Reply:

The information has been requested from the Limpopo Department Education and will be provided as a soon as it is received.

Reply:

The following information was submitted by the Public Investment Corporation:

1. There were no investments made outside the mandate. However, there have been some technical breaches as is normal in the ordinary course of asset management business. These technical breaches are as a result of various factors such as changes during portfolio transitioning periods, market movements and currency fluctuations. These technical breaches are recognised by the mandate signed with the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).

2. All technical breaches are reported to the GEPF in accordance with the mandate.

Reply:

This information is provided by the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

1. No. Mr Lebelo was not authorised by SARS to send a letter to the Business Day which was published on 28 November 2016 entitled “Gangster Ratings Agencies”.

2. No, SARS will not be taking any disciplinary action against Mr Lebelo as he wrote to the Business Day in his private and personal capacity.

3. No.

As far as the Ministry is concerned:

(a) Mr Lebelo, as a senior and influential manager in SARS, should not be commenting on a sensitive and serious matter such as ratings in the public domain;

(b) Mr Lebelo’s attack on the ruling party, the ANC, is both from a point of ignorance and unwarranted;

(c) He displays a complete lack of understanding of the role of borrowing money both locally and from foreign lenders in helping to finance our social programmes for the poor. It is the very same poor people and the vulnerable middle class South Africans, the vast majority of whom are black, who will be affected by rising interest rates and prices should the South African sovereign lose its investment grading.

(d) Finally, his letter to the media indicates clearly that he writes in two capacities – one of which is “Group Executive of Employment Relations, SARS”.

(e) Surely, he cannot be allowed to attack the very government that pays his salary on a matter that is of importance to all South African’s – except those who pursue an ignominious agenda against the national interest – with impunity?

(f) The SARS management must account for their lack of action in this matter.

Reply:

This information was provided by the South African Revenue Service (SARS). The Ministry of Finance cannot verify its accuracy.

1. No, SARS as an institution has not established a new anti-corruption and security unit. Currently there is no plan to establish such a unit.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable

(c) (i) Not applicable

(c) (ii) Not applicable

(d) (i) Not applicable

(d) (ii) Not applicable

(2) (a) Not applicable

(b) Not applicable

Reply:

(1)(a) The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) has been established by the banks in South Africa specifically to assist the banking industry in combating organised bank-related crimes. SABRIC consistently releases information on different types of criminal activity, including cyber-crime, to assist customers to be more vigilant. Banks themselves have in place sophisticated systems to detect and prevent fraudulent access to customer accounts. Internationally, the issue of technological innovations in the financial sector, and the risks that it can bring from a cybercrime perspective, is a major focus area, led by international regulators in the Financial Stability Board and Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.

(1)(b)(i), (ii) The current legal basis for financial consumer protection is in terms of generic consumer protection legislation. However, it is important to note that Parliament is currently processing the Financial Sector Regulation Bill, which places a strong emphasis on market conduct regulation and the fair treatment of customers in the financial sector. The Bill creates a Financial Sector Conduct Authority, and will result in the introduction of new regulation and standards that aim to better protect financial sector customers.

Currently, banks are required to comply with the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, which provides for the rights of consumers to be protected against, for example false, misleading or deceptive representations (section 41) and fraudulent schemes and offers (section 42).

Banks are also required to ensure continued compliance with legislation such as the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001, the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 and the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004. Banks are specifically required to register with the Financial Intelligence Centre in terms of section 43B of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act. Sections 21 to 45F of that Act address the control measures which banks must implement to combat money-laundering activities and prevent the financing of terrorist and related activities.

Regulation 50 of the Regulations made under section 90 of the Banks Act 94 of 1990, states that a bank must implement and maintain robust structures, policies, processes and procedures to guard against the bank being used for purposes of financial crime such as fraud, financing of terrorist activities and money laundering.

In terms of the Regulation 50, banks are required to facilitate co-operation with relevant law-enforcement agencies, identify customers, recognise suspicious customers and transactions, maintain high ethical standards in all business transactions, provide adequate training and guidance to staff, maintain records of transactions, report suspicious customers and transactions and provide a clear audit trail.

(2) The manner in which a bank mitigates its risk is not prescribed per type of risk (e.g. fraud and financial crime risks) by the Regulator. However, Regulations 33 and 34 of the Banks Act do require a robust enterprise risk management framework for a bank, which includes operational risk, such as fraud and financial crime. There is an obligation on banks to hold capital for operational risk. Banks are allowed to take out insurance against this risk, but this does not influence the regulatory capital requirement.

(3) The manner in which a bank compensates a client depends on the bank’s internal policies and are generally assessed on a case-by-case basis. Clients that are not satisfied with the services of their bank in relation to such compensation decisions can approach the Ombudsman for Banking Services. The majority of retail banks in South Africa are members of the Ombudsman for Banking Services. Going forward, it is worthwhile to note again that the conduct of business of retail banks, including its fair treatment of customers, will be regulated by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority when the Financial Sector Regulation Bill is enacted.

Reply:

1. SAA has granted the National Treasury permission to review contracts.

2. The National Treasury requested the following 7 contracts on the 01st November 2016, currently received documentation for 3 contracts.

No	Names (a )	Scope (b)	Estimated values (c)	Has reviewed (i)	Is reviewing (ii)	Pending approval by the SAA Board (iii)
1.	Security	X-Ray Machine	R37 m
2.	Marketing & Media	Global Advertising	R90 m
3.	Ground handling	Washington	R 5 169 710
4.	Crew Transport	Crew Transport at ORTIA, Durban and Cape Town	R21 m			Awaiting documents
5.	Inflight Services	Wines	R20 m			Awaiting documents
6.	Inflight Services	Catering in Hong Kong	R47 m			Awaiting documents
7.	Inflight Services	Cosmetics and Amenity kits	R105 m			Awaiting documents

3. The above is consistent with the approach of the CPO to, from time to time, review certain tenders above the value of R10m in various government entities to ensure that there was ‘value for money’ obtained by government.

Reply:

The Registrar of Banks at the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), in terms of the Banks Act, 1990 (Act No. 94 of 1990), is the principal regulatory authority responsible for prudential supervision of banks i.e. protecting depositor funds. Currently there are sixteen registered banks in South Africa. The list is available at:

http://www.resbank.co.za/RegulationAndSupervision/BankSupervision/Pages/SouthAfricanRegisteredBanksAndRepresentativeOffices.aspx.)

The Bank Supervision Department of the SARB receives risk data, as opposed to product information, for the execution of its mandate. This is published in the form of BA returns on the SARB website.

The information required in terms of this question is not part of the information which is received from the banks. We therefore suggest that the Honourable Member should refer this question to the Minister of Trade and Industry, as the National Credit Regulator (NCR) is the competent authority regulating retail lending by registered banks and all other retail lenders. The NCR collects data on specific aspects of retail credit, including data on home loans, and is also responsible for determination of the national norms and standards regarding consumer protection (section 18 of the National Credit Act).

Reply:

The replies below are based on relevant information provided by the Financial Services Board (FSB). Much of the information requested is also available in the annual reports of the FSB, and available on its website. :

(1) No staff member of the National Treasury or the South African Reserve Bank is involved in the management of the Financial Services Board (FSB). I am surprised that the Honourable Member is posing this question, but perhaps the Honourable Member is confusing the role of the Board of the FSB and its Executive Committee. The Board of the FSB is responsible for goverance, whilst its Executive Committee is responsible for management and operational issues, in line with the Financial Service Board Act No 97 of 1990. The Board is comprised of 11 non-executive members, including two National Treasury officials and one South African Reserve Bank official – none of whom is involved in the management of the FSB. The Executive Committee includes as its members, the Registrar and Deputy Registrars, who are directly responsible for supervising various supervisory activities like long- and short-term insurance, retirement funds, collective investment schemes, financial advice and intermediary services providers and financial market infrastructure.

(2) It is not clear what the Honourable Member is requesting, but the FSB does not believe it has driven any person with a valid Financial Service Provider (FSP) licence out of the insurance industry, as long as they comply with the regulatory requirements.

(3) The Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (“the FAIS Act”), came into operation on 01 September 2004 amid uncertainty amongst providers of financial services about;

1. the need to be an authorised FSP, and
2. the appropriate structuring of individual financial services business operations in order to meet the requirements of the Act.

At the time, some of the larger entities opted for multiple licences and thus ring-fenced different divisions of their businesses, according to various factors including line of business, province or district. After the implementation of the legislation, many authorised FSPs, opted to lapse their multiple FSP authorisations and consolidated the various financial services businesses into a single FSP.

Certain FSPs voluntarily cancelled their licences and operated as juristic representatives of other authorised FSPs. Others realised that their business did not fall within FAIS regulated activities, which led to the lapsing of their licences and some FSPs whose licences were withdrawn because of non-compliance (other than non-compliance with honesty and integrity requirements), with the FAIS Act, re-entered the industry as representatives of authorised FSPs. The FSPs whose licenses were withdrawn for contraventions due to lack of the character qualities of honesty and integrity, were barred from entering the financial services industry for a stipulated period and also referred to the prosecuting authorities.

Various exemptions have been granted to FSPs and representatives to allow for the progressive realisation of compliance by them with all the requirements of the FAIS Act. In addition, many exemptions have been granted on the basis of the principle that regulatory requirements must be proportionate to the risks the requirements are meant to mitigate, the nature, scale and complexity of the business of the FSP and the cost it imposes on the FSPs whilst at the same time ensuring that the exemptions do not diminish the protection afforded to clients under the FAIS Act.

The number of authorised FSP’s has grown from 5 033 in 2005 to 10 774 as at 11 November 2016.

The requested numbers since September 2004, are as follows

• Declined licences: 2224
• Withdrawn licences: 4451
• Voluntary lapses: 6923

Since the Act came into operation, the number of juristic persons as representatives of FSPs has increased significantly from 173 in 2005 to 3 755 in 2015, thus a significant number of the aforementioned licences that had been withdrawn or lapsed, subsequently became juristic representatives of other FSPs and were not lost to the market.

It should also be noted that certain individuals who were authorised as sole proprietors but whose authorisation was subsequently withdrawn for non-compliance or they have voluntarily lapsed their licenses, re-entered the industry as representatives of other authorised FSPs.

It has been noted that after the self-correction and stabilisation of the market over time, continuous growth in the number of FSP’s has taken place. This trend is also reflected in the number of natural persons registered.

Statistics in terms of race or colour are not recorded by the FSB.

(4) The National Treasury is not involved in the licensing or supervision of financial insitutions, and this is done by the FSB itself. Board Notice 113 of 2015 called for comments on the proposed fit and proper requirements to be prescribed under the Long-term Insurance Act No. 52 of 1998 and the Short-term Insurance Act No. 53 of 1998 (“the Acts”) pursuant to the definition of “fit and proper” in sections 1 of the Acts. The final fit and proper requirements were prescribed in Board Notice 158 of 2015. The board notices and other legislation administered by the Financial Services Board are available on the website of the Financial Services Board (www.fsb.co.za).

Due to the nature of insurance business, it is important that significant owners, directors, managing executives, public officers, auditors and statutory actuaries are fit and proper. The fit and proper requirements are intended to reduce the risk of insurer failure as a result of incompetent, reckless or improper risk management by responsible persons. In addition, these requirements are consistent and compatible with international standards and promote confidence in insurers amongst policyholders, and the public generally. Recent South African and international experience has emphasised the importance of closer supervisory scrutiny of the conduct of individuals in positions of responsibility. In the case of insurers, this additional scrutiny is necessary for the Registrar of Long-term/Short-term Insurance to ensure the on-going safety and stability of insurers and to reduce the risk of loss to policyholders due to mismanagement or misconduct in insurance companies.

The requirements set out in Board Notice 158 of 2015 will affect all persons to whom any of the criteria apply. The Registrar, in assessing whether a person is fit and proper must have due regard to, in respect of directors, managing executives, public officers, auditors and statutory actuaries –

(a) the seriousness of, and surrounding circumstances resulting in, a person not meeting the requirements;

(b) the relevance of the failure by a person to meet the specific criteria to the duties that are or are to be performed and the responsibilities that are or are to be assumed by that person; and

(c) the passage of time since the failure by a person to meet the specific criteria.

In respect of significant owners the Registrar, in addition to (a) to (c) above, must have due regard to –

(a) the nature and scope of the significant owner’s business; and

(b) the structure of any group that the insurer is part of, if applicable.

The board of directors of an insurer may also express the view that a person is fit and proper despite the fact that one of the criteria specified in BN 158 of 2015 is not met. The insurer must then, when notifying the Registrar of the appointment of such a person, declare that one of the criteria is not met and motivate why the board, despite this, is of the opinion that the person is fit and proper. The motivation should address the matters that the Registrar will have regard to in assessing the fit and properness of a person (i.e. seriousness, relevance and passage of time). The Registrar, when considering the information provided, must then apply his mind and inform the board of the applicant if he objects to the appointment or not.

Given the foregoing it is not possible to estimate the total number of persons who have been or will be adversely affected by the Board Notice as insurers in appointing directors, managing executives, public officers, auditors and statutory actuaries are expected to consider whether any of the disqualifications apply to such persons. Also, potential significant owners will likely consider these requirements when deciding to become a significant owner of an insurer.

(5) (a): Yes, the various Registrars of the FSB may make subordinate legislation that is binding on regulated entities. This includes codes of conduct mandated in the primary legislation. Such subordinate legislation prescribes a variety of prudential and other requirements regarding the conduct and operational ability of financial institutions and services providers, and is a legitimate executive instrument to effectively implement the principles and policies contained in the principal legislation enacted by Parliament.

(b) (i): Yes, penalties may be imposed. The Enforcement Committee of the Financial Services Board established under the Financial Services Board Act which consists of external persons with the necessary expertise imposes all monetary penalties with regard to material contraventions.

This Committee is chaired by a retired judge. The particular enabling legislation makes provision for the proper protection of the rights of respondents, including the right of a reply (audi alterim partem), and the right to legal representation. The onus is on the FSB (the relevant Registrar) to prove that the legislation has been contravened.

In addition a respondent may take the Committee on appeal to the High Court of South Africa. The proceeds of the penalties imposed may not be utilised for operational expenses, but are reserved for projects relating to consumer education or protection of the public.

(b) (ii): The Financial Services Board Act, is also available on the website of the Financial Services Board.

The FSB ensures compliance with the legislation administered by it, which is aimed primarily at protecting the investments, savings and retirement funds of the public and may include monetary penalties.

In addition to the Enforcement Committee, the Registrar has the authority to impose penalties for minor non-compliances, e.g. late submissions of prescribed returns. Such penalties are provided for in the legislation relevant to the different industries.

When the “Twin Peaks” legislation is passed by Parliament and signed into law by the President, the “market conduct authority” will be constituted and citizens can be assured of even belter regulation of market conduct.

Reply:

(a)

• The debt owed by ZESA to Eskom is R443 million as at 2 December 2016.
• The financial guarantee issued by ZESA in favour of Eskom amounts to R500 million.
• Consequently, there is no current financial exposure to Eskom.
• Eskom is currently looking at increasing the financial guarantee to cover future power purchases.

(b)

Additional arrangements are as follows:

• There is ongoing contact between Eskom and ZESA leadership to monitor the payments
• There is a guarantee in place to cover the amount owed.
• ZESA is putting in place mechanisms to address the foreign currency reserves challenge of the central bank so that they are able to meet their ongoing payment obligation.
• ZESA has recently made a number of substantial payments for example during November up to 1 December they have paid R198.2 million.

Reply:

(1) Grievances 2014:

(a) Number of grievances lodged by staff members: 07

(b) Nature and trend: placement, MEM, Pers Assess, Previous Grievance, Promotion, Acting Allowance

(c) (i) Resolved: 05

(ii) Unresolved: 02

(2) Grievances 2015:

(a) Number of grievances lodged by staff members: 03

(b) Nature and trend: Promotion and housing.

(c) (i) Resolved: 03

(ii) Unresolved: 00

(3) Grievances 2016:

(a) Number of grievances lodged by staff members: 02

(b) Nature and trend: Promotion and Performance Assessment

(c) (i) Resolved: 00

(ii) Unresolved: 02

Reply:

Yes - 10926244PE Staff Sergeant K.C. Mbulawa – Mashalaba.(20 January 2011 to 31 October 2016)

(a) The ASB Western Cape had to await the outcome as it was a civilian court case which only took place on 04 April 2012.

(b) (b)(i) The member’s remuneration over the period 20 January 2011 to 31 October 2016 was: R 1 205 511 (Annual Bonus included).

         (ii) Nil.

(c) The member was administratively discharged wef 31 October 2016.

(d) (i) Her work was distributed among her colleagues.

     (ii) Nil.

Reply:

1. (a) The number of burglary incidents since 01 January 2014 is 23.

  (b) The burglaries occurred within the base on different dates.

   (c) The outcome of the investigation conducted:

    Theft of oil and negligence: 02 members were charged.

     The following are under investigation:

      - Theft of vehicle parts

      - Copper theft

      - Theft of Cannon camera

     - Breaking of window

    - Theft of toolbox

    - Theft of batteries

2. The military police is still investigating the cases and to date no evidence of collusion between staff and the criminals has been discovered.

3. (a) and (b) It must be noted that some of the members have been suspect in the investigation, some charged and some are the subject for investigation. Therefore our guards have done whatever they could in combating the burglary incidents. The arming and disarming of soldiers is not for public.

4. The total number of guards and the routine is not for public. The security of the military base is determined by the Guard Commander on duty after going through an analytical process regarding threats in the base.

5. Yes, our Military Bases comply with military security requirements. In terms of the National Key Point legislation, SAPS is tasked as the protecting authority and will be in a position to provide what is and what isn’t a key point.

Reply:

(1) (a) and (b) The names and ranks for uniformed members of the SANDF who received performance bonuses cannot be provided as it might compromise individual’s confidentiality and this also includes the amount received in each case.

Total number of members who received bonuses 2013 – 2015: 305

(2) Yes, there are portfolios of evidence and motivations, by the line superiors to award bonuses to the specified persons and it is actually contained in each member’s PMDS Booklet, as follows:

• 1. Each individual score per KRA and GAF is motivated.

• 1. Each superior has to have at least two compulsory interviews with his/her member, in order to highlight good or bad performances.

• 1. Superiors also have the opportunity throughout the year of assessment to have performance related interviews with members, which can be captured in the PMDS Booklet.

(3) No, these PMDS booklets are not open for scrutiny by any persons other than the specific individual, the immediate supervisor, the Service Centre Manager, the Personnel Officer, members of the PMDS Moderating Board and the Officer Commanding. These PMDS Booklets are kept in filing cabinets in the office of the Warrant Officer in charge of PMDS Administration. These booklets can only be accessed by means of authority given by higher HQ via the Officer Commanding.

(4) No, Col M.R. Mongo did not receive a bonus in each of the specified financial years. He only received a bonus in 2012 and nothing since then. The Unit Officer Commanding is assessed by the GOC Support Formation, and nomination for a bonus comes from the GOC. The unit does not even capture the PMDS of the officer commanding.

Reply:

The question has been put to the CEO of the IDC who has responded as follows:

“The IDC’s total investment in On Digital Media (ODM) was R882 401 000.

On the 26th of October 2012, ODM was placed into business rescue and the undrawn portion of the equity funding into ODM was cancelled.

The business rescue of the company was terminated with effect from 1 July 21016. With the introduction of a new strategic partner and operator that has come on board the IDC is hopeful that the company will turn around in time.

From the resultant business rescue the IDC is a 22% shareholder and in a related company Star Time, IDC has a 5.8% shareholding.

When the company matures, we are anticipating to realize the true value of our investment which will enable us to establish the exact amount that we will be able to recover. In terms of the value of IDC shares, we are presently not placing value since the company has just come out business rescue.”

Geoffrey Qhena, CEO

Recommended/ Not Recommended

Comments:______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

……………………………..

Mr Malcolm Simpson

Acting Director-General

Date: ………………………

Approved/ Not Approved

Comments:_____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

………………………………..

Mr Ebrahim Patel

Minister of Economic Development

Date:………………………..

Reply:

1. (a) and (b) No, the member was charged for AWOL and drunkness in October 2016.

2. Yes, the member was reported that he was drunk and the matter was addressed by his immediate supervisor.

3. Yes, the OC was aware and the OC since charged the member in October 2016 and even sent him to Military Correctional Services for one night.

Reply:

(a) (i) No, the incident was reported and the Board of Inquiry was convened.

(ii) The matter is under investigation.

(b) (i) The outcome of the investigation will determine what tools inside the toolboxes were lost.

(ii) Matter is under investigation to determine value loss per tool.

Reply:

1. Yes, the supply chain management and procurement policies are strictly adhered to and all required committees to approve acquisition are in place.

2. No, all acquisition matters are done through credible committees.

3. Measures are always in place as the unit follows the supply chain management prescript.

4. (a) Challenges:

(i) All the vehicles disposed of, must go through a process of eNaTIS and Microdotting. The vehicle must be cleared by SAPS.

(ii) The above-mentioned process is lengthy and time-consuming. Normally, vehicles that have been acquired recently have already gone through the above-mentioned processes. Therefore, during their disposal, they do not need to repeat the processes.

(iii) Vehicles that become BER (beyond repair) as a result of an accident cannot be disposed of immediately because of Board of Inquiry still needs to be convened and possible claims determined for claims for or against the state. Such vehicles will only be disposed of after the investigation is complete.

 

Reply:

The details of the sickness of any member of SANDF are confidential. The SANDF cannot disclose the member’s duration, nature of the illness, sick certificates issued by medical practitioners.

Reply:

(a)(b)(c)(i) Members of the Traffic Legislation Technical Committee are officials or representatives of Provinces, NRCS, SAPS and all the Agencies, who have been nominated by their respective Authorities and Institutions to attend the Committee.

(ii) They represent the Provincial Departments responsible for transport, Agencies of the Department of Transport and those Institutions.

(iii) They have the required expertise in road traffic related matters, extensive experience in road traffic related legislation, road traffic management and process and procedures.

Reply:

The IDC has a confidentiality policy that applies to companies that it transacts with. The CEO of the IDC advised me that the requested information would be in breach of the current policy. The IDC has taken a decision to provide macro-data on the number of transactions involving politically exposed persons in future annual reports.

I have taken note of the IDC’s advice and have now requested the IDC to review the appropriateness of the current policy, having regard to relevant commercial considerations, the legitimate public expectations of transparency as well as the rights to privacy of individuals and the need to ensure – and be seen to ensure – integrity in all investment decisions; and to facilitate an engagement between me and the Board on the outcome of this review during the course of 2017.

Original proposed by: Mr MG Qhena, CEO IDC

Recommended/ Not Recommended

Comments:______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

……………………………..

Mr Malcolm Simpson

Acting Director-General

Date: ………………………

Approved/ Not Approved

Comments:_____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

………………………………..

Mr Ebrahim Patel

Minister of Economic Development

Date:………………………..

Reply:

(1)What is the total amount that has been paid to date for expenditures incurred for,

(a) the bidding process for the Commonwealth Game to be hosted in Durban and

Sport and Recreation provided R1m for the bidding process. The other spheres of government and the National Lottery have made contributions to the total expenditure for bidding. The Closeout report which contains the audited financial statements of the Bidding Company will be tabled before the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Games for approval prior to the figures being considered final.

(b) any capital projects undertaken to upgrade the Ethekwini precinct by each

(i) national

None

(ii) provincial and

None

(iii) local sport authority;

None by the local Sport Authority but the Municipality had long term plans for the renovation for the Rachael Finlayson Swimming Pool. They have taken the opportunity to enhance the upgrade to meet the requirements for the Commonwealth Games. This increased the cost by R2m bringing the upgrade to R3,5m. The renovations will be complete by March 2017.

(2) whether South Africa met the 30 November 2016 deadline to ensure that all securities have been put in place to host the specified games in 2022; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

South Africa met the deadline of 30 November 2016. South Africa responded to the issues raised by the Commonwealth Games Federation. All the information and supporting documents were uploaded onto the Commonwealth Games Knowledge Systems Portal and acknowledgement of receipt was received.

 

Reply:

(a) (i) 461 - Number of members in each division that are based in Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town.

     (ii) 73 – Number of uniform members involved in traffic accidents.

     (aa) 2014/15 – 14 traffic accidents

     2015/16 – 08 traffic accidents

     2016/17 – 08 traffic accidents

    (bb) Since April 2016

    (iii)  (aa) 03 vehicle accidents investigated.

    (bb) 04 cases unresolved

(b) (i) Cases include members with the state cover and members liable for damages as indicated.

    (ii) Cases include members with the state cover and members liable for damages as indicated.

(c) 2014/2015 – R42 295.19.

2015/2016 – R163 393.70.

2016/2017 – Cases still pending.

 

Reply:

1.  (a) (b)

     E van HeerdenTransport           55 000.00

     Du Toit PC                             28 879.21

     Voicelogger                           734 503.04

     Binopath                               158 809.02

     Chuma Security                   10 508 897.69

     Sechaba Security                 14 758 654.40

     Supreme Security                 10 245 532.19

    Swart Hess Attorneys                 402 385.90

     Oricol Environment Service           13 328.92

     Oricol Environment Service             4 901.24

     Boshard Construction (PTY) Ltd    282 963.80.80

                                                       ----------------------

                                                      37 193 855.41

2. (a) Details not available yet

   b) Amount unknown

   (c) Please refer to (b).

   (d) Please refer to (b).

Reply:

(a) The K53 revisions is currently being tabled at the Inter Provincial Policies and Procedures (IPPP) working group where after it will be tabled at the Traffic Legislation Technical Committee. Once approved by the Committee it will then be submitted to the Minister for endorsement to start with the consultations process. I am not at this stage able to provide definitive timelines as this would depend on how long the consultation processes take. It will probably take 18 months to conclude the entire consultative process.

(b) There were no special budget allocations for the K53 revision process.

(i) (ii) and (iii) Falls away.

(c) Falls away.

Reply:

Road Accident Fund (RAF)

1.(a)(i) The RAF uses market research and benchmarking by reputable remuneration consultancy firms as well as guidelines issued by National Treasury to determine inflationary annual salary adjustments as criteria for the approval of salaries and salary increases respectively.

(ii) The RAF uses performance against specified performance indicators agreed in the respective annual performance contracts, which indicators are linked to the performance targets set in the Annual Performance Plan, as criteria to approve bonuses.

(b)(i)(ii)The Remuneration and Reward Policy and its associated procedure, which inter alia provides for benchmarking of salaries and auditing of the annual salary adjustments by the Internal Audit Department, and the Performance Management and Development Policy and its associated procedure, which inter alia provides for quarterly performance assessment of the CEO’s performance by the Chairperson of the Board. The annual performance assessment scores to be tabled at the REMCO and the Board; and the auditing of results by the Internal Audit Department, or Auditor-General where the Board so elects, exist to verify that the specified criteria were (i) used and (ii) followed in the (aa) 2013-14, (bb) 2014-15 and (cc) 2015-16 financial years.

Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA)

1.(a)(i) The Registrar of the RTIA’s salary is determined in terms of DPSA framework and it is on salary level 16 (DG level).

(ii) The Registrar’s bonus is determined in terms of the approved performance management framework, where a performance bonus is based on a certain percentage obtained and it is approved by the Board.

(b)(i) The criteria and procedure used is outlined in the Agency’s Performance Management Framework.

(ii) The criteria and procedure used is outlined in the Agency’s Performance Management Framework

(aa) 2013/2014: As approved by the Board in its assessment in terms of the Performance Assessment criteria.

(bb) 2014/2015: As approved by the Board in its assessment in terms of the Performance Assessment criteria.

(cc) 2015/2016: As approved by the Board in its assessment in terms of the Performance Assessment criteria.

Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (PRASA)

1.(a)(i) Salaries are offered to employees at the time of their appointment to the organization according to their job level and the approved scales as per PRASA policies.

(ii) PRASA does not pay bonuses at the moment, but should the time come where bonuses have to be paid this will be guided by the relevant Human Capital Management Policies on Performance Management as well as Remuneration and Benefits.

(b)(i)(ii) This is guided by job evaluation and profiling as well as approved scales as per PRASA policies all the time.

PRASA does not pay any bonuses at the moment.

Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC)

1.(a)(i) The salary increase and the bonuses of the CEO of the Road Traffic Management Corporation are based on the contract of employment and organizational performance.

(ii) Performance bonus is only payable if the organization achieves the minimum of 75% of overall performance. Performance assessment is conducted by the Board and the amount payable is based on the performance achieved. Performance information is audited by the Auditor General.

(b)(i)(ii) (aa) 2013/14

There was no performance bonus paid to the CEO relating to 2013/14 financial year. This was due to the fact that the CEO’s contract of employment commenced in January 2014 which was three months before end of financial year. The organization had also under performed.

(bb) 2014/15

The Board report that The performance bonus paid was based on organizational performance achieved of 83%. A performance assessment was conducted by the Board and the amount paid was based on the performance achieved.

(cc) 2015/16

I am informed The CEO’s salary was adjusted during 2015/16 based on the following:

• Organizational growth occasioned by the decision of the Shareholders Committee to transfer the management of the e-NaTIS system from TASIMA to RTMC.
• Organizational performance achieved during 2014/15

The performance bonus relating to 2015/16 financial year was based on organizational performance achieved at 92%. The performance assessment was conducted by the Board and the performance information was audited by the Auditor General.

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACCA)

1.(a)(i)(ii) The SACAA has Board approved remuneration and perfomance management policies which provide overall guidance of annual salary increases and bonuses. The Director Civil Aviation (DCA)’s salary and bonus was approved by the board in line with the remuneration and perfomance management policies.

The salary increase approved by the board was in line with the guidelines published by the National Treasury. The SACAA salaries including the DCA’s are benchmarked on a regular basis and the pay scales are approved by the board.

(b)(i)(ii) The percentage in respect of salary increases and the total amount payable in respect of Bonuses including the DCA’s are approved by the board and audited by the Internal Audit before implementation annually.

(aa) The DCA was appointed on 1 December 2013 and the salary was determined and approved by the Minister.

(bb) 2014/2015 salary increase was approved by the board and paid in accordance with the policy and national treasury guidelines. The bonus was also paid in accordance with the entity’s remuneration and perfomance management policies and was subjected to Internal Audit processes.

(cc) 2015/2016 salary increase was paid in accordance with the policy and national treasury guidelines. The bonus was paid in accordance with the entity’s remuneration and perfomance management policies and was subjected to Internal Audit processes.

Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (C-BRTA)

(1)(a)(i) In terms of the Cross-Border Road Transport Act, Act no. 4 of 1998, the CEO salary is determined by the Minister of Transport in consultation with Minister of Finance.

(ii) As per the terms and conditions of the employment contract, the salary package is structured as 80% fixed salary and 20% variable portion. The 20% is paid as a performance bonus on achievement of agreed target as stipulated in the performance agreement contract.

(b)(i) The Minister’s written approval is used as an input document to load the salary into the payroll system and this is reviewed at the executive level. The calculation of the performance bonus is based on the final performance assessment and the calculation is reviewed by Executive: Human Resources and the Chief Financial Officer before the payment is processed.

(ii) (aa) (bb) Yes criteria was followed for 2013/14 and 2014/15.

(cc) For 2015/16 not applicable as the performance bonus is not yet finalized for payment.

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA)

1(a)(i)

Criteria for approval of salary increases	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16
	*CPI+	CPI	CPI

*CPI+ was used as CEO had not received annual salary increases for 2 successive years (since 2011).

(ii)

Criteria for approval of bonuses	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16
	Organizational performance Employment contract which stipulated that up to 20% bonus will be payable based on organizational performance

(b)(i)

Procedures	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16
Used	Recommendation made by Exco, REMCO and approval by Board of Directors	Recommendation made by Exco, REMCO and approval by Board of Directors	Recommendation made by Exco, REMCO and approval by Board of Directors

(ii)

Procedures	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16
Followed	*There was no Board of Directors appointed at the time. As a result the decision was taken by Executive Committee (EXCO)	*There was no Board of Directors appointed at the time. As a result the decision was taken by Executive Committee (EXCO)	*There was no Board of Directors appointed at the time. As a result the decision was taken by Executive Committee (EXCO)

* The Board of Directors was subsequently appointed but members resigned/did not form a

quorum before it could ratify the decision.

(1)b(i) What procedures (for bonus) exist to verify that the specified criteria were used?

Procedures	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16
Used	Recommendation made by Exco, REMCO and approval by Board of Directors	No bonus was paid out	No bonus was paid out

(ii) What procedures (for bonus) exist to verify that the specified criteria were followed?

Procedures	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16
Followed	*There was no Board of Directors appointed at the time. As a result the decision was taken by Executive Committee (EXCO)	No bonus was paid out.	No bonus was paid out.

*The Board of Directors was subsequently appointed but members resigned/did not form a

quorum before it could ratify the decision.

Railway Safety Regulator (RSR)

(1)(a)(i) The organization submits for approval an inflationary increase percentage, based on the benchmarked rate each year and these increases are payable at the start of each financial year in April each year.

(ii) Performance Appraisal for the CEO will be assessed by all the Chairpersons of the Board Committees chaired by the Board Chairperson and organizational performance and key performance areas to arrive at a score which will determine the eligibility for a performance.

(b)(i) Performance contracts are entered into, which include Strategic performance objectives/Key Results Areas, weightings, Key Performance Indicators, Targets, Rating Descriptors, Source of Evidence, Observations and Score Ratings.

(ii)(aa) (bb) (cc) A five point rating scale is used for the Strategic Performance Objectives which determines that an individual who has reached a Level 4 rating (80%- 85%) becomes eligible for a performance bonus incentive. The appraisal indicates that the employee has achieved all the performance aspects of the job and the performance is significantly higher than the expected performance standard.

Ports Regulator South Africa (PRSA)

1(a)(i) The starting salary was approved by Minister of Transport in consultation with cabinet, as the

CEO is appointed by the Minister of Transport in terms of the National Ports Act (12 of 2005) section 34, and thereafter increases were approved by the Regulator (board) as the same percentage annual salary increase as pertains to the staff as a whole.

(ii) The CEO performance is appraised by the Human Resources/ Remuneration Committee of the

Regulator (Board) in terms of an approved performance agreement, and the performance assessment and score is signed off by the Chairperson. If the overall score is above a minimum threshold of 3.1 out of a maximum of 5, a bonus is payable in terms of the Ports Regulator Short Term Incentive Policy which sets out the bonus calculation.

(b)(i) The CFO checks the performance bonus calculation and it is captured on the payroll and the

CFO and CEO approves every pay-run before payment as the CEO is the accounting officer as per the Ports Act. This is verifiable from signed pay-run records. The pay-runs and performance system, calculations and records are subsequently audited by internal audit and external audit by the Auditor General.

(ii) No internal or external auditor findings on CEO salary or bonus were incurred in each of the

listed years indicating that the specified criteria were followed in these financial years; (note

that the overall audit outcome in each year is specified in brackets.)

(aa) 2013-14, (unqualified audit)

(bb) 2014-15 (clean audit) and,

(cc) 2015-16 (clean audit)

Airports Company South Africa (ACSA)

(1)(a) criteria were used to approve

(i) salaries and

• Projected inflation i.e. based on CPI as determined by stats SA (CPI refers to the Annual Percentage Change in the Consumer Price Index excluding interest rates on mortgage bonds);

• External remuneration market analysis (Executive Remuneration Survey and Comparison Ratio Report);

• Supporting variables such as capability and performance; and

• Company financial affordability.

(ii) bonuses,

• The incentive remuneration policy and scheme rules of the company, a matter falling inside the discretion of the Board of Directors.’ - The CEO performance contract and assessment rating as concluded by relevant members of the Board of Directors;

• The Company’s key performance framework score card approved by the Board of Directors;

• The On-target bonus percentage which is 50% of the CEO’s annual salary.

(b) procedures exist to verify that the specified criteria were

(i) used and (ii) followed in the (aa) 2013-14, (bb) 2014-15 and (cc) 2015-16 financial years;

• An internal audit is conducted on an annual basis prior to the payment of incentive remuneration to ensure compliance with company policy and scheme rules;

• The remuneration increase and bonus payment schedule is signed-off by relevant authorized company officials

Air Transport Navigation Systems (ATNS)

1(a) The criteria within the Company’s Performance Management and Short Term Incentive Policies were used to determine the eligible rate.

The application of the criteria is audited by an External Auditing Company, every financial year.

South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL)

1(a) criteria were used to approve

(i) salaries

• The Board uses comprehensive Market Surveys to determine the appropriate level for each pay grade, with a minimum and maximum per grade. The grade and adjustments includes consideration for inflation (including medical aid inflation), scarce skills, qualification and experience. Individual pay adjustments are based on performance or merit ratings.

(ii) bonuses

The current SANRAL Short Term Incentive (STI) policy, was introduced and approved by the SANRAL Board in 2012, after the pilot in 2011. This policy specifically abandoned the subjective discretionary bonus regime used since 1998. The policy takes the following principles into account:

a. The organisation as a whole has to perform above a specified minimum in terms of the Annual Performance Plan, in order to be eligible.

b. An individual has to score at least a 3 (5 point scale) merit rating to be eligible for a bonus

c. Four tiers of measurable performance was identified: Organisation, Region, Cluster and individual.

d. Each region and cluster has to perform above a specified level, per their identified measurable criteria, in order for that region or cluster to qualify for a score in that tier. The criteria is directly linked to the SANRAL strategic objectives.

e. Each grade participates in various weighting on the tiers depending on their opportunity to influence the tier.

This formula and all the supporting documentation or proof to determine the scores for each performance rating is reviewed in detail by Internal Audit before the payment is made. Once payment is made, this is checked against the calculated values for errors. The Auditor General then reviews during their normal annual audit the same process. On every tier, each performance criteria has to comply with the principles of “SMART” criteria, which leaves little room for subjectivity.

Individual performance contracts, which also includes performance criteria, signed annually between each individual and his/her line manager and submitted to HR for recordkeeping. This process is also audited by the AG in great detail. An individual will receive a merit rating, annually, which is then used as follows:

a. Adjust annual salary (also formula based), effective from 1 March each year.

b. Included in the formula to determine STI bonus, which is paid after the Annual Financial Statements and Performance information is signed off by the AG, normally in September.

(b) procedures exist to verify that the specified criteria were (i) used and (ii) followed in the (aa) 2013-14, (bb) 2014-15 and (cc) 2015-16 financial years;

The processes are audited internally and externally by the AG.

Reply:

(a) At Heyshope pump-station there are 4 pump-sets of which 2 pump-sets are currently functional and in operation. At Geelhoutboom pump-station there are also 4 pump-sets of which 2 are in operation. These two pump-stations are operating in series together with long sections of gravitational transfers.

At Heyshope refurbishment of the booster motor at pump-set 1 is underway and procurement for the mechanical motor and control valve refurbishment is in progress. At Geelhoutboom line 1 the motor refurbishment is being completed and it is anticipated that it will be back in operation by January 2017. The other pump-set is awaiting the replacement of bearings which is in progress and should be back in operation by December 2016.

(b)(i) The volume of water transferred in 2015 was 27, 9 million cubic meters

(b)(ii) The volume of water transferred in 2016 is 43, 7 million cubic meters.

(c) In 2015 Heyshope had 3 out of 4 pump-sets in operation and 2 out of 4 in 2016. At Geelhoutboom 1 out of 4 was operational in 2015 and this improved to 2 out of 4 in 2016.

(d) Since the rectification work is not completed as yet, a final figure is not available as yet. However to date R97.7million was spent at these two pump-stations.

---00O00---

Reply:

(1) Yes, I am aware of the findings that are presented in the National Treasury Expenditure and Performance Review (EPR). Please note that the key purpose of the review is to understand the financial implications of water services delivery, not to reflect specifically on sector performance and propose solutions. The Review has also developed an expenditure performance Costing Model that will facilitate regular discussions with National Treasury on the relationship between government expenditure and performance. The model measures (and predicts) performance against current (and future) levels of financial expenditure. The Review confirms what my Department already knows with regards to the current constraints to performance within the water (services) value chain. In fact, my Department provided the consultant with this insight during the initial data and information collection phase, prior to the publication of the Review, but was never given the opportunity to comment on any of the draft versions. The Final Review has not been circulated within my Department for comment.

(2) The findings contained in the Review have not led to any new programme or measures being implemented. My Department, as sector leader and as part of its mandated responsibility, continues to monitor sector performance and intervenes when appropriate, and has recently developed a Regulatory No Drop System in support of Water Conservation and Demand Management, and is finalising a comprehensive and detailed Water Sector Investment Framework, which forms part of an overarching National Water and Sanitation Master Plan.

My Department is also implementing Municipal Water Master Plans within 27 Priority District Municipalities in support of the Water Services Development Planning process, which will ultimately emanate in a pipeline of projects, to address the water services delivery problems that might exist.

(3) Yes, I am aware of the current state of infrastructure in the water sector, and specifically the state of asset management, and associated problems with infrastructure operation and management within municipalities. My Department is busy finalising a detailed municipal investment requirements analysis, which is part of the sector Investment Framework, to confirm the actual extent of the problem, financially, within municipalities. The Investment Framework will be completed in 2017, and my Department will, in due course, make recommendations over what period of time the infrastructure should be replaced, refurbished or extended, while taking into account the current economic environment in the country. The 59% quoted in the Review is based on a preliminary Departmental estimate of infrastructure renewal. Other studies have also based renewal on accumulated depreciation which is only a financial provision for the renewal of infrastructure. This implies that there is shortfall in funding.

(4) Due to this identified shortfall, my Department has engaged with National Treasury and COGTA to establish a new refurbishment fund. The required funds to support the investment requirements have not yet been secured from National Treasury. This will only happen once the Investment Framework has been finalised and the findings and recommendations have been presented and discussed internally within my Department, and once other lead sector departments, who are involved with municipal water services delivery, have had the opportunity to make their inputs. The funding is critical to ensure that the pipeline of projects emanating from the Water Services Master Plans are implemented.

---00O00---

Reply:

The residents of Wards 20 and 22 in the Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality in North West will get clean water once the funds for the pipeline are confirmed.

---00O00---

Reply:

1. I am informed that the furthermore, as the investigations are still underway and in putting the interest of the company first, the Board decided not to put Mr Maseko on suspension, but imposed stringent conditions during this period at work

2. (a)The Board has adopted the findings and recommendations of the Report to conduct further investigations on some of the allegations with a view to institute disciplinary proceedings. Where recommended, the Board is in the process of reporting any criminal acitivity to the South African Police Service. In addition, certain implicated individuals have been placed on suspension pending the said further investigation.

(b) (i) and (ii): The timelines and deadlines for the period of suspension and finalisation of the further investigations is 3 February 2017.

3. (a) and (b): Yes, there are processes and mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations are executed. Furthermore investigations into the recommendations are underway; the process of reporting criminal activity to the South African Police Services is underway and suspension of certain individuals, where warranted, has been executed. The Board has further delegated to some of its members some of the actions to be taken to ensure the execution of the findings and recommendations, subject to due process, and as per applicable legal prescripts.

4. (a) and (b): All recommendations have been adopted by the board save for one part regarding the City Lodge contract of 2007 to discipline the then Tender Board and Executives. The reason being that due to the passage of time, most of the individuals mentioned are no longer in the employ of the company and further, that the reversal of that contract would not be in the interest of the Company, nor will it make commercial sense to do so.

Reply:

(1) The Minister empowered in terms of section 81(1) of the National Road Traffic Act, 1996 (Act No. 93 of 1996) to grant exemptions to motor vehicle due to their designs that do not comply with the provisions of the Act. The “TRH11 Dimensional and Mass Limitations and Other Requirements for Abnormal Load Vehicles” and “TRH11 Administrative Guidelines for Granting of Exemption Permits for the Conveyance of Abnormal Loads” TRH 11 are guidelines document which are used in assisting me in making the decision.

(2) Paragraph 2.2.2 of the TRH11 “Dimensional and Mass Limitations and Other Requirements for Abnormal Load Vehicles” clearly outlines the maximum allowable dimensions under permit of the load which may be carried by the vehicle for which principle approval have been issued.

(3) In terms Section 81 (2) of the Act the MEC may, after the applicant has paid the fees or charges referred to in section 7 (3) and subject to such conditions as he or she may determine, authorise in writing, either generally or specifically, the conveyance in a safe manner on a public road of passengers or any load otherwise than in accordance with this Act. Therefore, the MEC’s are empowered to prescribe any processes for the better management of these vehicles.

(4) As highlighted in paragraph 1 above and in accordance with Section 81(2) of the Act the MECs may use TRH11 and any other conditions in considering any applications.

(5) They may take into consideration the provisions of the TRH11 Administrative Guidelines for Granting of Exemption Permits for the Conveyance of Abnormal Loads in determining permit conditions..

Reply:

(a) The Department of Transport was not a party to the dispute between the Bombela Concession Company and the Gautrain Agency

(b) There is no implications for the Department of Transport

Reply:

(1) My Department released the total volume of water from Sterkfontein dam to the Vaal dam as per the operating rule developed by the National Water Resource Planning unit. The initial release in the 2015/2016 hydrological year of 320.48 million cubic meters was completed between October 2015 and January 2016. The second release is underway peaking at 70 cubic meters per second to ensure the planned volume of 203 million cubic meters to be transferred by end December 2016. To date the release is occurring according to plan.

(2)(a) The transfer of water from the Woodstock to Sterkfontein dam occurred 80% according to plan. This was due to mechanical and electrical failures experienced at some of the pump-sets at Drieland Kilburn pump stations. These two pump-stations are working in series to lift water at a maximum flow-rate of 20m3/s (should there be adequate run-off in the river leading into the Woodstock dam).

(2)(b) At Driel pump-station, there are two sections of which section 1 has 2 out of 3 pump-sets functional and at section 2, there are 4 out of 5 pump-sets available. The mechanical fault at Driel 1 was attended to by a previously appointed contractor but failed after commissioning. This particular pump-set has been problematic for more than a year, but contractual matters are being attended to. The electrical motor at Driel 2 is out of service for the past 3 weeks and repair is imminent as procurement is being finalized.

At Kilburn section 1, 4 out of 4 pump-sets are in operation. At Kilburn section 2, we have 3 out of 4 pump-sets in operation. The motor of one pump-set is in for repairs at a contractor after it became dysfunctional in March 2016. The lengthy repairing period was caused due to a contractual dispute with the contractor which has been resolved and it is expected to have this pump back in operation shortly.

(2)(c) If the equipment is not available, the filling of Sterkfontein Dam will be delayed.

(2)(d) The cost for the repair work is R5m for Driel and R1.5m for Kilburn.

(3)(a) At Driel section 1 there are 3 pumps with a transfer capacity of 1m3/s each. At Driel section 2 there are 3 pumps with a transfer capacity of 2.6m3/s each and 2 pumps with a capacity of 4m3/s each. At Kilburn section 1 there are 4 pump-sets of 3.3m3/s each and at section 2 there are 4 pump-sets of 4m3/s each.

(3)(b)(i) The first transfer took place in 2015 from October to January 2016 for which the total of 320.48 million cubic meters was transferred.

(3)(b)(ii) To date about 85 million cubic meters was transferred since 7 November 2016 of the planned 203 million cubic meters.

---00O00---

Reply:

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited

Airports Company South Africa’s budget for external Forensic investigations is estimated at R1 200 000 for the 2016/17 financial year. The average spend for Forensic investigations has been around a million rand each year over the past five years. This year, to date, the entity has spent almost R900, 000.00. There are no investigations that have not been concluded from previous years.

South African Civil Aviation Authority

For the period 01 January 2009 until 31 October 2016, the South African Civil Aviation Authority spent an amount of R967 780.62 on external forensic investigations. The internal investigations were conducted in-house, therefore no consultants were utilised.

Air Traffic and Navigation Services (ATNS)

The amount spent on both investigations is R445 098.60.

Ports Regulator of South Africa Response:

No costs have been incurred by the Ports Regulator with reference to Question 2317, as there have not been any internal nor external forensic investigations within the period specified.

Railway Safety Regulator:

The Cost to the RSR amounts to: R129 791.37

South African Maritime Safety Authority

The SAMSA Board commissioned a Forensic Investigation in May 2016, the initial phase is almost complete, from what was reported, there was a need to do a second round of investigations, the whole investigation amounts to R1.2m.

Road Accident Fund

With reference to the reply to question 2317 on 15 November 2016, the costs for the RAF to compile the forensic investigation reports, i.e. the annual budget related to the operations of the RAF’s Forensic Investigation Department, and the associated savings resulting from the identification of fraudulent claims which were then not paid, was:

Cost		Saving
FY2009/10	R 49 619 469		FY2009/10	Info not available
FY2010/11	R 37 909 502		FY2010/11	Info not available
FY2011/12	R 42 301 356		FY2011/12	R 461 758 646
FY2012/13	R 45 490 550		FY2012/13	R 243 281 011
FY2013/14	R 57 802 378		FY2013/14	R 113 178 482
FY2014/15	R 64 958 696		FY2014/15	R 178 702 835
FY2015/16	R 70 081 524		FY2015/16	R 423 727 844
FY2016/17	R 60 385 310		FY2016/17	R 407 665 631

Cross-Border Road Transport Agency

With reference to the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency’s reply to question 2317, the costs that were incurred on the internal forensic investigations are illustrated on the table below:

	Case	Costs incurred
(i)	Fraud that resulted in financial loss	R51, 068.24
(ii)	Misuse of the Agency’s credit card	R196, 832.87

Road Traffic Infringement Agency

The RTIA spent R110 431.14 on forensic investigation.

South African National Roads Agency Limited

Forensic Investigation Costs
2008/09	621 300.63
2009/10	403 916.78
2010/11	206 645.77
2011/12	901 171.52
2012/13	263 812.47
2013/14	-
2014/15	-
2015/16	349 530.84
2016/17	375 932.90
Total	3 122 310.91

Road Traffic Management Corporation

The costs were incurred as follows:

1. Ministerial Task Team 2010 – R492 560.02
2. Khuthele/PWC 2009 – R1 918 487.14
3. Nkonki 2012 – R497 000.10
4. Open Waters 2012 – R891 854.26

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

1. Fuel Fraud Investigation by Valuecorp CC, trading as, Sudesh Dayanand Forensic Investigators – the contract term for this investigation lapsed in 2015 – R37,9 million
2. Werksmans Attorneys – Investigations into various irregularities found by the Auditor-General SA in its 2014/15 audit and the irregularities found by the Public Protector in her report entitled “Derailed” issued in August 2015 – This investigation is ongoing - R119 million
3. National Treasury – Investigations into contracts that are above R10 million and concluded by PRASA between 2012 and 2015 – This investigation is ongoing – no cost to PRASA
4. Deloitte- Investigations into fraudulent transfer of funds in the Durban and Tshwane Regions which was terminated in 2010 and handover of the results to the South African Police Services- R 1 million
5. Deloitte - allegations of irregularities in appointment of officials in the Eastern Cape region, mismanagement of company assets and tender processes concluded in 2010/11 - R423 000.00
6. PricewaterhouseCoopers – Forensic Audit into Eastern Cape supply chain management processes and related outstanding invoices for payment conclude in 2013. - R 178 000.00 
7. Deloitte- Investigations into appointment of contractors, supply chain management processes and tenant revenue leakages concluded in 2013. R7,5 million
8. SizweNtsalubaGobodo - allegations of abuse of third party charter bus services concluded in 2013/14 - R180 000.00

Reply:

The department has not paid out any reimbursements for Mr. Esethu Hasane for the:

1. Cell phone and (b) Data, for the financial years:
2. (aa) 2014-15

(bb) 2015-16, and

(ii) since 01 April 2016 to date.

(c) The travel claims for Mr. Esethu Hasane for the:

(aa) 2014-15 Financial year

Date of Reimbursement	Purpose of the claim	Amount
28 August 2014	Parliamentary session	R141.62
28 August 2014	Parliamentary session	R1,120.12
28 August 2014	Budget Vote	R223.16
19 March 2015	Commonwealth 2022 Bid Lodgement-London	R4,731.14
TOTAL		R6,216.04

(bb) 2015-16 Financial year

Date of Reimbursement	Purpose of the claim	Amount
25 September 2015	Rugby world Cup 2023 Briefing Sessions & meetings	R4,470.68
25 September 2015	Official kilometers travelled for the month of August 2015	R2,777-76
19 November 2015	Official kilometers travelled for the month of September 2015	R5,041.28
07 December 2015	Official kilometers travelled for the month of October 2015	R6,802.32
07 December 2015	Rugby World Cup Semi-Finals- London	R9,365.91
17 March 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of November 2015	R6,354.43
17 March 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of December 2015	R2,452.68
TOTAL		R37,265.06

(ii) Since 01 April 2016 to date

Date of Reimbursement	Purpose of the claim	Amount
19 May 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of April 2016	R2,268.17
19 May 2015	Rural Sport Development Programme-Umtata	R388.12
19 May 2015	Official kilometers travelled for the month of March 2016	R973.43
17 June 2016	Rural Sport Development Programme-Umtata	R373.74
17 June 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of May 2016	R2,282.84
19 September 2016	Accompany Minister to Rio Olympics 2016	R9,097.26
22 September 2016	Accompany Minister to Rio Paralympics 2016	R8,096.70
27 October 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of July 2016	R1,758.19
27 October 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of September 2016	R2,451.48
27 October 2016	Official kilometers travelled for the month of August 2016	R2,328.57
TOTAL		R30,018.50

Reply:

It must be noted internal or external forensic investigations within the State-Owned Companies that report to me mainly relate to operational matters and therefore where relevant, may fall within the ambit of the Board and/or Executives of the SOC.

In this regard, it is crucial to note that the Honourable Member’s request has to be considered against provisions of Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA). The Act has specific provisions that regulate disclosure of the nature of information requested hence the Honourable Member is implored to consider submitting specific PAIA application(s) with relevant authorities to access the information required.

With regard to my Department, I am aware of the following investigations that have been concluded:

No.	Details	Lodged with	Date reported	Status
1.	IT forensic investigation allegations of a possible fraudulent email	DDG: CM	29 August 2014	Investigation concluded in October 2014.
2.	Allegations of maladministration, fraud and corruption	Auditor General	12 Feb 2015	Investigation concluded in August 2015.
3.	Allegations of maladministration, fraud and corruption	Public Service Commission	23 Feb 2015	Investigation concluded in August 2015.
4.	Allegation related to recruitment processes: Junior Technician in IT Unit DD:IM ASD:SPME	DPE Whistle Blowing Box	23 Oct 2015	The investigation was concluded in November 2015.
5.	Allegations of possible irregular expenditure – Photo-copiers	Acting Director-General	March 2015	Investigation concluded in August 2015
6.	Allegations of irregularities with regards to bursary awards	Acting Director-General	March 2015	Investigation concluded in August 2015
7.	Allegations of possible irregular expenditure - Korwe	Acting Director-General	March 2015	Investigation concluded in August 2015
8.	Allegations of irregularities with regard to petty cash replenishment	Acting Director-General	March 2015	Investigation concluded in August 2015

 

Reply:

The department spent as follows for advertising:

1. -16 Since 1 April 2016

Africa News Network 7 Channel R0.00 R0.00

SA Broadcasting Corporation

• Television channel R1 569 408.15 R0.00
• Radio channel R0.00 R0.00

National Commercial Radio Stations R0.00 R0.00

Community

• Television R0.00 R0.00
• Radio Stations R60 310.00 R0.00

Reply:

(a) No funds have been allocated for the construction of permanent new police stations in Gauteng for the current financial year. However, parkhomes have been placed at four police stations namely Ennerdale, Garankuwa, Boschkop and Hercules to alleviate the accommodation challenges in the province.

(b) None.

Reply:

(a) Arrests	(b) Successful prosecutions (found guilty)
(i)(aa) 2014-15	(i)(bb) 2015-16	(iii) 1 April 2016 to 31 Oct 2016	(i)(aa) 2014-15	(i)(bb) 2015-16	(iii) 1 April 2016 to 31 Oct 2016
22	28	43	5	17	5

Reply:

(a)(b) Deloitte was contracted to serve as a member of the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) and to work alongside the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ) to investigate all the cases reported to the Department and through the media for the duration of the first phase of the MTT.

Deloitte was not contracted to work on the second phase of the forensic investigation, the services of the forensic team from the DoJ have been rendered pro bono, except for the payment of the subsistence and travelling allowances as and when required. It made a sound financial sense to use the human resources drawn from a Government Department such as the DOJ to complete the work rather than to enter into a new financially binding contract with a service provider for another six (6) months.

Reply:

1. (a) What was the total value in rand of Old Mutual's sponsorship for Athletics South Africa's (ASA) licence numbers for races in the past three financial years,

R5,000,000.00 – as from 2016

b) for what period was each of the sponsorships allocated and

2016 and 2017

(c) what is the name of each board member and/or official of ASA that secured the sponsorships;

Mr Aleck Skhosana and James Moloi

(2) whether the specified board members and/or officials of ASA were awarded

(a) Commissions and/or

No commission were awarded

(b) any other incentives for securing the sponsorships; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,

No other incentives to be awarded and no future prospects of incentives or commission to be awarded

(i) what amount in commission and/or other incentives did each of the board members and/or officials receive in each of the specified financial years and

None

(ii)What are the further relevant details in this regard?

None

Reply:

1. The information is provided in the table below:

CUSTOMER	CRUDE OIL (BASRAH)	(b) CRUDE OIL (BONNY)	(c)TOTAL REVENUE (US$ )
	Volume sold (bbls)	Volume sold (bbls)
Venus/Glencore	-	3 000 000	$90 224 970
Vitol	3 000 000	-	$78 606 000
Taleveras	2 000 000	2 000 000	$112 000 000
TOTAL		$280 000 000

2. Yes all the payments for the products sold have been made.

Customer	Payment receipt date
Venus/Glencore	04 March 2016
Vitol	11 March 2016
Taleveras	25 February 2016

3. The contract review currently underway will assist in determining the options for SFF.

Reply:

1. (a) Yes. Two staff members were suspended.

         (i) One staff member was suspended for 29 months and the other for 33 months.

         (ii) Cost of remuneration was R1 342 291.59 and R1 026 838.97 respectively.

(b) No, since none were implicated.

2. The matter of legal practitioners who could be implicated was referred to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and HAWKS for further investigation.

3. (a) The Department is the current legal owner of the farms.

(b) Some of the cattle have been sold in order to keep operations going on the farm (purchase of cattle feed, licks, vaccine, fixing of tractor, maintenance of fences, paying wages and burning of firebreaks). Apart from the cattle, movable assets such as farm equipment, household furniture and appliances were accounted for and the assets are still on the farm except for one vehicle that was taken for repairs by the previous caretaker and has not been returned to the farm.

(c) Currently, there are two families of labour tenants occupying the farm houses, namely Mtshali and Mabaso families, who are also in control of the movable assets.

4. Yes, on 27 May 2013, when the farm was handed over from the curator to the Department, all movable assets were accounted for and are still on the farm except for one vehicle that was taken for repairs by the previous caretaker and has not been returned to the farm. The latest inspection was done on 24 August 2016 and all assets were accounted for. The Department will institute legal action against the caretaker for the vehicle since negotiations for the return of the vehicle have failed. The assets are available for inspection on the farm.

5. No movable assets were sold except for cattle to continue operations on the farm. The amount received was R443 825.82 paid over to the curator.

Reply:

(1) Yes, Management is aware of the incident that took place on 01 April 2016 between inmates (perpetrator details furnished) and (victim details furnished)

(2) Yes, a departmental investigation was instituted.

(2)(a) N/A

(2)(b) The Investigation was concluded on 28 April 2016.

(2)(i) The nature of injury according to medical register G336 entry (2016/04/01) ref (50/16) inmate (victim details furnished) suffered deep laceration on his forehead to the nose.

(2)(ii) It was evident that inmate (perpetrator details furnished) has committed a disciplinary infringement as stated by Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended and Section 23(1)(h) by committing an assault on a fellow inmate. The investigation recommendation was that disciplinary action be taken against the perpetrator.

(3)(a) The victim was taken to maximum correctional centre hospital for medical treatment and he was assisted to open a criminal case against the perpetrator.

(3)(b) The perpetrator is currently undergoing psychiatric sessions for unacceptable behaviour. Further interventions will follow after the recommendations by the Psychologist and the Case Officers. The search for unauthorized items has also been intensified, supervisors are promoting the maintenance of security awareness at centre level and Management functionaries must inculcate security awareness in all officials by means of a scheduled programme (daily/weekly/monthly) in order to ensure that every official realizes the importance of his/her role in ensuring the safe custody of prisoners. Lastly, identified tendencies/frequencies must be approached in a spirit of participative management.

(3)(c) The Case Management Committee degraded the privileges of the perpetrator from B category to C category with applicable restrictions of amenities.

Reply:

1. The question posed by the Honourable Member was answered during the Oral Questions session on 16 November 2016.

For the record, herewith reply provided:

Yes, government through its law enforcement agencies of the security cluster knows the context and the actors involved.

Government has positioned education as one of its apex priorities, and the issues raised by students are genuine and deserves the support of all of us.

However, in the right to protest, just like any other right, has obligations; it is not unfettered.

Section 36 of our Constitution provides for limitation of rights.

We thereof must condemn the violence and wonton destruction of property that we have witnessed as it is setting back the country and is impacting negatively on our planning trajectory and will be felt by many generations to come.

(a) The genuine struggle of students has been hijacked by certain NGOs who come under the guise of “humanitarian support” while they are wolves in sheep skin. In addition, certain political parties here have become opportunists and used this noble struggle for their narrow political agendas.

(b) Students have been offered various forms of “humanitarian support” in the form of funds, refreshments, logistic and legal assistance amongst other things, exploiting genuine struggles

The security services of this country have stabilised the situation in institutions of higher learning. Lectures were completed and exams are underway in some institutions. The criminal justice system is also processing those students who were arrested.

Education is a societal matter. Whatever difficulty and challenges that we are confronted with, we must know that these are not insurmountable. As the Freedom Charter taught, we must be in a position to sit down and resolve these through peaceful negotiations.

2. As per the doctrine of intelligence tradecraft, operational matters and plans are not discussed.

Reply:

(1) Currently there are two families of Labor Tenants that are using the farm houses namely, Mtshali and Mabaso)

(2)(a),(b),(c) Since the farm was returned to the state no members of the Sewpersad, Armmarchand, Roshen and/or Nersha families have benefited in any way.Prior to the farm being forfeited to the state, it was occupied by the Sewpersad, Armmarchand, Roshen and Nersha families. They benefited to the extent of occupation only. The Department is not aware of any financial benefits from operating the farm and does not have access to their financial statements.

(i), (ii) Falls away.

(3) (a) Total cost to the Department was R36 999 732.82

(b) - Purchase price for Land – R27 244 556.00

- Total Livestock costs- R 6 136 400.00

- Agricultural implements- R 574 500.00

- Developmental costs- R 2 500 000.00

- Conveyancing costs - R 100 451.00

- AFU costs- R 443 825.82

Reply:

The Strategic Fuel Fund compiles its Annual Financial Statement in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) that prescribes that an entity must account for transactions not only on a cash basis but also on an accrual basis.

Therefore the Transfer in question is an accrued expense as a result of the application of the provisions of Section 3(A)(c) of the CEF Act applicable to the sale of Strategic Stock and that was yet to be transferred to the Equalisation Fund.

Reply:

1. The Land in Ward 30 Ten Rooms informal settlement situated on P52 and P88 of the farm Rietfontein 485JQ, jurisdiction Madibeng Local Municipality, belongs to the Department of Public Works (DPW).

2. No. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform does not deal with land administered by the Department of Public Works, nor was it approached for assistance in this matter.

Reply:

The Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) is a scheme that provides loans to smallholder farmers in the agriculture sector. The loans are provided through intermediaries and not directly by the department. To get the loan, the applicant must meet a set of requirements. The applications for funding are handled by intermediaries and not by DAFF. The intermediaries report to the Department on a monthly basis.

From the inception of MAFISA to date a total of R 408 million has been loaned out to smallholder farmers. Of this amount a total of R187 million has been repaid. The amount repaid account for 45.8% of the total disbursements (repayments are linked to the farming activity e.g. cattle farmers take a longer time to repay whereas cash crop farmers repay in a short period depending on the income cycle).

(b) The repayment timeframe of the loans differs according to the commodity financed. With the effect of drought some clients need extended time to fully settle their loans and this has an impact on repayments. The Department has been involved in discussions with intermediaries on how to handle the situation so that the smallholder farmers can continue to produce on their farms despite the effect of drought.

MAFISA funds are not supposed to be repaid to National Treasury within a given timeframe; they revolve for purposes of continuously granting loans to smallholder farmers. The recalling of MAFISA funds was not because DAFF failed to repay funds to National Treasury. The reason was that the introduction of the Wholesale Finance Facility (WFF) led National Treasury to conclude that it is better to phase out MAFISA and therefore recalled MAFISA funds. Practically the target market of the WFF is not the same target market served by MAFISA.

Reply:

Honourable van Dalen is requested to direct the question to the Minister of Public Enterprises as the information requested belongs to Eskom which reports to the Minister of Public Enterprises.

Reply:

1. The Board was dissolved and the SETA was placed under Administration. In 2015, the Administrator undertook one trip and a report was submitted.

2. Yes, the report is available on request.

3. No staff member was appointed to act in the position of the Administrator whilst he was travelling.

 

COMPILER/CONTACT PERSONS:

EXT:

DIRECTOR – GENERAL

STATUS:

DATE:

QUESTION 2472 APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/AMENDED

Dr BE NZIMANDE, MP

MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

STATUS:

DATE: