Questions and Replies

Reply:

a) Yes. According to the Prudential Authority at the South African Reserve Bank (Prudential Authority), Grindrod Bank has a banking licence in terms of the Banks Act, and that the banking licence was issued in December 2006.

b) We cannot confirm whether a company is locally or foreign owned, particularly if it is listed and / or its ultimate owners (or shareholders) are listed or their identity not explicitly identified (eg hidden via structuring). What we can confirm is whether the company is domiciled in South Africa or not, and if listed, where its primary listing is. In this instance, the Prudential Authority has confirmed that the company is domiciled in South Africa. In addition, whilst Grindrod Bank is not listed, its majority shareholder (Grindrod Limited) is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

c) The Prudential Authority furthermore confirmed that Grindrod Bank is 96.55% owned by Grindrod Limited and 3.45% owned by Amber Bay Investments (Pty) Ltd.

Reply:

The South African National Roads Agency is expected to receive transfers of R7.9 billion in 2018/19, R10.3 billion in 2019/20 and R10.9 billion in 2020/21 from the Department of Transport to fund its capital programme. The Agency has already provided for the project in the baseline and the additional R1 billion in 2019/20 and R1.1 billion in 2020/21 supplements the project funding provided for in the Agency’s capital transfers.

Reply:

South Africa’s contribution is guided by Attachment 2 of the Articles of Agreement of the New Development Bank – the schedule of Payment of Initial Subscriptions to the Paid in Capital by the Founding Members.

a)

• In the financial year 2015/16, the capital obligation was US$150 million; the actual capital transfer amounted to R 2.298 billion.

• In the financial year 2016/17, the capital obligation was US$ 250 million; the actual capital transfer amounted to R 3.515 billion.

• In the financial year 2017/18, the capital obligation was US$300 million; the actual capital transfer amounted to R 4.088 billion.

b)

- The capital obligation for the year 2018/19 is US$300 million.

- The capital obligation for the year 2019/20 is US$300 million.

- The capital obligation for the year 2020/21 is US$350 million.

- The capital obligation for the year 2021/22 is US$350 million.

Reply:

1(a) The list of municipalities with unfunded budgets are summarised in Annexure A below.

1(a) (ii) The municipal financial information presented in the MFMA section 71 reports for the 2nd quarter ended 31st December 2017 was used to establish which municipalities are potentially unable to honour their financial commitments. When matching the “cash and cash equivalents” for this period against the “total creditors” for the same period, it showed that municipalities with unfunded budgets are not able to pay their total creditors within the prescribed thirty-day period.

1(b) The development and adoption of financial recovery plans is the primary responsibility of a municipality facing financial challenges as legislated in Chapter 13 of the MFMA; and this provides for the municipality to request support for the development of a financial recovery plan from Provinces and National Treasury. Where such requests are received from municipalities the financial recovery plan is developed by National Treasury in consultation with the relevant Provincial Treasury and the municipality. The list of municipalities that currently have approved financial recovery plans as well as those that have requested support is presented in Annexure A. There are 14 municipalities among the 112 that adopted unfunded budgets with approved financial recovery plans; this means that, in spite of the financial recovery plan having been adopted, the municipal budget is still unfunded. Financial recovery plans are mostly prevalent in the North West, Limpopo and Northern Cape.

2. Yes, the Minister of Finance will consult with the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs for support of appropriate interventions at municipalities that continue to adopt unfunded budgets. The Minister of Finance will consider strengthening measures to ensure the adoption of funded budgets by municipalities and to provide specific intervention measures to enforce such measures.

In terms of the role of the provincial executive and the present legal framework for municipal intervention, the intervention process is addressed in terms of section 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This provides for a process, including the provincial executive role when performing its oversight and obligations with respect to municipalities. The Honourable member must note that the existing municipal intervention legal framework for the Province to issue a directive to the municipality in terms of section 139(1)(a), this is followed by a step by step process, including support in terms of section 154 of the Constitution. Moreover, MFMA section 136, 137 and 139 requires the provincial executive to undertake certain discretionary and mandatory actions to address the situation, failing which the National Treasury upon request from a municipality and province will develop a financial recovery plan for a municipality.

The intervention in terms of section 139(5) of the Constitution raised by the Honourable Member, is in fact the prerogative of the Provincial Executive to decide and resolve. The Minister of Finance can request a province to intervene in specific municipalities as part of the process in implementing the MFMA. In terms of section 150 of the MFMA the National Executive may intervene instead of Provincial Executive if the condition of section 139(5) are met and the province has failed to do so.

Reply:

1. a) According to National Treasury’s records, 14 municipalities currently have funds invested with the Venda Building Society (VBS) Mutual Bank

b) Please see below list of municipalities and investment amounts currently held by VBS Mutual Bank.

Name of municipality	Amount
Merafong City Local Municipality	R50 000 000
West Rand District Municipality	R81 676 155
Makhado Local Municipality	R61 694 081
Greater Giyani Local Municipality	R159 262 692
Collins Chabane Local Municipality	R121 824 657
Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality	R54 973
Vhembe District Municipality	R300 000 000
Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality	R83 428 490
Tubatse Fetakgomo Local Municipality	R240 649 836
Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality	R153 321 224
Madibeng Local Municipality	R31 035 191
Mafikeng Local Municipality	R82 191 000
Moretele Local Municipality	R50 000 000
Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality	R150 000 000

2. According to National Treasury records, there were no municipalities that closed their accounts with VBS Mutual Bank, however the following 4 municipalities’ investments matured and there was no re-investments of the funds.

a) Polokwane Local Municipality

b) Capricorn District Municipality

c) Makhuduthamaga Local Municipality

d) Dr JS Moroka Local Municipality

3. National Treasury had communicated with 7 municipalities that were identified through the in-year reporting system that had invested funds with VBS Mutual Bank in August 2017. The communication drew municipalities’ attention to section 7(3)(b) of the MFMA, which states that a municipality may not open a bank account with an institution not registered as a bank in terms of the Banks Act 94 of 1990; read with the Municipal Investment Regulations, which regulate the instruments within which municipalities are allowed to invest municipal funds. The National Treasury also held a meeting with the municipalities listed above on 22 March 2018 with the aim of establishing the extent of their investments and confirming the amounts still invested with VBS Mutual Bank at the time when the SARB intervened.

It should be noted that in terms of the MFMA, read together with the Municipal Regulations on Financial Misconduct Procedures and Criminal Proceedings, council must, through the disciplinary board, investigate all acts of non-compliance with the MFMA and its Regulations, to establish whether an act of financial misconduct was committed by any of the municipal officials. It is therefore the municipal council that must ensure that the conduct of the Accounting Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and any other relevant officials of the effected municipalities is investigated to ascertain whether financial misconduct was committed and based on that, institute further action, including disciplinary action. National Treasury will continue to monitor the corrective action implemented in this regard.

Reply:

The National Treasury is confident that in considering this transaction, the leadership of the PIC adhered to all its internal processes that should be complied with. Furthermore, the National Treasury is also assured that the approval of this transaction was made in accordance with the established mandate from the GEPF. It should be noted that the National Treasury was not involved in the engagements surrounding this transaction and therefore does not have all the details that were agreed upon. The National Treasury is aware that this is was a short-term facility and Eskom has already paid this facility by the end of the February 2018.

Reply:

1. There is one (1) registered public-private partnership that was entered into in March 2016, which is the City of Tshwane Fleet Management PPP project for the replacement of aged vehicles and leases (as and when the existing contracts expires) through a private party on a five year Full Maintenance Lease (FML) basis.

In the City of Tshwane Fleet Management PPP project, the names of parties contracted to the City are divided into categories of vehicle requirements. These are the companies that are contracted to the City in accordance with vehicle specification:

• Moipone Group of Companies (Pty) Ltd is contracted to supply and manage the non-specialized vehicles with a gross vehicle mass not exceeding 3500kg valued at R4 829 732.00 per month, subject to vehicle utilization;
• Fleetmatris VMS (Pty) Ltd is contracted to supply and manage the specialized vehicles (excluding red fleet, waste management vehicles and yellow plant) and vehicles with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3500kg valued at R11 757 150.00 per month, subject to vehicle utilization;
• Moipone Group of Companies (Pty) Ltd is contracted to supply and manage waste management vehicles (including, Compactors, Rear End Loaders, and Front End Loaders) valued at R4 290 830.00 per month, subject to vehicle utilization; and
• Fleet Africa a Division of Super Group Africa (Pty) Ltd is contracted to supply and manage ambulances, fire fighting vehicles and equipment (Red Fleet) valued at R5 393 118.00 per month, subject to vehicle utilization.

2. There are no reported public-private partnerships that failed to materialize and/or did not meet its expected obligations.

Reply:

a) Urgency was cited as a reason for deviating from normal procurement processes.

b) According to the National Treasury, the services could still be procured through open competitive bidding process.

Reply:

 

	(i)(aa)	(i)(bb)	(i)(cc)	(i)(dd)(aaa)	(i)(dd)(bbb)
(a)	Fifth Annual South Africa Tomorrow Investor Conference, New York, 9-10 Nov 2017	7 Nov 2017	11 Nov 2017	R 139 442.38	Air travel Daily allowance (for entire trip) T&S incidental cost	R122 773.29 R15 942.15 R726.94
(b)	Non-deal Roadshow, Asia 12-17 Nov 2017	11 Nov 2017	13 Nov 2017
(c)		13 Nov 2017	15 Nov 2017
(d)		15 Nov 2017	17 Nov 2017

(ii) R873 366.68

Reply:

(a) Mr. Kingon obtained a Bachelor of Administration degree since his appointment to Inland Revenue/ South African Revenue Service (SARS),

(b) Mr. Kingon completed his degree in December 1998,

(c)(i) He graduated at the University of South Africa,

(ii) He attained a Bachelor of Administration degree.

 

 

Reply:

 

(i) Payment of any acting allowance within the South African Revenue Service (SARS) is done in line with the approved conditions of service. . As per the conditions of service, SARS will pay an acting allowance to employees only after acting for a continuous period of more than forty (40) working days from the first day of commencement of the acting period, retrospectively.

(ii) Currently no acting allowance is being paid and he is receiving his remuneration as per his appointment to the position of Group Executive: Relationship Management.

Reply:

(a)(b) Mr. Kingon has held the following positions for the specified duration since his appointment to Inland Revenue/ the South African Revenue Service (SARS): The dates are approximate dates

• Cash Office Clerk – 1984 to 1986,
• Assessor on Salary, Partnership and other cases – 1986 to 1990,
• Tax Officer Policy and Law Application: Direct Taxes – 1/4/1990 to 30/11/1990,
• Secretariat of Tax Advisory Committee – 1/12/1990 to 30/11/1991,
• Various Roles: Policy and Law Application: Direct Taxes – 1/12/1991 to 31/12/1998,
• Manager: Special Taxes – 1/1/1999 to 31/12/2001,
• Enforcement Assistant General Manager: Legal and Policy –2002 to 2007,
• Group Executive: Business Systems – 2007 to 2008,
• Group Executive: Operational Service Escalations and Support – 2009 to 2016,
• Group Executive: Relationship Management – 2016 to 2018
• Acting Chief Officer Business and Individual Tax (BAIT) – 15 March 2018 to 18 March 2018
• Acting Commissioner – 19 March 2018 to date

(c)(d) These positions included the following responsibilities:

• Branch Office:
  • Daily activities of Cash Office such as processing of Royalty Taxes and Non-residents Tax on Dividends and Interest
  • Assessing of taxpayers such as Salary earners, Partnership and other cases

• Legal and Policy:
  • Policy and Law Application on Direct Taxes
  • Managing the daily operations and staff of the Special Taxes unit
• Enforcement
  • Heading up the Legal and Corporate Services division that includes direction setting, daily operations and staff management

• Tax Advisory Committee:
  • Perform Secretariat duties for the Committee

• Group Executive:
  • Manage and give strategic direction to the Business Systems, Service Escalations and Support and Relationship Management divisions during respective times served
  • Liaison with strategic stakeholders
  • Facilitation of technical discussions with professional bodies
  • Dealing with policy matters including technical inputs on development of forms, guides, business specifications and procedures
  • Representing the organization in the media on topical specific technical matters
  • Providing input and guidance on proposed law amendments, direction setting and guidance on law application and interpretation and other technical aspects

Reply:

2. See tables attached

(2) The macroeconomic forecast is underpinned by a set of assumptions shown in Table 1 below. The long-run macroeconomic forecast reflects expectations of potential growth based on investment and population growth as well as the state of the global economy. The combination of higher GDP growth, stronger currency, higher real bond yields, lower borrowing costs and a narrower deficit results in an improved debt-to-GDP outlook, with debt stabilising at 53.2 per cent of GDP in 2023/24.

Table 1 Budget 2018 long-run assumptions

Table 2 Budget 2018 long-run main budget framework

Reply to (1)

Reply:

(a) The SACU Heads of State and Government agreed to a comprehensive review of the 2002 SACU Agreement during the 5th SACU Summit that took place on 23rd of June 2017 in Lozitha, Swaziland. The Summit established two Ministerial Task Teams on Trade and Industry, and on Finance to oversee and manage the review of the 2002 SACU Agreement. The review of the Revenue Sharing Formula was identified and agreed upon as one of the key areas that should form part of the review process. The review of the revenue sharing formula was to be conducted in such a way that it not only supports the institution and member states in the attaining their respective developmental objectives but also does not negatively impact the socio-economic stability of SACU member states.

(b) The negotiations on the review of the 2002 SACU Agreement will commence in April 2018 with the first meetings of the Ministerial Technical Task Teams. The review of the Agreement is expected to take place over an indicative period of two years during which various options that can achieve the developmental objectives of SACU will be considered.

Reply:

1. Yes.

2. There is not a conflict of interest.

Mr Damons is one of the members of the Appeal Board, appointed by the Minister of Finance in terms of section 26A(2) of the Financial Services Board Act, No. 97 of 1990. The Appeal Board is independent from the Financial Services Board (“FSB”) and it currently consists of 16 members appointed by the Minister of Finance, based on their extensive financial services or legal experience or knowledge

The chairperson or deputy chairperson of the Appeal Board, who are both retired judges, assign appeals to panels consisting of not less than three members. These panel members are chosen from the members of the Appeal Board and not all members of the Appeal Board form part of all panels. The decision of the majority of the members constituting a panel is the decision of the Appeal Board and the chairperson of the panel has a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes.

In terms of section 26B(3) of the Financial Services Board Act, 1990 a member of a panel should immediately disclose and withdraw from a hearing if, before or during a hearing, it becomes apparent that the member has an interest in a matter referred to the Appeal Board.

The appointment of curators is generally done by a High Court, upon recommendation by the FSB, and not by the Minister of Finance.

Reply:

Yes the National Treasury, in consultation with other government departments, does review goods and services that could be procured directly from state institutions through strategic procurement based on the capacity of the state to render such services.

Reply:

National Treasury requires the following detailed information in respect of the alleged company:

a) The name of the state organ that procures the services or goods from the company.

b) The nature of services or goods procured from the company

c) The timeframes that these goods/ services were procured.

d) The evidence that the goods/ services were received by the state.

Reply:

The National Treasury has not received the request.

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

(a)(i) Yes

(a)(ii) Yes

(a)(aa)(aaa)	(a)(aa)(bbb)	(a)(aa)(bb)	(a)(aa)(cc)
Economic Research Southern Africa (ERSA)	Research programme funded with the aim to nurture and expand economic research capacity in South Africa amongst academics and practicing economists.	2005	R91 677 000.00
United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER)	Areas of research funded were climate change and energy; economic development in Southern Africa; understanding the behavior of firms, tax and labour economics.	2012	R13 600 000.00

ASB

The Accounting Standards Board does not provide funding to any institution of research and development domestically or internationally.

CBDA

(a) The Co-operative Banks Development Agency and/or (b) any entities reporting to her is not funding, including by way of discretionary funding, any institution of research and development (i) domestically and/or (ii) internationally; if so, (aa)(aaa) no names of the specified institutions and (bbb) or functions, (bb) or date can be provided or reported by her funding them and (cc) no amount was contributed by the CBDA towards such funding?

DBSA

The Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) has over the previous 2016/17 and current 2017/18 financial years, as part of the Strategy Division’s research and knowledge management functions engaged the services of the following institutions: (i) the Wits School of Governance (WSG); (ii) the Chartered Institute of Development Finance (CIDEF); (iii) the Institute of African Alternatives (IFAA); and the University of Pretoria’s Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS), all of which are local.

1. The Wits School of Governance (WSG) was engaged for a multi-stakeholder conversation on “The Utility of the Electricity Supply Model” as the first session under the purview of the Infrastructure Conversation Series. Their responsibilities were facilitation of the session, report compilation, hosting and marketing of the event. The DBSA was invoiced for a total of R 64 545.34 that was paid during the 2016/17 financial year;
2. Prof Adrian Saville from GIBS on a sole sourcing basis assisted the DBSA with the drafting and presentation of the Economic Outlook reports that served at the Assets and Liabilities Committee (ALCO), the Investment Committee (IC), the Board Credit and Investment Committee (BCIC), and the Management Strategy Session. The DBSA was invoiced twice for these services for the respective amounts of R 212 500 and R 597 500 that were both paid during the 2016/17 financial year.
3. The services of the Institute for African Alternatives (IFAA) were procured on a closed tender basis to undertake a study on the relationship between infrastructure and industrialisation through examination of the impact of South African entities in the African continent. The deadline for submission of the output is the end of Q4, specifically end of September, 2017. IFAA quoted the study at R 400 000 with the DBSA to be invoiced on submission of the final output. Payment to be made within the current 2017/18 financial year.
4. The DBSA has entered into a membership/partnership agreement with the Chartered Institute of Development Finance (CIDEF) on the Masters in Development Finance as at 23 January, 2017. The components of the partnership include a visiting Fellowship and Lectureship Programme, Knowledge Collaboration for Research, and Internship and Youth Development. The total annual cost of the partnership is estimated at R 300 000 and the funds are expected to be spent over the current 2017/18 financial year.
5. The respective amount totals paid out to local research and development institutions are (R 64 545 34 + R 212 500 + R 597 500) = R 874 545 34 for the 2016/17 financial year and the anticipation of (R 400 000 + 300 000) =

R 700 000 for the 2017/18 financial year.

FSB

(b) Financial Services Board is not funding any institution for Research and Development. (i) to (ii) cc Not Applicable

FIC

The financial Intelligence Centre is not funding any research and development as per question 2092 (b) and therefore the question in the subsections to not apply.

GEPF

The GEPF is not funding any institutions of research and development.

GPAA

The GPAA is not funding any institution of research and development domestically and internationally.

IRBA

(b) The IRBA hereby declares that funding is done, to institutions of research and development.

(i) Only domestically

(aa)` The IRBA encourages research and innovation in Education, Training and Professional Development in South Africa.

(aa) The IRBA has in the past financially contributed to the following:

(aaa) The South African Journal of Accounting Research (SAJAR).

(bbb) The IRBA is a founding member of SAJAR. SAJAR publishes peer-reviewed original research papers, notes and commentaries that address issues relevant to accounting academics and professional accountants in Southern Africa.

This includes areas of interest in the study and practice in financial accounting, auditing, taxation, financial management, management accounting, finance, ethics and information systems. The IRBA has demonstrated support for SAJAR through serving on the Editorial Board and providing funding.

(bb) The funding is done for the last three years

(cc) An amount of R70 000 per annum

PFA

(b)(i) No

(ii) No

LAND BANK

In South Africa, the Land Bank (under its Corporate Social Investment portfolio) developed a programme named The Land Bank University Agricultural Chairs (LBUAC) in order to support selected Historically Disadvantaged Universities.

The aim of the programme is to:

• to promote agricultural research for sustainable development
• to provide financial assistance to agricultural research
• to provide support to university community upliftment initiatives
• to expand graduates training & strengthening research capacity in

integrated agricultural sciences

• to develop the agricultural sector and emerging farmers

The names of the universities that participate in the programme currently are:

1. University of Venda (Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness);
2. University of Limpopo (Nematology and Horticulture);
3. University of North West (Centre for Agribusiness and Entrepreneurial Skills Training); and
4. University of Fort Hare (Faculty of Science & Agriculture and Department of Agricultural Economics & Extension).

These institutions are supported, over the past 6 years, intermittently depending on the availability of finances.

The LBUAC programme commenced in 2001, over the past 15 years, Land Bank spent a total R10.185m on the programme. Through the monitoring and evaluation processes of the programme, achievements have been recorded in the areas of Research and Capacity Building, Farmer Support and Agricultural Innovation.

FAIS OMBUD

1. Not applicable
2. (i) No funding provided

(ii) No funding provided

PIC

(b)(i) and (ii) The Public Investment Corporation (PIC) does not fund any institution of research and development domestically and/or internationally.

The rest of the question falls away.

SAA

SAA does not fund including by way of discretionary funding any institution of research and development domestically and internationally.

SARS

SARS doesn’t have funded arrangements for the purposes of research and development purposes, where SARS is in need of such services these services are procured through the stipulated procurement processes.

 

SASRIA

Sasria SOC Limited has not funded any institution of research and development.

TAX OMBUD

(a) The Office of the Tax Ombud is not funding any institution of research and development (i) domestically and (ii) internationally.

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

(1)(a) National Treasury appointed a certain company on contract for the period July 2008 to November 2010.

(1)(a)(i) The following services were procured: Air travel; Accommodation; Car rental; Chauffeuring services and Venue hire.

(1)(a)(ii)	2008/09	2009/10	2010/11	Total
	R22 914 518.12	R33 675 655.41	R32 720 835.50	R89 311 009.03

(2)(a) Yes.

(2)(a)(i- iii) The department is not in a position to provide such detail.

ASB

The Accounting Standards Board has not procured any services from Travel with Flair.

CBDA

(1) (b) Co-operative Banks Development Agency uses the service provider of National Treasury for all travel services. The service provider is WingsNaledi Travel Management.

DBSA

1. (b) yes once in 2015
2. For booking accommodation
3. Total amount was for R 12,366.90
4. (a)(b) No

(i) (ii)(iii) N/A

FSB

1. (a) Not applicable

(b) No, in respect of the Financial Services Board

2. Not applicable

FIC

(1)(b) The Financial Intelligence Centre does procure services from Travel with Flair.

(1)(b)(i) Services procured include finding appropriate flights and accommodation for official travel as per Travel Policy.

(1)(b)(ii) No payments to date as a new contract with Travel with Flair commenced on 1 November 2017. Costs for upcoming payment include:

• • Hotel accommodation R16 855
  • Airline tickets R35 496
  • Travel agent’s service fee R 3 790

(2)(b) Travel with Flair has provided services to the Financial Intelligence Centre in the form of bookings and travel arrangements for official international travel as per Travel Policy.

(2)(b)(i) Official: Ms N Mtshali.

(2)(b)(ii) Travel route: Johannesburg/Seychelles/Johannesburg.

(2)(b)(iii) Amount incurred: R47,000.00 (accommodation and travel agent’s service fee)

GEPF

The GEPF does not make use of the service provider, Travel with Flair.

GPAA

(1)(b) Yes, between 2010/11 and 2015/16, the Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) procured services from Travel with Flair (i.e. Travel with Flair was the appointed service provider for all travel of GPAA officials).

(1)(b)(i) The following services with associted costs were procured from Travel with Flair for the period mentioned in response (1)(b) above:

Description	Amount (R)
Local Air Travel	19,416,396
Road Transport	1,477,135
Local Accommodation	40,294,735
Car Rental	7,430,749
Foreign Air Travel	120,948
Foreign Accommodation	71,981

(2) whether the specified company provided services related to international travel to (a) his department and/or (b) entities reporting to him; if so, (i) what is the name of each person who travelled, (ii) what was the travel route and (iii) what is the total amount that was paid for each person? NW4253E

Responses

(2)(b) Yes, between 2013/14 and 2015/16, the Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) procured services from Travel with Flair relating to international travels of GPAA officials.

(2)(b)(i),(ii),(iii) See below for names of officials travelled overseas including routes and amount.

Name of official	Route	Amount (R)
Dr Clifford Ferguson	London, UK	32,605
Dr Clifford Ferguson	London, UK	27,237
Mr Goolam Aboobaker	London, UK	71,043
Mr Jay Morar	California, USA	33,425
Dr Sefiso Khumalo	Ottawa, Canada	28,619

IRBA

1. (b)The IRBA has never procured services from Travel with Flair.

1. (b)Travel with Flair has never provided the IRBA with services related to international travel.

PFA

The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator has never made use of the services of Travel with Flair.

LAND BANK

Land Bank has not procured any services from Travel with Flair. Travel with Flair is currently not a registered vendor on the Land Bank service provider database. To date, no payments were made to Travel with Flair by Land Bank.

FAIS OMBUD

1. (a) Not applicable

(b) The FAIS Ombud has procured services from Travel with Flair. The details for the current and previous financial year are as follows:

Date	Services	Amount
June 2016	Flights and transfers for graduate trainees to attend interviews for graduate trainee programme	R58 389.29
June 2016	Flights, accommodation and transfers for annual report launch video	R10 206.94
November 2016	Flights, accommodation and transfers for graduate trainee programme to East London law school	R17 799.08
November 2016	Flights, accommodation and transfers for graduate trainee programme to Cape Town law school	R24 329.70
November 2016	Flights, accommodation and transfers for graduate trainee programme to Polokwane law school	R20 211.99
March 2017	Transport to Insurance Seminar	R1 314.10
March 2017	Transport to Credit Ombud launch	R1 434.10
June 2017	Flights and transfers for graduate trainees to attend interviews for graduate trainee programme	R16 753.98
August 2017	Flights, accommodation and transfers to Gauteng and Cape Town for annual report launch video	R21 514.70
October 2017	Flights, accommodation and transfers for attendance of FPI conference in Cape Town	R8 432.58
October 2017	Flights, accommodation and transfers for graduate trainee programme to Cape Town	R20 950.73

2. (a) Not applicable

(b) Travel with Flair did not provide any services related to international travel for the FAIS Ombud during this financial year. In the previous financial year, an order was placed with Travel with Flair for travelling to the International Ombud Schemes conference, which was held in Yerevan. This order was, however, cancelled following terror attacks at the Turkey airport, which was to be the airport where connecting flights would have been boarded.

PIC

1. The Public Investment Corporation followed a procurement process in line with its procurement policies and the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 1999) at the beginning of 2016, where after Club Travel was appointed as service provider for the PIC. During the financial year 2016/17 to date no services were procured from Travel with Flair.

2. Rest of the question falls away.

SAA

1. Travel with Flair does not appear on SAA‘s supplier system as a supplier or having been paid for any services. The heads of division and subsidiaries have also confirmed that they have not procured any services from Travel with Flair. Accordingly, SAA has not procured any services from Travel with Flair.

2. Travel with Flair has not provided services related to international travel to SAA.

3. Travel with Flair is a travel agency and as such has a retail trade agreement with SAA, which entails that they book and ticket SAA’s passengers for commission. In essence, Travel with Flair is part of SAA’s distribution channel.

SARS

SARS does not have Travel with Flair as a vendor on its system and has not contracted any services from the said entity.

SASRIA

Sasria SOC Limited have not used Travel with Flair to procure services.

TAX OMBUD

The Office of the Tax Ombud has never procured any service from Travel with Flair.

Reply:

(a)(i)	(a)(ii)	(b)
R27 763.70	R1 567.00	Pepenero Restaurant
	R1 886.70	Fatima Ashraff Caterers CC
	R24 310.00	Feedem Pitseng Pty Ltd

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

(a)(i)(ii) No, none that National Treasury is aware of, as there are no disclosures in this regard.

ASB

None of the employees of the Accounting Standards Board owns shares in or sit on the board of the firm (name and details furnished)

CBDA

No employees of the Co-operative Banks Development Agency (CBDA) (i) have ownership share in and/or (ii) sit on the board of a certain firm

DBSA

1. (b) N/A

( c) NONE

FSB

(c) None from the FSB. (i) N/A (ii) N/A

FIC

The Financial Intelligence Centre does not have ownership shares in and / or do not sit on the board of any firm

GEPF

The GEPF does not have ownership shares nor does it have representation on the Board of this firm.

GPAA

i. No employees at the GPAA have ownership shares in (b) Sasria and (c) Snow Consultants.

ii. The information is according to the 2016/2017 Department of Public Service and Administration's E-disclosure system.

CATEGORY	NAME OF EMPLOYEE	BELONG TO BOARD OF CERTAIN FIRMS	COMMITTEE	FIRM
SMS	MU MNGQIBISA	YES	Chairperson of the Advisory Board.	The Compensation Fund (Dept. of Labour)
SMS	KG SUKDEV	YES	Investment & Actuarial Committee Meeting and Board	Land Bank Life Insurance Company and Land Bank Insurance Company

IRBA

The IRBA hereby declares that:

1. We do not have ownership shares in SNOW Consultants.
2. We do not sit on the Board of SNOW Consultants.

PFA

(c)(i) No

(ii) No

LAND BANK

We are not aware of any Land Bank Group staff member with any shareholding or Board membership of Snow Consultants as per the annual declaration of interest forms submitted during December 2016/January 2017. The Land Bank Group will be conducting its annual ‘Declaration of Outside Interests’ to identify any potential conflicts of interest again in October 2017 and will be able to furnish updated information in December 2017.

FAIS OMBUD

1. N/a
2. N/a
3. No ownership or members of the board of the firm.

PIC

No PIC employees have shares in the company or serve on its board.

SAA

None of SAA employees has ownership shares in and/or sits on the board on SNOW Consultants.

SARS

No, Sasria / any entity reporting to Sasria do not have ownership shares, nor sit on the Board of Snow Consultants Incorporated.

TAX OMBUD

1. No employee of the OTO owns shares in and/or sits in the board of Snow Consultants.

Reply:

1. The Tax Administration Act has specific secrecy requirements pertaining to the confidentiality of taxpayer information and as such SARS does not discuss or release information pertaining to the tax affairs of taxpayers unless specifically allowed for by the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Tax Administration Act. The provisions of 69(2) (d) of the Tax Administration Act speaks to allowing a senior SARS Official to disclose information which is public information. The ITA34’s of any taxpayer cannot be regarded as public information as set out in the Act.

2. Due to the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Tax Administration Act, and in specific the provisions of section 69 of that Act, SARS will not discuss the validity or not of the said documents.

Reply:

1. Refer Annexure A.

2. Yes. All passengers received EUR600 in form of vouchers as per EU regulations. In addition they were accommodated in hotels and provided with meal vouchers.

3. Yes. The vouchers were handed over to the passengers in Munich.

4. Yes. All affected passengers received compensations in the form of vouchers for EUR600.

Reply:

No directives in terms of the Public Investment Corporation Act, 2004 (Act 23 of 2004) or strategic intent statement have been issued to the Board of the Public Investment Corporation in the 2017/18 financial year.

Reply:

1. Yes, members of the SA Airways (SAA) board and management did engage in correspondence with the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) during the six months ending 30 September 2017. The first correspondence between SAA and PIC was on 7 March 2017 where SAA requested a meeting with representatives of PIC Management. Thereafter, various correspondence were sent between SAA and PIC management dealing, inter alia, with the signing of non-disclosure agreements between SAA and PIC for the PIC to access information during the due diligence process. During the due diligence process there were also correspondence on matters such as risk management, financial management, environmental, social and governance matters (ESG matters), etc, between SAA and the respective PIC teams.

2. In line with its standard practices and procedures, the PIC and SAA entered into a non-disclosure agreement and therefore copies of the correspondence between SAA and PIC, cannot be made available.

Reply:

a) In total 506 staff members left the organisation since 01 January 2017.

b) In respect of each specified employee;

 (i) According to the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) act no. 14 of 2013, SARS is unable to disclose the names of the employees.

 (ii) The qualification profile of the staff that left the organisation is varied as can be seen from the table below with the top three qualification categories being School education, Diplomas and Degrees.

Type of Qualification	Count of EID
Doctorate Degrees	1
Masters Degrees	15
Honours Degrees	24
Graduate Degrees	88
Diplomas	67
Certificates	38
Programmes	5
School Education	161
No Qualification recorded	107
Grand Total	506

iii/iv/v

All jobs in SARS are allocated to specific job families. The job family denotes the type of work traditionally done in that family. This does not

represent a department or division and a specific division will have a number of people from different job families in it. Attritions per Job

Family, Average Age and years of service (YOS) are captured in the table below.

Job Family	No of Employees	Average of YOS	Average of Age
Administration & Support	52	21.37	50.58
Audit	58	17.91	44.19
Branding & Communications	2	15.00	50.00
Business Process Management	2	12.00	44.50
Corporate Real Estate	2	5.00	40.00
Customer Service	111	18.25	44.81
Customs & Excise	44	12.77	40.00
Debt Management	36	16.97	46.61
Finance	7	12.86	47.14
Governance	5	6.80	36.20
Human Resources	21	11.19	43.19
Information Management	7	6.43	40.71
Investigation	10	14.30	45.90
IT: Development	12	9.25	34.83
IT: Operations	31	5.26	34.29
IT: Technology	5	3.00	37.60
Legal	27	10.85	43.04
Procurement	5	3.60	35.60
Project Management	10	4.10	33.40
Protection	6	10.83	35.50
Quality Management	8	16.88	49.00
Relationship Management & Coordination	4	18.00	53.75
Research & Analysis	7	13.14	44.57
Revenue Management	1	9.00	40.00
Risk Management	1	27.00	53.00
Strategic Management	3	17.67	47.33
Enforcement	9	11.56	42.89
Border Control	11	13.09	38.36
Financial Accounting	4	8.75	34.00
Processing	5	28.80	52.40
Grand Total	506	14.78	43.38

vi. Although SARS request staff to indicate reasons for resigning from the organisation, employees are not compelled to provide a reason.

Below is a breakdown of the staff that left the organisation in the last 10 months and the reasons for exiting:

Resignation Reasons	Count of EID
Accepted a position at the Tax Ombud	2
Benefits	1
Career prospect	11
Contract Expired	1
Contract Expire-Short Term Contract	1
Dissatisfied with Working Environment	2
Misfit in current role	2
Other (none of the offered exit options applied)	5
Personal Reasons	85
Reason not specified (staff member chose not to offer an exit reason)	81
Recognition for work performance	2
Relocation	1
Remuneration	5
Secured better prospects	1
Working hours	1
Other Career Opportunity	103
Resume Studies	12
Contract Expire	6
Actuarial over 55 (resigned for early retirement)	3
End of Learning Contract	2
Emigrated	9
Pending Disciplinary Action	1
Dissatisfied with Supervision	1
Health Reasons	5
Dissatisfied with Location	1
Grand Total	344

Below is a summary of the attrition numbers which exclude trainee/seasonal workers.

Period	Death	Resignation	Retirement	Termination (misconduct/incapacity)	Total
Jan’17-Oct’17	39	344	83	40	506

Reply:

1. (a) The Chief Executive Officer(s) of the Land Bank, Development Bank of Southern Africa, SASRIA, South African Airways (SAA), the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), Independent Regulatory Board of Auditors (IRBA), Financial Services Board (FSB), Financial Intelligent Centre (FIC), Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA), Office of Pension Fund Adjudicator (OPFA), Cooperatives Banks Development Agency (CBDA), Financial Advisory Intermediary Services (FAIS), Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) and South African Revenue Service (SARS) are appointed on a fixed term contract.

The Head of the Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC) is currently in an acting capacity and the Chief Executive Officer for the Office of Tax Ombud (OTO) is employed on a permanent basis.

(b) The Chief Financial Officer(s) for the Land Bank, DBSA, SASRIA, PIC, SAA, IRBA, GTAC, FIC, GPAA, CBDA, FAIS, FFC, OTO and SARS are appointed on a permanent basis and the CFOs for FSB and OPFA are employed on contract basis.

2. The Chief Executive Officers details

Entity	What are their names	When were they appointed	When will the contract end
Land Bank	Mr TP Nchocho	1 January 2015	31 December 2019
DBSA	Mr P Dlamini	1 October 2017	30 September 2022
PIC	Mr D M Matjita	1 December 2014	31 December 2019
SASRIA	Mr C Masondo	16 May 2017	17 May 2022
SAA	Mr V Jarana	1 November 2017	31 October 2022
IRBA	Mr B P Agulhas	1 December 2008	31 March 2018
FSB	Mr D Tshidi	1 July 2008	Advent of the Twins Peaks
	Mr P Kekana	1 September 2015	30 August 2018
GTAC	Mr S Khan	26 January 2017	Acting no timeframe
FIC	Mr M Michelle	1 January 2017	31 December 2017
GPAA	Mr K Sukdev	1 August 2015	31 July 2020
OPFA	Ms M Lukhaimane	1 July 2013	30 June 2018
CBDA	Ms O Matshane	14 May 2012	12 May 2018
FAIS	Ms N Bam	1 April 2017	30 April 2018
FFC	Mr V Mbethe	12 September 2016	Acting no timeframe
SARS	Mr T Moyane	23 September 2014	23 September 2019

 

The Chief Financial Officer details

Entity	What are their names	When were they appointed	When will the contract end
FSB	Mr P Kekana	1 September 2015	30 August 2018

 

Reply:

Only the office of Public Protector can respond to the question above.

Reply:

The information required is not mandatory fields that suppliers have to provide when registering on the Central Supplier Database (CSD) and therefore cannot be provided..

Reply:

(1)(a)	Yes	(1)(a)(ii)	R145 168.72	(1)(a)(ii)	Air travel : R131 935.43 Daily allowance : R13 233.29 Accommodation: R Nil
(1)(b)	Yes	(1)(b)(ii)		(1)(b)(ii)
(1)(c)	No

(2) No corporate credit card is issued to the Minister

(2)(a) Not applicable

(2)(b) Not applicable

Reply:

NATIONAL TREASURY

(a –d) The National Treasury has not utilised the services of SNOW Consulting.

ASB

The Accounting Standards Board has not made use of the firm of consultants, nor have they paid them any money.

CBDA

The Co-operative Banks Development Agency has (a) (i) not in any instance and/or (ii) has not used a certain firm or consultants (SNOW Consultants), (b) no payment was made in any case, (c) no services were rendered by them and, (d) no monetary value of any tender were needed.

DBSA

1. (i) (ii) NANE
2. (c) (d) N/A

FSB

(a) (ii) The FSB has never utilized the services of Snow Consultants (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A.

FIC

The Financial Intelligence Centre has never utilized the services of Snow Consultants

GEPF

The GEPF has never made use of the services of SNOW Consultants.

GPAA

1. The Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) has never used SNOW Consultants.
2. Not applicable.
3. Not applicable.
4. Not applicable

IRBA

The IRBA hereby declares that we did not use the services of SNOW Consultants.

PFA

(a)(ii) The OPFA has never used the services of SNOW Consultants.

LAND BANK

Land Bank has not engaged the services of SNOW Consultants.

FAIS OMBUD

The FAIS Ombud has never used the firm of consultants.

PIC

The PIC has not used this firm of consultants.

The rest of the questions falls away.

SAA

SAA and its subsidiaries have never used SNOW Consultants.

SARS

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has not procured services from the Snow Consultants nor does it have the supplier registered on its database.

Sasria SOC Limited has used Snow Consultants Incorporated.SASRIA

Year 2013          R547 023.94

Year 2014          R248 805.00

Year 2015          R307 999-50

All expenses relate to interior designs for Sasria’s building during different phases

TAX OMBUD

The Office of the Tax Ombud has never used SNOW Consultants.

Reply:

Yes, a meeting was held with the Minister of Justice and officials regarding the implementation of the Financial Intelligence Amendment Act, which included a discussion on the consultative mechanisms to replace Counter Money Laundering Advisory Council. At the meeting it was agreed that an Inter-Departmental Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Forum be set up to operate initially, to improve the quality of consultation for implementation, after which we will consider how best to legislate such consultation forums.

The mandate of the Committee would be to promote discussion, collaboration and coordination between the relevant law enforcement agencies, government departments and regulatory authorities to ensure that the South African authorities are more effective in implementing both the spirit and letter of the complete legal framework against money laundering and terrorist financing. In addition, a consultative structure to facilitate engagements with accountable institutions in the private sector is also being established, with a Banking Sector AML/CFT Steering Committee already having been established. Treasury has published a consultation document to seek public comments on these new consultation mechanisms We will monitor how well these consultation forums work over the year or two, and thereafter make a decision on how best to formalize the consultation forums.

There is therefore no intention to legislate for the continuation of the CMLAC, as we want to deepen and improve our consultative mechanisms to strengthen implementation. The CMLAC played a significant role in the drafting of the initial regulations of the FIC Act when it was first enacted in 2003, but was not as effective as a forum for implementation. This was pointed out in the explanatory memo of the Amendment Bill when it was tabled in Parliament in 2015.

Reply:

a) There were 17 employees in the Ministry of Finance on 30 March 2017.

	b (i & ii) GENDER	(c) (i) POSITION	(c))(ii) SALARY LEVEL
1	Female	Assistant Administrative Secretary	10
2	Female	Administrative Secretary	11
3	Female	Appointment Secretary	12
4	Female	Registry Clerk	5
5	Female	Registry Clerk Supervisor	7
6	Female	Personal Assistant	9
7	Female	Administrative Secretary	13
8	Female	Director: Special Projects	13
1	Male	Parliamentary Officer	13
2	Male	Parliamentary Officer	11
3	Male	Director: Office of the Deputy Minister	13
4	Male	Registry Clerk	5
5	Male	Chief of Staff	14
6	Male	Special Advisor	15
7	Male	Special Advisor	16
8	Male	Strategic Projects Advisor	15
9	Male	Registry Clerk Supervisor	10

 

Reply:

a) The National Treasury is not aware of any intention to amend the mandate of the OCPO.

b) Not applicable

Reply:

1. (a) The wage bill has increased by 8.1 per cent between 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years.

Table 1: Consolidated national, provincial and social security funds1

R million	2015/16	2016/172	Per cent increase
Compensation of employees	427 995.5	462 611.2	8.1%

1 Budget Review (2017, pp 214-215)

2 Revised estimate

(b) Wage bill information for the first six months of 2017/18 shows that the wage bill has increased by 7.4 per cent compared to the first half of 2016/17.

Table 2: Consolidated national and provincial government1

R million	2016/17	2017/18	Per cent increase
Compensation of employees: first half	225,004.1	241,701.4	7.4%

1 IYM reports, excludes National Parliament

(c) Wage bill reductions amounting to R25 billion were effected in 2017/18 (R10 billion) and 2018/19 (R15 billion). Assessment of savings for 2017/18 will only be possible at the end of the financial year.

2. Preliminary indications based on 2017/18 first half compensation spend are that government is broadly on track to achieving targeted savings on compensation budgets. A few national and provincial departments are, however, showing signs of excess pressures on their compensation budgets. The National Treasury will continue monitoring implementation of compensation budgets during the current financial year.

3. The share of total budget for 2017/18 allocated to compensation of employees is 33.5 per cent.

Table 3: Consolidated national, provincial and social security funds1

R million	2017/18	Per cent of total budget
Compensation of employees	497 094.9	33.5%

1 Budget Review (2017, pp 214-215)

Reply:

The registration of trusts falls under the Department of Justice and is done by the relevant Masters of the High Court in each of the court’s divisions.

Reply:

1. (a) R10 885 524.00

(b)

Breakdown in Salary Level	2016/2017 R’ 000
3	R6,091.12
4	R27,781.18
5	R137,093.13
6	R43,697.67
7	R455,784.70
8	R789,116.74
9	R697,121.29
10	R767,210.21
11	R1,342,342.30
12	R2,293,830.11
Band A (13)	R3,169,086.49
Band B (14)	R1,028,229.11
Band C (15)	R128,139.95

These are the 2015/16 performance bonuses paid in the 2016/17FY

2. (a) R11 488 555.34

(b)

Breakdown in Salary Band	2017/2018 R’ 000
3	R5,963.73
4	R15,700.25
5	R170,505.99
6	R35,185.33
7	R508,233.90
8	R817,633.27
9	R900,931.86
10	R661,233.88
11	R1,508,511.88
12	R2,362,751.95
Band A (13)	R3,282,477.07
Band B (14)	R821,337.44
Band C (15)	R398,088.79

These are the 2016/17 performance bonuses paid in the 2017/18FY

which excludes cases that are not yet finalised

Reply:

(1)(a)(i)(ii) Yes, members of the South African Airways (SAA) board of directors and management did have meetings with the management of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) on matters relating to the SAA during the six months period ending on 30 September 2017.

(aa) (bb)(cc)(dd)(ee)

Various meetings between the PIC and SAA were held. The two key meetings were the following:

• On 23 June 2017, a meeting between the senior management teams of PIC and SAA took place at the SAA Offices in Ekhuruleni. The PIC’s Executive Head for Listed Investments, Mr Fidelis Madavo, led the PIC’s delegation. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the way forward for the PIC to conduct a detailed Due Diligence on SAA. The due diligence included risk analysis, financial analysis, ESG analysis as well as legal analysis. The following employees of the PIC were also present at the meeting:
  • Mr Paul Magula – Executive Head: Risk Management
  • Mr Ernest Nesane – Executive Head: Legal Services
  • Ms Rubeena Solomon – General Manager: Investment Support
  • Mr Leon Smit – General Manager: Fixed Income
  • Mr Lloyd Mahara – Portfolio Manager: Credit Analysis: Listed Investments
  • Mr Deon Botha – Head: Corporate Affairs
  • Ms Matseko Taukobong – ESG Manager: Listed Investments
  • Mr Kagiso Motepe – ESG Analyst: Listed Investments
  • Mr Sylvester Sebico – ESG Analyst: Listed Investments
  • Mr Wellington Masekesa – Executive Assistant to the CEO
  • Ms Sasa Fako – Legal Advisor
  • Mr Sindiso Ngqameni – Legal Graduate
  • Mr Tshifango Ndadza – Senior Market Risk Analyst.

• On 25 July 2017, a meeting took place at the PIC Offices in Pretoria. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a 5-7 year funding plan to the amount of R6 billion for SAA. The following people were in attendance:
  • Dr Daniel Matjila – CEO of PIC
  • Ms Matshepo More – CFO of PIC
  • Mr Fidelis Madavo – Executive Head of Listed Equities of PIC
  • Mr Leon Smit – General Manager: Fixed Income of PIC
  • Mr Lloyd Mahara – Portfolio Manager: Credit Analysis of PIC
  • Mr Deon Botha – Head: Corporate Affairs of PIC
  • Ms Dudu Myeni – Former Chairperson of SAA
  • Mr Musa Zwane – Former Acting CEO of SAA
  • Ms Phumeza Nhantsi – CFO of SAA

2. In line with its standard practices and procedures, the PIC and SAA entered into a non-disclosure agreement and therefore the minutes of these meetings cannot be made available. However, it can be mentioned that following the due diligence process, the transaction was submitted to the Portfolio Management Committee, the Investment Committee and the PIC Board. The transaction was not approved.

Reply:

a) No, there is no need to review the Constitution on the mandate of the SARB.

Sections 223-225 of the Constitution outline the primary object of the SARB, which is “to protect the value of the currency in the interest of balanced and sustainable economic growth in the Republic". Section 224 (2) requires regular consultation between the Bank and the Minister of Finance.

The current Constitution and legislation governing the SARB is therefore very broad, and does not constrain Government from adopting (and legislating) appropriate policies to facilitate inclusive growth and job-creation, achieve the objectives of the NDP, and reduce inequality and deliver basic services to all those residing in SA.

Whilst the debate on the role of the central bank is vibrant, both in South Africa and other countries, it is important that those calling for reviews provide the necessary research and motivation for proposing such reviews, including their understanding of the role of both fiscal and monetary policy, and what specific problems they are seeking to solve. The SARB’s monetary policy mandate cannot be separated from Government’s fiscal policy mandate and performance. Any attempt to amend these constitutional provisions without due regard for this relationship will generate unnecessary uncertainty, and impact negatively on growth and jobs.

b) The existing monetary policy framework, through flexible inflation targeting, allows for temporary deviations of inflation from the target in the event of shocks over which monetary policy has no impact. A specific tolerance level around the target would therefore not be necessary. An explicit tolerance indicator may potentially risk de-anchoring inflation expectations, and thereby constrain the SARB’s ability to respond flexibly to an inflation shock.

Reply:

Mr Matsobane was not escorted from the SARS premises following his resignation by security services.

Reply:

Question 1

1(a) The tender for the specified contract was first advertised on 16 February 2013.

1(b) A 90/10 principle was applied in accordance with the provisions of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (“PPPFA”) regulations. The requirements to be met, i.e. the evaluation criterion were follows:

CRITICAL CTRITERIA

All bidders are required to meet the following critical criteria:

• Sufficiently experienced;
• Equipped;
• Is of sufficient sound financial standing to carry out satisfactorily any contract that may be awarded pursuant to the tender;
• Must be certified for FAA and/or EASA as repair station;
• Must offer an access pool or exchange basis;
• Must bid on a minimum of 95% of the main list (Airbus / Boeing or both);
• Must bid on a minimum of 50% of the secondary list;
• Must include a proposal for reciprocal work;
• Must be a 24 hour 365 service;
• Must have an Internet Based Order and Reporting System; and
• Must meet turnaround times as specified

Price & BBBEE Evaluation Criteria:

• PRICE - 90
• BBBEE - 10

Below is a breakdown of areas measured under the 90 points on price.

Area to be measured under Price	Points
Repair Rate (flight hour)	35
Base kit value (%)	5
Loan Rate (Flight Hour)	2
No Fault found rate (%)	2
BER Rate(%)	2
AD’s Mandatory (Cost Thresholds)	5
AD’s Non-mandatory (Cost Thresholds)	3
Warranties	5
Reciprocal Work (Value per annum in %)	20
Soft Factors (Completeness of bid and responses)	1
Shipping Rate (Per Flight hour)	2
Handling / Exchange rate (see template)	18
Total points	100

1(c) Nine bids were received.

1(d) The following companies responded to the first tender:

• SR Technics
• Sabena Technics
• AJ Walters Aviation – their bid was for Boeing only not Airbus.
• Air France Industries
• Israel Aerospace Industries – Boeing only fleet
• HAECO
• AAR and SRS aviation
• Lufthansa Technics
• OEM Services – Boeing only very limited Airbus

Question 2

1. The specified tender was first advertised in February 2013 and was finally awarded in May 2016 after been advertised and retracted on only two occasions. It is important to note that in the intervening period, there were three changes in the board of directors of SAAT (the board), each with different views and strategy, which had an impact on the tender process. In the main, the reasons for multiple retractions and re-advertising were as follows:

• In light of the cash-flow challenges and the drive to significantly reduce operational costs around 2013, SAAT resolved to review its major supplier contracts. These contracts include the Component support (specified contract), logistics and Aircraft tyre supply contracts. SAAT was considering negotiating for discounts and/or taking an integrated approach to awarding the said contracts.

Management had therefore requested the board to extend the contracts and delay the RFP process to provide an opportunity for the business to align the scope of the combined services to the Long-Term Strategy (LTTS); also to consider a number of smart solutions available within the global MRO industry.

Initially, SAAT’s objective was to pursue an integrated solution to the components Support and Logistics/shipping costs in order to not only reduce costs of the individual contracts but to also derive benefits out of scale discounts through joint procurement. In addition to which, SAAT would also pursue localisation as part of the award of the Tyre Supply contract.

• Around April 2013, there were discussions about a possible merger between SAAT and SA Express MRO, and a possibility of Denel Aviation lagging behind. A turnaround strategy document was drafted for discussion. Because of this, an original extension on the Component support agreement was granted until the end of March 2014, the period, which the potential merger was envisaged to have been finalized.
• Management requested the board to allow the Supply Chain Management (SCM) team to test the market so as to understand what are the normal prices on the market for component tender. SAAT has had a contract with Air France all along, as a result the only pricing the company understood was that by Air France, which was far more expensive that what was out on the market. The cost compression initiative was already applicable in this period therefore, SCM was obligated to obtain as much savings as possible from this tender to reach their target.

The request for extension was made to the board, and SCM only offered to extend the contract with Air France after they agreed to give SAAT a discount of 400 000 USD. This amount contributed towards the Cost compression

• Furthermore the retraction was effected as a risk mitigation measure on the part of SAAT to ensure that preferred bidder is able to deliver on the contracted services.

First tender

As per responses under Question 1 above.

Second Tender

Date of issue: 29 October 2014

Closing date: 2 December 2014

Evaluation Criteria:

SIGN-OFF SHEET – RFB AND WEIGHTING CRITERIA
PROJECT:	Aircraft Component Support II
PRODUCT:	Supply of aircraft component support service
TENDER NUMBER:	SP437/14
DATE:	28 October 2014

1. Critical Criteria

Capacity to Deliver

(Incorporating: Track Record, Experience, Service/Product Supply, Equipment, Financial Standing and previous performance of bidders)

As SAAT’s service levels and reputation as a safe transport provider is dependent upon the quality of its service, it stands to reason that quality of the GOODS/Services and products utilised to provide that service, cannot be compromised. A tender shall be evaluated in terms of their capacity to deliver.

Bidders to comment on all of the requirements below:

A bid shall not be recommended for acceptance if the CFST required to make the recommendation has any doubt, based on reasonable grounds as to whether the Bidder:
	YES/NO	COMMENT
Is sufficiently experienced and equipped
Is of sufficient sound financial standing to carry out satisfactorily any contract that may be awarded pursuant to the tender
Must be certified for FAA and EASA as repair station
Must offer an access pool or exchange basis
Must bid on a minimum of 95% of the main list (Airbus/Boeing or both)
Must bid on a minimum of 50% of the secondary list
Must include a proposal for reciprocal work
Must be willing to enter into a Partnership/Joint Venture with SAAT
Must be a 24 hour, 365 days service

Further to the above, this category will be subjected to the following scrutiny:

Internet Based Order and Reporting System
	YES/NO	COMMENT
The Bidder shall reflect the ability to report the sourcing, tracking and receiving of all components through an electronic system, that can be interfaced with any of SAAT’s Electronic Inventory Management Systems

AOG Help Desk The bidder shall respond to SAAT’s request for components according to the following priorities:
	YES/NO	COMMENT
Priority	Response Time	Dispatch Time
AOG	1 hour	First available flight (same day)
CRITICAL	3 hours	Within 24 hours
NORMAL/ROUTINE	12 hours	Within 72 hours
Component Modifications Status
	YES/NO	COMMENT
The bidder shall supply components that are of the same modification status or better as stipulated in Appendix 1B

Proposals received will be evaluated in terms of the following criteria. The method used is pre-determined and is both qualitative and quantitative and in line with the PPPFA 90/10 principle.

2. FUNCTIONALITY AND PRICING TEMPLATES

The following areas will be measured in terms of Functionality Criteria:

Area to be measured under PRICE	Template	Points
Repair Rate (Flight Hour)	Pricing Template	30
Basekit Value (%)	Pricing Template	5
Loan Rate (Flight Hour)	Pricing Template	2
No Fault Found Rate (%)	Pricing Template	2
BER Rate (%)	Pricing Template	2
AD’s Mandatory (Cost Thresholds)	Pricing Template	3
AD’s Non-Mandatory (Cost Thresholds)	Pricing Template	3
Warranties	Vendor Template	5
Soft Factors (Completeness of bid and responses)	Vendor Template	1
Shipping Rate (Per Flight hour)	Pricing Template	2
Access Pool Rate (see template)	Pricing Template	15
Reciprocal Work (Value per annum in %)	Vendor Template	20
Partnership and Joint Ventures (JV’s)	Vendor Template	10
TOTAL		100

1. PRICE/BEE

Please take note that Pricing and BEE would be evaluated on 90/10 PPPFA principle

Criteria	Points allocation	Points Scored
Price	90
BEE	10
TOTAL	100

Joint Venture BEE level will be scored at this phase.

The total value of Reciprocal Work and Partnership should amount to 30% of the value of the contract, and below are the requirements to be considered.

Reciprocal Work should amount to 10% of the value of the contract, and it will be based on the following:
Description of Services	YES/NO	COMMENT
Any component overflow from the company to SAAT (based on the Aircraft types related to in the GTA).
Additional work allocated to SAAT on aircraft components or components from airlines not part of the contract GTA)

Partnership/Joint Venture should form 20% of the value of the contract, and it should include (not limited to):
Description of Services	YES/NO	COMMENT
Line Maintenance in Africa
Base Maintenance from 3rd parties (C and D checks)
Joint Procurement strategy
Provide test equipment, supply drawings to build test equipment, removal of components from contract and reduction in rates ill form part of the partnership)
Marketing
Technical Training
Sharing and placing of MBK items at different Line Stations i.e. Mauritius, London.

      

Third Tender:

Date of issue: 14 July 2015

Closing date: 28 July 2015

Alternate third Tender:

Date of issue: 30 July 2015

Closing date: 10 August 2015

Evaluation Criteria

1. Critical Criteria

​1.1 Capacity to Deliver

(Incorporating: Track Record, Experience, Service/Product Supply, Equipment, Financial Standing and previous performance of bidders)

As SAAT’s service levels and reputation as a safe transport provider is dependent upon the quality of its service, it stands to reason that quality of the GOODS/Services and products utilised to provide that service, cannot be compromised. A tender shall be evaluated in terms of their capacity to deliver.

Bidders to comment on all of the requirements below:

A bid shall not be recommended for acceptance if the CFST required to make the recommendation has any doubt, based on reasonable grounds as to whether the Bidder:
	YES/NO	COMMENT
If awarded the contract, the bidder must be able to set up, and offer services on the aircraft component immediately
Is sufficiently experienced and equipped
Is of sufficient sound financial standing to carry out satisfactorily any contract that may be awarded pursuant to the tender
Must be certified for FAA and EASA as repair station
Must offer an access pool or exchange basis
Must bid on a minimum of 95% of the main list (Airbus/Boeing or both)
Must bid on a minimum of 50% of the secondary list
Must include a proposal for reciprocal work if NIPP is applicable
Must be a 24 hour, 365 days service

Further to the above, this category will be subjected to the following scrutiny:

Internet Based Order and Reporting System
	YES/NO	COMMENT
The Bidder shall reflect the ability to report the sourcing, tracking and receiving of all components through an electronic system, that can be interfaced with any of SAAT’s Electronic Inventory Management Systems

AOG Help Desk The bidder shall respond to SAAT’s request for components according to the following priorities:
	YES/NO	COMMENT
Priority	Response Time	Dispatch Time
AOG	1 hour	First available flight(same day)
CRITICAL	3 hours	Within 24 hours
NORMAL/ ROUTINE	12 hours	Within 72 hours

Component Modifications Status
	YES/NO	COMMENT
The bidder shall supply components that are of the same or better modification status and age as stipulated in Appendix 1B

Proposals received will be evaluated in terms of the following criteria. The method used is pre-determined and is both qualitative and quantitative and in line with the PPPFA 90/10 principle.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Functionality and Pricing Templates

The following areas will be measured in terms of Functionality Criteria:

Area to be measured under PRICE	Template	Points
Repair Rate (Flight Hour)	Pricing Template	50
Basekit Value (%)	Pricing Template	10
Loan Rate (Flight Hour)	Pricing Template	2
No Fault Found Rate (%)	Pricing Template	2
BER Rate (%)	Pricing Template	2
AD’s Mandatory (Cost Thresholds)	Pricing Template	3
AD’s Non-Mandatory (Cost Thresholds)	Pricing Template	3
Warranties	Vendor Template	3
Access Pool Rate (see template)	Pricing Template	25
TOTAL		100

PRICE/BEE

Please take note that Pricing and BEE would be evaluated on 90/10 PPPFA principle

Criteria	Points allocation	Points Scored
Price	90
BEE	10
TOTAL	100

Fourth and Final Tender

Date of issue: 8 December 2015

Closing date: 19 January 2016

CRITICAL CRITERIA

Bidders to comment on all of the requirements below:

Compliance Requirements	COMPLY YES/NO
Is sufficiently experienced and equipped
Is of sufficient sound financial standing to carry out satisfactorily any contract that may be awarded pursuant to the tender
Must be certified for FAA and EASA as repair station
Must offer an access pool or exchange basis
No Fault Found Rate (20%)
BER Rate (70%)
AD’s Mandatory (Cost Thresholds set to $3 500.00)
AD’s Non-Mandatory (Cost Thresholds set to $3 500.00)
Warranties (Cession of warranties to reduce rates)
Supplier Development* - (Must be equal to 10% of the value of the contract. Bidder to include a proposal)
Reciprocal work* - (Must be equal to 10% of the value of the contract. Bidder to include a proposal)
Bidder must be willing to enter into a Partnership/Joint Venture* with SAAT equal to 10% of contract value
Must be a 24 hour, 365 days service

Further to the above, this category was subjected to the following scrutiny:

Systems Interface	COMPLY YES/NO
The Bidder shall reflect the ability to report the sourcing, tracking and receiving of all components through an electronic system, that can be interfaced with any of SAAT’s Electronic Inventory Management Systems

Components status	COMPLY YES/NO
The bidder shall supply components that are of the same modification status or better as stipulated in Appendix A

Turn-around times (TAT)	COMPLY YES/NO
Priority	Response Time	Dispatch Time
AOG	1 hour	First available flight (same day)
CRITICAL	3 hours	Within 24 hours
NORMAL/ROUTINE	12 hours	Within 72 hours

Phase 2

PRICE AND BEE EVALUATION

Pricing Evaluation	Points
Price	90
BEE	10
TOTAL	100

Take Note: None of the bidders were awarded any BEE points, as none of the ones that tendered with BEE partners furnished SAAT with a consolidated BEE certificate.

The elements below will be evaluated under the pricing category, and points allocated as indicated below based on the quoted bid price.

Area to be measured under PRICE	Template	Points
Repair Rate (Flight Hour)		50
Basekit Value (%)		15
Loan Rate (Flight Hour)		5
Access Pool Rate (see template)		30
TOTAL		100

Reciprocal Work should amount to 10% of the value of the contract, and it will be based on the following:
Any component overflow from the company to SAAT (based on the Aircraft types related to in the GTA).
Additional work allocated to SAAT on aircraft components or components from airlines not part of the contract GTA)
Any maintenance services contracted to SAAT for which SAAT has got capability

Partnership/Joint Venture (value) should form 10% of the value of the contract, and it should include (not limited) to:
Line Maintenance in Africa
Base Maintenance from 3rd parties (C and D checks)
Joint Procurement strategy
Provide test equipment, supply drawings to build test equipment, removal of components from contract and reduction in rates ill form part of the partnership)
Marketing
Technical Training
Provide an inventory management system that will/can be integrated into AMOS for SAAT
Sharing and placing of MBK items at different Line Stations i.e. Mauritius, London.

   

Supplier Development (value)– must form 10% of the contract value, and it must entail the following:

SAAT has embarked on a supplier development program with a list of nominated suppliers being approved by the SAAT Board to promote the development of our local economy. SAAT considers any mentorships, partnerships, skills transfers, knowledge transfers, assistance in developing a local company to become sustainable in an area that a local company currently does not have capability, SMME, job creation, training and development and/or any sustainable economic growth through revenues accumulated over the fulfilment period to be possible initiatives that are considered as supplier development. Other initiatives include research and development and/or technology transfer. As a result, bidders are requested to supply a proposal on how and what they would impart in terms of skills /training/technical information etc, to a local South African vendor. Bidder to indicate what value they would place on each area of development, based on the above, which they would be imparting to the local vendor.

 

Reply:

1. SARS issued a public statement about its intention to hold a press conference surrounding the SARS-KPMG Report matter on 18 September 2017 including informing the Chairpersons of the Portfolio Committee on Finance and SCOPA.

2. SARS approved the press conference which was open to the public.

3. A statement on the matter will not be issued.

Reply:

The main reason is because Foskor is one of the Industrial Development Corporations’ (IDC) subsidiaries and in direct competition with private sector companies that are not required to provide reports such as Corporate Plans and Quarterly Reports. Compliance with the PFMA reporting requirements would require introduction of additional processes at a cost to companies already in financial distress.

The second reason was to afford Foskor an opportunity to compete evenly in an open market with other private companies in terms of the pace at which they could undertake certain transactions e.g. Section 54(2) of the PFMA transactions such as acquisition and disposal of assets that require approval of the executive authority; Section (7)(2) regarding opening of bank accounts after compliance with any prescribed tendering procedures and Section 7(4) providing that the National Treasury may prescribe investment policies for public entities.

It is worth mentioning that with regards to reporting requirements, IDC was requested to submit its Corporate Plan with the consolidated financial projections of the internal subsidiaries (mini-group) and any subsidiary with a total asset value above the significance level of R500 million.

With regards to the transactions they undertake, IDC was requested to ensure that the mandate and performance of their subsidiaries are aligned with government development policies i.e. the National Development Plan (NDP), New Growth Path (NGP), and Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP).

Reply:

a) Yes, the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) Board has launched an investigation to try and determine who was behind the smear campaign against a certain person at the PIC. Once concluded, a report will be submitted to the PIC Board.

b) With regards to the forensic audit mentioned in the Media Statement of the Minister of Finance dated 6 October 2017, the PIC Board has requested a meeting with the Minister of Finance to discuss certain matters. A date for this meeting is yet to be finalised. PIC would like to be given time to conclude these engagements.

Reply:

Below is the publically available information on finalised disciplinary processes for the period April 2016 to March 2017. We are unable to supply individual’s names or firm’s names, as the Board determined per section 51(5) of the APA that publication would be in general terms due to the nature of these transgressions.

1. Cases closed by Disciplinary Hearing

Case
First Matter	On 7 June 2016, the committee postponed the matter of Mr BN. A month prior to the hearing, the practitioner resigned from the IRBA. Although the IRBA is not precluded from continuing with a disciplinary hearing, albeit the practitioner having resigned, the committee decided not to proceed on the merits but rather to postpone the hearing sine die. However, the committee ordered that should the practitioner re-apply for re-registration with the IRBA at any stage, the case will be re-enrolled for a hearing.
	(b) (iii) Charges	(b) (iii) Plea	(iv) Outcome
Second Matter On 7 and 8 June 2016 the committee finalised the matter of Mr TM.	Charge One Failure to comply with the Code; failure to comply with an order of the IRBA; failure to pay monies due to the IRBA and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.6; 2.13; 2.15 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded not guilty	Guilty
	Charge Two Failure to comply with the Code; failure to respond to correspondence from the IRBA and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.6; 2.12 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded not guilty	Guilty
	Charge Three Failure to comply with the Code; failure to respond, within a reasonable time, to correspondence from the IRBA; failure to comply with a requirement of the IRBA and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.6; 2.12; 2.13 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded not guilty	Guilty
	Charge Four Failure to comply with the Code; failure to respond, within a reasonable time, to correspondence from the IRBA; failure to comply with a requirement of the IRBA and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.6; 2.12; 2.13 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded not guilty	Guilty
	Sanction In respect of sanction, the committee ordered the immediate cancellation of the practitioner’s registration and removal of his name from the register. In addition, the committee directed that a fair summary of the charges, the findings and sentence imposed, without the name of the practitioner or the name of his firm, be published in the IRBA News.

	Charges	Plea	Outcome
Third Matter On 9 March 2017 the committee heard the matter of Mr GS.	Charge One Negligence and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.5; 2.6; 2.7 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Two Negligence and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.5; 2.6; 2.7 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Three Negligence and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.5; 2.6; 2.7 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Four Negligence and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.5; 2.6; 2.7 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Five Negligence and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.5; 2.6; 2.7 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Six Negligence and bringing the profession into disrepute (rules 2.5; 2.6; 2.7 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Seven Failure to comply with S45 of the Auditing Profession Act; failure to comply with the Code and bringing the profession into disrepute (Rules 2.1; 2.6 and 2.17 of the Rules Regarding Improper Conduct).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Sanction The practitioner was fined a total of R300 000 in respect of all seven charges, R150 000 thereof was suspended for five years on condition that the practitioner is not found guilty of any offence relating to work done, pertaining to professional services, during the period of suspension. The committee ordered the practitioner to contribute a sum of R150 000 towards the IRBA’s costs. In respect of publication, the committee ordered the IRBA to publish, in IRBA News, a summary of the facts of the case, the plea and sanction, excluding the practitioner’s name and that of his firm.

	Charges	Plea	Outcome
Fourth Matter On 9 March 2017 the committee heard and finalised the matter of Mr JV	Charge One Failure to comply with the Code (rule 2.1.20 of the old Disciplinary Rules).	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Two Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Three Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Four Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Five Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Six Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Seven Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Eight Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Nine Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Charge Ten Negligence (rule 2.1.5 of the old Disciplinary Rules)	Pleaded guilty	Guilty
	Sanction The practitioner was fined a total of R500 000 in respect of all 10 charges. The committee ordered that the imposition of the fines be postponed until such time as the practitioner is reregistered with the IRBA and the payment of the fines shall be a condition for such re-registration, if and to the extent that re-registration is sought and permitted. In respect of costs, the practitioner was ordered to contribute R50 000 towards the IRBA’s costs. The respondent’s dire financial state of affairs, and that he was no longer practising as a registered auditor, were some of the factors taken into account during sentencing. The committee ordered the IRBA to publish, in IRBA News, a summary of the facts of the case, the plea and sanction, excluding the name of the practitioner and that of his erstwhile firm.

2. Cases closed by Consent Order or Discharge

Discharge	Rule 3.5.1.1 Rule 3.5.1.2 Rule 3.5.1.3 Rule 3.5.1.4 Rule 3.5.1.5	16 matters 5 matters 2 matters 5 matters 2 matters
Consent order	Matter 1 – audit	Fine of R100 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 2 – audit	Fine of R100 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 3 – code	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 4 – audit	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 5 – companies act	Fine of R100 000 with R60 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 6 – companies act	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 7 – assurance	Fine of R100 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 8 – assurance	Fine of R25 000 with R12 500 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 9 - code	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 10 – audit	Fine of R100 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 11 – companies act	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 12 – tax act	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 13 – code	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 14 – audit	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 15 – code	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 16 – audit	Fine of R100 000, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 17 – assurance	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 18 – assurance	Fine of R60 000 with R45 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 19 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R60 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 20 – companies act	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 21 – companies act	Fine of R80 000 with R60 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 22 – audit	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 23 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 24 – audit	Fine of R100 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 25 – audit	Fine of R60 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 26 – code	Fine of R100 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 27 – audit	Fine of R50 000, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 28 - assurance	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 29 – audit	Fine of R100 000, no costs, general publication, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA
Consent order	Matter 30 – audit	Fine of R200 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 31 – code	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 32 – code	Fine of R60 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication, plus previously suspended fine of R25 000
Consent order	Matter 33 – estates act	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 34 – code	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 35 – audit	Fine of R200 000 with R60 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 36 – code	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 37 – code	Fine of R40 000 with R30 000 suspended for 3 years, R5 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 38 – companies act	Fine of R100 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 39 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 40 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R30 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 41 – audit	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 42 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 43 – audit	Fine of R180 000 with R80 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 44 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 45 – companies act	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 46 – companies act	Fine of R20 000 with R10 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 47 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 48 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 49 – companies act	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 50 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication plus previously suspended fine of R15 000, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA
Consent order	Matter 51 – audit	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA
Consent order	Matter 52 – audit	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 53 – audit	Fine of R200 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA
Consent order	Matter 54 – code	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 55 – audit	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 56 – code	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA
Consent order	Matter 57 – code	Fine of R50 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 60 – code	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA
Consent order	Matter 61 – audit	Fine of R60 000 with R30 000 suspended for 3 years, R10 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 62 – audit	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, R10 000 costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 63 – assurance	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 64 – estate agency affairs act	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 65 – assurance	Fine of R100 000 with R30 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 66 – companies act	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 67 – code	Fine of R80 000 with R30 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 68 – audit	Fine of R120 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 69 – audit	Fine of R60 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 70 – audit	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 71 – audit	Fine of R150 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 72 – audit	Fine of R150 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 73 – audit	Fine of R100 000 with R50 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 74 – audit	Fine of R100 000 with R30 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 75 – code	Fine of R50 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 76 – companies act	Fine of R40 000 with R20 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 77– audit	Fine of R50 000 with R25 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 78 – code	Fine of R80 000 with R40 000 suspended for 3 years, no costs, general publication
Consent order	Matter 79 – code	Fine of R100 000, no costs, general publication, with full amount postponed until such time that respondent re-registers with the IRBA

  

Reply:

1. Nil
2. Nil

Reply:

1. No tender was advertised, therefore, parts (a) to (f) of the question are not applicable. Ms Thomas was contracted under the single source rules in terms of Supply Chain Management guidelines[1].

2. The National Treasury only has the capacity to undertake some aspects of such study but often for once-off projects that are not planned for, such research would take officials away from other critical work. Furthermore, it was also important to secure the services of an independent expert rather than rely on the JSE or other active stakeholders more directly involved in the ownership debate. This paper is merely the start of a research process on this matter and the National Treasury is in the process of inviting local researchers to peer review the work of Ms Thomas, as well as similar papers available on the nature of ownership of listed companies in South Africa, so as to provide a credible basis for supporting the transformation debate in South Africa.

Supply Chain Management: A guide to Accounting Officers, 2011 ↑

Reply:

SAA is not in a position to make the details requested available, as they are confidential and involve third parties.

Reply:

National Treasury conducted preliminary analysis on the costs and economic impact of a nuclear build on the fiscus and the economy in 2015. This was based on the 2013 pre-feasibility study undertaken by the Department of Energy to procure and build 9.6GW of nuclear generated energy, as per the 2010 Integrated Resource Plan.

With limited information available in the pre-feasibility study, the analysis show that a 9.6GW nuclear programme would have significant implications for national income, South Africa’s total debt burden, international financial position, the balance of payments, for taxpayers and electricity consumers who will bear the full costs of the programme.

The deteriorating fiscal position and increasing fiscal risks, as outlined in the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement makes it harder to finance and/or guarantee a programme of this nature. An accurate assessment of the affordability of the nuclear new build programme needs to be based on a full socio economic cost benefit analysis, which shows the price path, affordability to households, implications for inflation and national income.