Questions and Replies
24 November 2017 - NW2986
Lees, Mr RA to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Have any members of the (a) SA Airways (SAA) (i) board of directors and/or (ii) management and/or (b) National Treasury met with any persons associated with the Public Investment Corporation and/or the Government Employees Pension Fund on matters relating to SAA during the six months ending on 30 September 2017; if so, what are the details of each meeting in terms of the (aa) dates of meetings, (bb) venues where meetings took place, (cc) purpose, agenda and outcomes or agreements of each meeting, (dd) copies of all documents presented at the meetings and (ee) details of persons present at the meetings including but not limited to, full names and who or what entity each person was representing. (2) whether he will furnish Mr R A Lees with copies of the minutes of each meeting; if not, why not; if so, by what date?
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.
24 November 2017 - NW2911
Kwankwa, Mr NL to ask the Minister of Finance
Whether, pursuant to his statement that any recommendation about the possibility of extending or broadening the mandate of the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) should be brought to his attention in line with his mandate as the Minister of Finance and in light of the need to ensure better alignment of monetary and fiscal policy in the country as a strategy to unlock job-creating growth, the Government has considered the (a) need to broaden the mandate of the SARB to ensure that it also has a socio-economic development objective and (b) possibility of introducing a 1 percentage point tolerance interval over and above the upper band of the 3-6% inflation target in order to mitigate against central bank overreaction in times of sluggish growth or when the economy is in recession?
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.
24 November 2017 - NW3616
Mkhaliphi, Ms HO to ask the Minister of Home Affairs
Whether (a) her department and/or (b) any entity reporting to her own land; if so, in each case, (i) where is each plot of land located, (ii) what is the size of each specified plot and (iii) what is each plot currently being used for?
Reply:
The Department and entities responded as follows:
(a) Department of Home Affairs
The Department of Home Affairs does not own any land.
(i)-(iii) Not applicable.
(b) Government Printing Works (GPW)
The Government Printing Works (GPW) owns Erf 3265:
- Situated in Pretoria on the corner of Visagie and Schubart street.
- Size is 2552 square meters.
- The GPW is in the process of refurbishing this building into administration office space to be used by the GPW.
(b) Electoral Commission
The Electoral Commission does not own any land
(i)-(iii) Not applicable.
24 November 2017 - NW2433
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
Whether a certain person (Mr Matsobane Matlwa (CFO)) was escorted off the SA Revenue Services (SARS) premises by the security personnel following the resignation and/or termination of services; if not, why not; if so, (a) why was it necessary to have the specified person escorted off the SARS premises by security personnel, (b) what are the details of the security personnel that escorted the specified person off the SARS premises and (c) are the security personnel that escorted the specified person off the SARS premises normally assigned to ensure the personal security and well-being of the SARS Commissioner?
Reply:
Mr Matsobane was not escorted from the SARS premises following his resignation by security services.
24 November 2017 - NW3041
Shivambu, Mr F to ask the Minister of Finance
(a) What is the total number of trust funds that have been registered since 1 January 2003, (b) how many of those trust funds are compliant to the black economic empowerment provisions and (c) what are their details?
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.
24 November 2017 - NW3660
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
Whether (a) an investigation has been launched to determine who was behind the smear campaign that resulted in certain allegations against a certain person that were later found to be baseless and/or (b) any forensic investigations have been launched into any concerns of irregularities; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?
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.
24 November 2017 - NW3151
Madisha, Mr WM to ask the Minister of Finance
Whether, in view of the important role that the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) plays in the Government’s procurement processes, including ensuring value for money, combating corruption and ensuring integrity in the Government’s procurement processes and systems and notwithstanding the general concern that he and / or the Treasury intends to change the mandate of the OCPO to the detriment of good, clean and corrupt-free governance, he and/or the Treasury does intend to amend the mandate of the OCPO; if so, (a) what aspects of the mandate does he intend to amend and (b) for what reasons?
Reply:
a) The National Treasury is not aware of any intention to amend the mandate of the OCPO.
b) Not applicable
24 November 2017 - NW3517
Waters, Mr M to ask the Minister of Home Affairs
What number of foreign nationals in 2016 (a) entered South Africa on (i) visitor visas and/or (ii) holiday visas, (b) departed on or before the date on which their visas expired and (c) of each nationality (i) did not depart and (ii) applied for asylum; (2) what (a) plans does her department have in place to find the foreign nationals who did not leave the country and (b) what steps have been taken against the specified persons; (3) what (a) procedures and/or (b) programmes does her department have in place to ensure that visitors depart when their visas expire and (c) is the success rate of the specified procedures and/or programmes in each case?
Reply:
(1)(a)(i-ii) 15,256,170 (total recorded movements for traveller arrivals in 2016 on visitors and /or holiday visas.
(1)(b) 14,988,933 (total recorded movements for traveller departures in 2016 on visitors visas.
(1)(c)(i) The top five nationalities who’s movements indicate they have not yet departed the RSA are:
-
-
-
-
- Zimbabwe: 210,067
- Mozambique: 47,909
- Malawi: 44,818
- Lesotho: 36,244
- Nigeria: 5,509
-
-
-
(1)(c)(ii) The total number of asylum applications for 2016 was: 35,377
The top five nationalities that applied for asylum during 2016 are:
- Zimbabwe: 7,964
- DRC: 5,293
- Ethiopia: 4,754
- Nigeria: 3,276
- Bangladesh: 2 834
(2)(a) The Inspectorate Unit of the department is tasked with tracing persons who remain the country illegally. They conduct regular inspections of places of employment and other institutions. They also undertake tracing projects to locate persons who have overstayed in the country.
(2)(b) Such persons are either charged criminally or deported from South Africa.
(3)(a-b) The department does not allow such persons to apply for change of status in the country. Travellers who overstay the number of allocated days are declared undesirable for a period of 12 months or up to a maximum of a 5 year prohibition depending on the number of days overstayed in terms of s30(1)(h) of the Immigration Act. The determination of the sanction is derived from the Enhanced Movement Control System (EMCS).
In terms of the prohibition, a traveller cannot under any circumstances re-enter the country unless an appeal for upliftment of the sanction is considered and accepted by the department.
(3)(c) For the period 1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017 a total of 39,894 persons were declared undesirable. Due to the department only collating overstay data from 1 April 2016, it is not possible to provide a year-on-year trend analysis. For the period in question the most common reasons cited for overstaying are based on medical grounds or applicants awaiting temporary residence visa extensions.
24 November 2017 - NW3659
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(a) How many disciplinary processes did the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors institute against auditors in the 2016-17 financial year and (b) what are the details of the (i) name of each person charged, (ii) name of the auditing firm that employed each person, (iii) disciplinary charges and (iv) outcome of the disciplinary process in each case?
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 |
24 November 2017 - NW3266
Wilson, Ms ER to ask the Minister of Social Development
(1)With reference to her replies to questions 2018 and 2019 on 9 October 2017, regarding the Mikondzo events which were managed by Azande Consulting and Vee El that were held in each province, what is the breakdown of the amounts in terms of (a) VIP transport and general transport, (b) accommodation, (c) catering, (d) venue hire, (e) equipment hire, (f) sound equipment hire, (g) management fees; (2) (a)(i) how many people were accommodated in respect of each event and (ii) what is the name of each person who was accommodated and (b) what is the name of each hotel that was booked to accommodate the specified persons?
Reply:
1. A total amount of R 80 696 163,18 was paid to Azande and Vee-El for Mikondzo events held in the 2016/17 financial year. This amount is broken down as follows:
a) VIP transport and general transport: Nothing was spent on VIP transport. An amount of R5 662 500,98 was spent on general transport
b) Accommodation: No amount was paid to Azande or Vee-El for accommodation for Mikondzo. All accommodation costs are borne directly by SASSA as it is only officials who are accommodated, in line with the prevailing policies. A total amount of R1 067 165,94 was paid for accommodation by SASSA for attendance at Mikondzo events for the 2016/17 financial year.
c) Catering: A total amount of R11 460 130,37 was paid for catering.
d) Venue hire: The costs for this item includes amounts paid for hiring of marquees, flooring, décor, chairs, tables, set-up costs and safety certificates) The total amount paid was R31 535 689,51
e) Equipment hire: No amounts were spent on equipment hire.
f) Sound equipment hire: An amount of R8 084 172,95 was paid for sound equipment hire.
g) Management fees: A total amount of R11 400 was paid for management fees.
h) Other: A total of R23 942 269,36 was paid to the contractors for other direct costs, including security services, procurement of promotional items and other services not indicated above.
2. Officials attending Mikondzo events include representatives from Head Office, Provincial Offices as well as District and Local Offices as well as officials from National and Provincial DSD. Not all of the staff need to be accommodated, as the majority are staff who normally work in the area where the Mikondzo takes place.
23 November 2017 - NW3541
Steenkamp, Ms J to ask the Minister of Transport
What (a) infrastructural damage has been caused by the natural disaster in October 2017 to the infrastructure of his department and the entities reporting to him, (b) is the total cost of the damage, (c) is being done to replace and/or repair the damaged infrastructure and (d) measures have been put in place in the interim to ensure users of the damaged infrastructure are not disavantaged?
Reply:
Department
- No damage
- Not applicable
- Not applicable
- Not applicable
Air Traffic and Navigation Services SOC Limited (ATNS)
- No damage
- N/a
- N/a
- N/a
Airport Company South Africa (ACSA)
Tabulated below is detailed and estimated cost of damage to our infrastructure during the recent adverse weather.
ORTIA |
CTIA |
KSIA |
Regional |
|
|
|
|
(b) Estimated cost of repair/replace/expert inspection and recertification/emergency procurement:
R7, 5million
(c) EAM Division at ACSA with repairs through various service providers, this will also entail condition assert of the integrity of structure and buildings.
(d) Airport Operations back to normal with affected areas isolated/ cordoned off public
South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)
SACAA had no infrastructural damage caused by the natural disaster in October 2017.
Cross-Border Road Transport Agency
(a) The Cross-Border Road Transport Agency has not had any infrastructural damage in October 2017 due to natural disaster.
(b) – (d) Not applicable
Road Accident Fund
(a) No infrastructural damage has been caused by the natural disaster in October 2017 to the infrastructure of the Road Accident Fund, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are therefore not applicable
Road Traffic Infringement Agency
- None
- Not Applicable
- Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Road Traffic Management Corporation
(a) No infrastructural damage has been caused by the natural disaster in October 2017 to the infrastructure of the Road Accident Fund, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are therefore not applicable
South African National Roads Agency Limited
- Kwazulu Natal: The visible damages caused to SANRAL road infrastructure during the recent October 2017 floods/storm in KZN are as follows:
- Road signs were blown away,
- Box and pipe Culverts and associated outlets structures were damaged,
- Isolated erosion of road embankment, and
- Damage to storm water channels.
Latent damages to the section of the road that was submerged under water during the storm is not possible to quantify at this early stage.Kwazulu Natal: The quantified visible damage is estimated at R7 470 800.00. This figure is an estimate and the final accurate cost will be known once all the repairs are complete.
- Kwazulu Natal: Cleaning up of debris on top of structures has been completed and currently still in progress with cleaning of debris underneath structures. The extensive repairs required on culverts and embankments has been assessed for safety by Professional Engineers and was found not to pose any immediate danger or disadvantage to users. The procurement process to repair these structures has commenced as per National Treasury regulations.
Gauteng: SANRAL has received the detailed independent evaluation report with regard to the flooding that occurred on N12 and N3 on 9th November 2016. The procurement processes to implement the recommend major remedial measures has commenced as per National Treasury regulations.
- Kwazulu Natal: As mentioned above, the damaged infrastructure was assessed by Professional Engineers and confirmed that it poses no immediate danger nor disadvantage to the users. Currently no SANRAL road or structure is still closed for users.
Gauteng: SANRAL is busy on-site with the implementing of the N12 minor remedial measures as was recommend by the independent evaluation report.
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)
a) The storm of 10 October 2017 caused significant damage to the PRASA infrastructure assets in the region. See collage below of some affected areas.