people smoking cigarettes is compensated by those people to help the health system deal with the consequential health issues. The fact that we are treating vaping the same way is interesting because the science is still catching up. The Committee needs more information going forward. The Committee is mostly comfortable with the way it is being dealt with so far. The Committee needs more input on this. The health department must be called in to provide guidance on this and state what the expected impact of vaping is and the financial burden on the health system. More experts need to come in and advise the Committee for future considerations.
The Chairperson agreed and requested this be added to the report.
Mr S Du Toit (FF+, North West) agreed with Mr Ryder. It does not matter how much this sin tax is pushed up, it is not ring-fenced. At the end of the day, the money that is gained by imposing the sin tax does not necessarily go towards the health sector. That is just something that must be kept in mind. There have been numerous discussions and input on the percentage that has to be added on this sin tax. At the end of the day, the more expensive these products become the more lucrative the illegal market becomes. Perhaps it could be added in the report if there are no consequences for this industry to be regulated and visited by the relevant officials this will not have the required results.
The Chairperson stated that there is not an issue with that and asked whether there were any objections from Committee members. There were none and Mr Du Toit’s suggestion was added to the report.
The Chairperson said the ANC study group met the previous day and it has taken a position. It is not inconsistent with what was said. In his view, the Committee should not keep raising the same issues, unless there is an alternative position. National Treasury has an overall position (which he does not agree with) and that position must be tackled. Their position is that for a variety of reasons, they do not ring-fence revenue rates. He requested Treasury to provide a paragraph on this so it can be included in the report. When the Committee had the Health Promotion Levy Bill first introduced to Parliament, the health committee was present. Both the National Assembly Finance Committee and the health committee strongly felt that the revenue that was secured must be used to improve hospitals and clinics. They said that they tried that before and it led to complications. He asked Ms Mputa to write a paragraph for the report explaining National Treasury’s position. The Committee believes that it should be ring-fenced but they understand National Treasury’s point of view. If they ring-fence the HPL, then the furl levy must be ring-fenced for climate challenges and then it upsets their balances.
The Chairperson asked National Treasury to respond to anything raised.
Ms Mputa replied that, on ring-fencing, National Treasury shared their arguments when they were doing the Health Promotion Levy Bill and the Carbon Tax. The example given to Parliament was the ring-fencing of the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) whereby the UIF money is ring-fenced and cannot be used for anything else except that purpose. That is a good example of ring-fencing by the government, but National Treasury will provide a further paragraph stating the reasons why they did not ring-fence. She asked her colleagues from National Treasury to answer on tobacco and carbon tax.
Mr Mpho Legote, Senior Economist, National Treasury, replied that the issue for National Treasury has always been that ring-fencing, especially using legislation to say that the revenue raised will always go into the health sector, for example, can become problematic for budgeting. This is because if the money is ring-fenced and there are no programmes in the health sector, this would mean that the money cannot be used for any other thing. National Treasury has indicated before that it is not opposed to soft earmarking in the sense that when the department of health requests additional money for health promotion, National Treasury can also motivate the public finance unit to make additional money available for the programmes they want to do without necessarily putting in legislation that says that all the money raised from the Health Promotion Levy has to go to the Department of Health. It will be based on the budgetary needs and the programmes that need to be implemented. National Treasury will provide a paragraph on that.
Ms Mputa took the Committee through the Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill.
The Chairperson said Members may interrupt if they have an issue.
Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill – clause-by-clause
Clause one of the Bill refers to the fixing of rates of normal tax, taking the increase of inflation into account.
Clause two refers to the increase in primary, secondary, and tertiary rebates.
Clause three refers to the increase in medical tax credits applicable to individuals.
Clause four amends paragraph nine of the seventh schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1962. It refers to the exemption in respect of the formula used to apply the fringe benefits applicable to employer-provided housing. The fringe benefit is increased yearly to equal the tax-free threshold.
The Chairperson asked Mr Ryder whether he would like to explain to the Committee what these changes in the amendments are.
Mr Ryder replied that he would explain this if the Chairperson would authorise two additional hours for the meeting.
Clause five amends schedule no. 1 of the Customs and Excise Act. These amendments increase the excise duty on alcohol and tobacco, the fuel levy, and the health promotion levy.
Clause six amends section 7 of the Employment Tax Incentive Act, 2013, so as to deal with amendments to the employment tax incentives.
Clause seven amends section 5 of the Carbon Tax Act, 2019, so as to deal with the increase in the carbon tax rate for 1 January 2022 because the TLAB deals with the increases from 2023 to 2030.
Clause eight deals with the carbon tax formula.
Clauses 9 and 10
Clauses nine and ten provide the effective date for the reduction in the corporate tax rate.
Clause 11 is the short title of the Act.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee will receive the report on the Bill by 15:00 today. The Committee will vote on the Bill and the report the next day. The Committee has informally adopted this report.
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill – clause-by-clause
Clause one deals with the definitions. The biggest amendment in the definitions would be paragraph c which clarifies paragraph eA in the definition of “gross income” regarding public sector funds. So the biggest amendments in clause one regarding the definition is where we make amendments regarding the definition of “pensions”. These changes do not relate to the two ports. These were the changes that were mentioned in the budget and referred to in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill.
Clause two refers to the changes regarding reviewing the timing of the accrual and incurring of variable remuneration.
Clause three amends section 7C of the Income Tax Act, 1962, so as to clarify the provisions that apply to loans made to or by a company. This amendment adds the words “or a company”.
The first amendment is a small amendment that updates the provisions in line with the Insurance Act of 2017.
Clause 4(1)(b) clarifies the deeming provision in respect of royalties derived by CFCs.
Clause 4(1)(c) clarifies the treatment of amounts from hybrid equity instruments deemed to be income under CFC rules.
These are all the changes made to section 9D dealing with the taxation of controlled foreign companies.
Clause 5 deals with the apportioning of interest exemption when an individual ceases to be a tax resident.
Clause six is a technical correction that fixes the cross-referencing.
Clause seven is a technical correction to section 10C of the Income Tax Act, 1962, so as to fix the cross-referencing.
Clause eight amends section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1962. Clause 8(1) makes a technical correction so as to change the word “he” to a gender-neutral taxpayer. Clause 8(1)(b) makes amendments to the tax treatment of an asset accrued as a government grant in kind.
Clause nine amends section 12L of the Income Tax Act, 1962, so as to deal with the carbon tax. This changes the sunset date for section 12L from 1 January 2023 to 1 January 2026 in line with the budget announcement.
Clause ten amends section 19 of the Income Tax Act, so as to clarify the rules that trigger recruitment under the debt forgiveness rules.
Clause 11 amends section 23 of the Income Tax Act so as to make a technical correction to the style of writing.
Clause 12 amends section 23M of the Income Tax Act. These are consequential amendments as a result of the reduction in corporate tax rate made last year. This clause also amends section 23M regarding the interaction between the application of the interest limitation rules and capital expenditure applicable to mining companies.
Clause 13 amends section 24 of the Income Tax Act so as to review the debtors allowance provision to limit the labour arrangement.
Clause 14 amends section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1962. There are changes as a result of the impact of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 17 on short-term insurers. Taxpayers made a lot of submissions in this regard.
Clause 15 amends section 29A of the Income Tax Act which is the impact of IFRS on long-term insurers.
Clause 16 amends section 45 of the Income Tax Act so as to refine the reversal of the nil based cost rules applicable to intra-group transactions. This is a consequential amendment to last year’s amendment.
The Chairperson asked Ms Mputa for an explanation of what she just said as it does not follow.
Ms Mputa replied that section 45 of the Income Tax Act deals with intragroup transactions whereby the tax is being deferred because South Africa does not have group taxation. Amendments were made last year. This year, the reversal of the nil based cost rules is being refined and applicable to intragroup transactions.
The Chairperson requested an explanation of the nil based cost rules as it is too technical for him.
Ms Mputa explained that there is no tax on intragroup transactions. The tax is deferred for a later stage because there is no taxation if you transfer between a group of companies. There are mini group laws. When you transfer an asset, there should be no base cost. If there is a base cost in the asset, then there is going to be capital gains tax. Here, we are refining the reversal of the nil based cost rules applicable to intragroup transactions.
The Chairperson replied that this is clearer now but it is a very complicated thing.
Clause 17 is a consequential amendment made to last year’s situation where dividends tax is not applicable by reason of the tax treaty.
Clause 18 amends section 64K of the Income Tax Act so as to make a consequential amendment.
Clause 19 deletes sub-paragraph three of paragraph four of the second schedule as a result of the amendments that have been made that deal with the retirement of a provident fund member on grounds other than ill health.
Clause 20 makes a technical correction that replaces “or” with a full stop.
Clause 21 makes a technical correction to make the text gender-neutral.
Clause 22 amends paragraph five of the eighth schedule to the Income Tax Act so as to deal with the apportioning of the capital gains tax annual exclusion rule when an individual ceases to be tax resident so they do not do double DP.
The Department of Trade Industry and Competition (DTIC) issues government grants each year. These grants are included in the eleventh schedule of the Income Tax Act. Government grants that are included in the eleventh schedule are exempt from tax. The eleventh schedule has to be updated each and every year in line with the government grants issued by the DTIC.
Clause 24 aligns the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act.
Clause 25 deals with vaping because vaping is in the TLAB and not Rates Bill.
The Minister makes amendments in terms of the Customs and Excise Act during the year. A continuation provision has to be added in order for those amendments to become law. Clause 26 makes provision for all the amendments that are made by the Minister by notice to be law.
Clause 27 amends section 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act so as to deal with the section 72 ruling on cross boarder leasing of aircraft and ship.
These are the consequential amendments to last year’s amendments regarding the VAT treatment of temporary leasing of residential property.
Clause 29 makes two amendments. The first is the temporary letting of residential property. The second is the VAT treatment of documentary evidence for repossessions. When goods such as a car are repossessed, the car dealer may not have all the information. There used to be a VAT ruling in this regard. This clause changes VAT rulings into the law so that whenever those documents are required in cases of repossessions then provisions are made to say that the documentary proof that is required in such cases is this documentary proof.
Clause 30 VAT treatment of the temporary leasing of residential property.
Clause 31 amends section 20 of the Value-Added Tax Act so as to deal with documentary evidence of repossession.
Clause 32 deals with VAT treatment of registration of foreign suppliers. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) usually issues rulings regarding foreign suppliers that are unable to register for VAT in South Africa. The rulings are being turned into law because section 72 rulings are being done away with.
Clause 33 deals with VAT treatment of pooling arrangements. This applies in scenarios where doctors would enter into pooling arrangements such as Netcare hospitals. This clause deals with the VAT treatment of pooling arrangements especially if they are required by rules such as the Health Professionals Council.
Mr Ryder asked about foreign companies providing services and not being able to register for VAT. He stated that he recently bought software online, and the tax amount of his purchase was raised once he purchased the software. He queried the company and because this could not be explained he reversed the transaction. The company should be paying tax in South Africa if they are collecting tax. He should not be paying VAT on an item when a company is domiciled somewhere else. How does one control this? Is there a line where a person can report people that are inflating prices or are purporting to be collecting taxes that are not paid in South Africa?
Ms Mputa replied that South Africa was the first mover regarding VAT on e-services regulations as one of the Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) action items. On BEPS, we are currently unable to impose income tax on digital services; however, there is already a solution on VAT and South Africa has regulations in that regard.
Ms Aneesa Baig, Director: Indirect Tax, Legal Tax Design, National Treasury, replied that the amended legislation was introduced in 2019. The initial legislation was in 2014. South Africa was one of the first countries in the world to action the BEPS matters. We introduced basic regulations that required non-resident suppliers to register for VAT in South Africa even if they did not have a physical presence in the country provided that two out of three requirements were met. The first is that the supply was being made from an offshore supplier to a local resident. The second is that the payment was coming out of a bank account in South Africa. Third is that the recipient had a business or physical address in South Africa. Provided that two out of three of these requirements were met and that the supplier exceeded the VAT threshold, they were required to register for VAT in South Africa. This was introduced in 2014 and amended in 2019 to expand it to all services and increase the threshold to a million. If you search for the vendors registered name or VAT number on the VAT vendor search in SARS you will get confirmation of their registration there.
Mr Ryder replied that he is happy with this answer.
Clause 34 deals with the extension of the sunset date of the RMDT tax incentive from 1 October 2022 to 1 January 2024.
These clauses deal with the postponement of the effective date of all those provisions due to the fact that certain unlisted legislation is still not in force.
Clause 38 deals with the carbon tax trajectory from 2023 to 2030.
Clause 39 deals with carbon issue price neutrality deduction for electricity generation from fossil fuels.
Clause 40 makes a tax-neutral amendment so as to deal with tax-neutral transfers from provident funds.
Clause 41 amends section 4 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2021, so as to clarify the definition of “contributed tax capital”.
Clause 42 is consequential to last year’s amendment regarding asset losses but here it is for mining companies.
Clause 43 is the short title.
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (TLAB) – clause-by-clause
Mr Franz Tomasek, Head: Legislative Policy Tax, Customs and Excise, SARS, took the Committee through the TLAB.
Clause one is an update for the new Companies Act.
Clause two amends section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1955, so as to make a textual correction that adds a comma.
Clause three amends Section 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, so as to deal with a name change in a neighbouring state.
Clause four amends section 64M of the Income Tax Act so as to improve the consistency of the dividend tax system.
Clause five amends paragraph 5 of the fourth schedule to the Income Tax Act so as to make a correction that inserts the word “of”.
Clause six amends the fourth schedule to the Income Tax Act so as to correct a cross-reference.
Clause seven defines invoice in section 1 of the Customs and Excise Act.
Clause eight is the first clause that deals with the introduction of an advanced ruling system in the customs context.
Clause nine amends section 38 of the Customs and Excise Act so as to ensure that the commissioner is able to prescribe a time within which a declaration needs to be made with respect to types of cargo. This was missing up until now.
Clause ten is an invoice consequential amendment. It is no longer necessary to say “as prescribed” because the term is defined.
Clause 11 amends section 40 of the Customs and Excise Act so as to make a technical correction that deals with the invoice question. The words “as prescribed” and “correct and sufficient” can be deleted because they have defined them.
Clause 12 allows the commissioner to prescribe the particulars that are required in invoices of particular sectors. This is an issue because some sectors are more vulnerable to problems in the customs space than others so higher requirements are needed for certain sectors to address that.
Clause 13 is a clause to work with the introduction of advanced rulings.
Clause 14 also deals with advanced rulings.
Clause 15 amends section 65 of the Customs and Excise Act so as to deal with advanced rulings.
Clause 16 refers to an obsolete provision relating to Mozambique. This provision is being deleted.
Clause 17 deals with the process of applying, considering, and issuing the rulings and withdrawing them if necessary.
Clause 18 deals with the advanced ruling system.
Clause 19 is an invoice clause to tie up a set of amendments.
Clause 20 amends section 86 of the Customs and Excise Act so as to deal with invoice amendments.
Clause 21 is another set of invoice amendments. The concept of an invoice is fundamental to the Customs and Excise Act.
Clause 22 is another provision that deals with invoices to assist in prescribing what is required.
Clause 23 deals with the name change of a neighbouring state.
Discussions have just been had about the electronic services system which requires offshore vendors to register in South Africa when their turnover exceeds a R1 million. It may be that there is a very short spike so having someone register and then de-register directly afterwards would be a burden on the taxpayer and on the South African Revenue Services. There is the ability to not require that if there is an abnormal circumstance of a temporary nature then that would not be required. That is someone that would also be found in the domestic VAT system so we are being consistent.
Clause 25 deals with the name change of a neighbouring country.
There has been a difficulty with the employment tax incentive in that there are some very aggressive schemes there to obtain refunds of Pay As You Earn (PAYE) or payments in respect of the Employment Tax Incentive (ETI) when it is not due. That was exacerbated by the fact that SARS was unable to impose a penalty when people engaged in those sorts of practices. The ETI is being brought into the general penalty scheme in the Tax Administration Act.
Clause 27 seeks to remove the duplication where one has a penalty for certain defined issues in terms of the Employment Tax Incentive Act and, as a result of the same behaviour, also triggers a penalty in terms of the Tax Administration Act so that a person does not pay a penalty twice on the same behaviour.
One of the recognised controlling bodies in terms of the Tax Administration Act, the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors, is no longer in a position to act as a regulatory controlling body because of changes in its own legislation and has requested that it be removed from the tax legislation. This amendment does that.
The issue here is around tax compliance status. There has been an increase in behaviour where people put in a nil return in order to get a positive tax compliance status even though they are economically active. This is so that they can say all their returns are in and their payments are up to date and that there are no payments to be made since it was a nil return. This clause proposes that SARS be committed to revoking access to tax clearance status to make it clear that we are dealing with a misrepresentation or worse. An important point here is that this can only be done by a senior SARS official and can only be done after the taxpayer has been given ten business days’ notice to address SARS’s concerns.
Clause 30 amends the Employment Tax Incentive Act so as to tie in with the penalty provisions around the employment tax incentives.
Clause 31 amends section 20 of the Tax Administration Laws Amendment Act, 2014, so as to make a technical correction. There was a conflict in amending provisions and that is being corrected here.
Clause 32 makes a technical correction to fix a cross-reference.
Clause 33 makes a technical correction.
Clause 34 is the short title.
The Chairperson opened up discussions for this Bill. He stated that voting can be deferred to the next day unless there is something that members want to raise. He will speak to Ms Mahlangu, Chairperson, the Select Committee on Appropriations, about whether the Committee can use 30 minutes of their time the following day to formally vote on these Bills and the report. If this is not possible, then the Committee will meet that night and vote on the bills and report as it is not being postponed to the 13th.
Ms D Mahlangu (ANC) stated that she is comfortable with the Chairperson’s suggestions because these issues have to be dealt with. She was thinking that the voting can be done tonight if members are available.
The Chairperson replied that he is in Ms Mahlangu’s hands on what is going to happen in tomorrow’s meeting. Voting might not even take 30 minutes long as it is a short process. He suggested that it be done tomorrow. He asked that Ms Mahlangu slot the Committee in for 20/30 minutes tomorrow.
Ms Mahlangu replied that she is comfortable with this.
The meeting was adjourned.
No related documents
Carrim, Mr YI
Aucamp, Mr S
Du Toit, Mr SF
Mahlangu, Ms DG
Moletsane, Mr MS
Ryder, Mr D
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.