Reply:

1. (a) South Africa has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights

(ICCPR) which required domestication through national legislation as per section 231(4) of the Constitution. There is no additional legislation required to implement the tenets of the ICCPR because South Africa has not only enshrined civil and political rights within the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996), but South Africa also has existing legislative and policy frameworks in place to give effect to civil and political rights.

(b) South Africa has ratified the OP-ICCPR and is yet to domesticate same through

The enactment of national legislation. Same is receiving attention.

2. A total of nine (9) Human Rights conventions have been signed and ratified by South Africa.

Overall, South Africa is party to (has ratified) thirty-two (32) international treaties/ conventions. These relate to international human rights; humanitarian law, labour, environmental law, maritime law, labour law, trade, education, conservation and anti-corruption.

3. The decision to become party to an international instrument is taken with due regard of government’s priorities (at a given time). As these are constantly changing and being revised in light of the most pressing needs, so also does the ratification of international instruments need to change to reflect the change in societal needs and development.

4. Same is receiving attention, and is under due consideration by Government.

5. The list of all treaty obligations and reporting status is attached.

With regard to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s mandate on international obligations, the following should be noted:

   (a) Each treaty has different periodic reporting requirements- some are quadrennial, while other are biennial and the Human Rights Bodies which consider the reports may request further information or may make recommendations on when the country should deposit its next report.

   (b) South Africa deposited the 1st-3rd combined periodic reports on the ICERD in 2006, and the 4th-8th combined periodic reports in 2012; the 1st ICCPR report was submitted in 2014; the 1st periodic report on the CAT was submitted in 2005 and the 2nd and 3rd reports were submitted in 2015. The 1st periodic report on the ACHPR was submitted in 1999, the 3rd-6th combined periodic reports were submitted in 2005, the 1st and 2nd UPR reports were submitted in 2008 and 2012 respectively and the 3rd UPR report is due in May 2017 and the 1st periodic report on the ICESCR is due in May 2018.

   (c) Challenges with capacity and lengthy consultative processes.

   (d) Yes, each of the reports is available.

Reply:

(1) The following financial statements of CEPPWAWU were submitted and accepted by the Registrar of Labour Relations:

(a) 2010 - 2011

(b) 2011 - 2012

(c) 2012 - 2013

(d) 2013 - 2014 (under construction, therefore not yet submitted)

(i) not applicable

(ii) not applicable

(2) whether the specified acting registrar accepted the minutes of the meeting of the National Executive Committee of the CEPPWAWU held on 14 January 2016 where the financial statements were allegedly tabled; if so, (a) why did the acting registrar accept the minutes of the specified meeting despite the Labour Court judgment handed down on 15 April 2016 that the financial statements were not compliant with the CEPPWAWU’s rules and labour legislation and (b) what are the further relevant details;

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

(2) The Registrar of Labour Relations accepted the CEPPAWAWU NEC minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2016.

(a) There was no reason compelling the Registrar of Labour not to accept or reject the minutes referred to. The minutes referred to were brought to the Registrar's attention during the course of February 2016. Therefore the Labour Court judgement of 15 April 2016 had no bearing on decision of the Registrar of Labour Relations whether to accept or reject the minutes of 14 January 2016.

(3) whether each of the financial statements were fully audited in terms of sections 25(5) and 98(2) of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995, as amended; if not, in each case, why not; if so, did CEPPWAWU comply with its own constitution in this regard;

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

(3) In as far as it relates to the question and information submitted by CEPPAWAWU to the Registrar of Labour Relations, the financial statements submitted were fully audited in terms of section 25(5) and 98(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and CEPPAWAWU complied with its own constitution.

(4) whether she has taken any steps against any member of the leadership of CEPPWAWU for allegedly failing to comply with Labour Court orders dated (a) 9 October 2015 and (b) 15 April 2016 in terms of failing to table full, legally audited financial statements and minutes showing the adoption of such financial statements; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3180E

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

Assuming that "she" refers to me, it important to note that in terms of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, the Minister does not have any legal powers to reprimand any registered Trade Union or Employer Organization other than engage the Trade Union or Employer Organization as a stakeholder.

However if the "she" refers to the Registrar of Labour Relations, it is important to note that the Registrar of Labour Relations is a "he".

(a) CEPPAWAWU complied with the Court Order handed on 09 October 2015. Therefore there was no compelling reason for me to engage the leadership of CEPPAWAWU or the Registrar of Labour Relations to take any steps against the leadership of CEPPAWAWU.

(b) In terms of the information submitted to the Registrar of Labour Relations during the course of February 2016, CEPPAWAWU tabled full, legal audited financial statements and minutes showing the adoption of such financial statements. During the course of February 2016 there was no compelling reason for me to engage the leadership of CEPPAWAWU or the Registrar of Labour Relations to take any steps against the leadership of CEPPAWAWU. However I am not suggesting that now there is such a compelling reason to engage or take steps against the leadership of CEPPAWAWU; because such a decision legally falls within the discretion of the Registrar of Labour Relations.

I am advised though that the Registrar of Labour Relations is awaiting the release of the transcript of the alleged judgement of 15 April 2016. Thereafter he will study the content of the judgement and take a decision on how to deal with the matter; because the alleged judgement deals with a number of issues which may or not directly/indirectly assist him in executing his duties in as far as it relates to the question raised.

Reply:

(1) No; because CEPPAWAWU complied with the Court Order handed on 09 October 2015. Therefore there was no compelling reason for the Registrar of Labour Relations to do so.

(2) whether she has taken any steps against the specified acting registrar for failing to take any remedial action in this regard; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3181E

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

(2) No; because there was no compelling reason for Registrar of Labour Relations to take any remedial action by approaching the court to enforce the Labour Court order handed down on 9 October 2015 against the leadership of the Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union for allegedly failing to table full, legally audited financial statements and minutes showing the adoption of such financial statements. Therefore there is no legal reason for me to take any steps against the Registrar of Labour Relations.

Reply:

South Africa has ratified the ICESCR and in terms of section 231(4) of the Constitution is required to enact legislation to implement the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Chapter 2 of South Africa’s Constitution is based on the ICESCR which promotes and protects socio-economic and cultural rights. Socio-economic and cultural rights are also promoted in myriad pieces of legislation which give effect to the obligation contained in the Constitution (towards socio-economic and cultural rights). There is therefore no additional legislation required to implement the tenets of the ICESCR.

South Africa is yet to ratify the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, so no obligation to enact legislation to domesticate the option protocol exists. Once the Optional Protocol is ratified section 231 (4) of the Constitution requires that the treaty be domesticated through the enactment of national legislation.

Reply:

The current contract with SAB&T Ubuntu was extended to September 2017 due to the fact that the campaign is coming to an end at the above mentioned date. The matter went through all departmental procurement processes and the Department was advised by its Bid Adjudication Committee that it would not be cost effective for the Department to appoint a new service provider for such a short period.

The irregular expenditure that occurred was not created by the current service provider but happened due to a disagreement between the Department and the Auditor-General on a technical point in the procurement process. The matter was then submitted to a technical team at the Auditor-General which then ruled against the Department. This matter was however addressed in a previous response to the Honourable Member.

Reply:

(1)	(a)	Alexkor have conducted coffer dam mining since the early 1950’s (approximately 67 years) and the mine has been operational for approximately 89 years. Approval of the Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR) was granted on 11 October 1995.
	(b)	Alexkor SOC LTD has 4 (FOUR) marine mining rights and the Richtersveld Mining Company (RMC) 1 (ONE) land mining right; all under the management of the PSJV:
		(i)	Marine Rights (Alexkor SOC LTD) MR 512_4a MR 513_4b MR 10025_1c MR 554
		(ii)	Land Right (Richtersveld Mining Company) MR550
(2)	Yes; approval of the Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR) was granted on 11 October 1995.
	(a)	In terms of the Minerals Act of 1991. Alexkor was required to submit and obtain approval for an Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR), Alexkor appointed CSIR to prepare the EMPR. The document was approved by department (1995-10-11). The approval included the construction of cofferdam mining.
	(b)	Background: A proposal entitled “Proposal for Alexkor 2004 EMPR update approach/structure/content” was compiled, dated 27 January 2004 and the approach set out therein was discussed with DME Kimberley at the time. Within such system the EMPR update was to be guided by the then pending Alexkor audit and performance assessments and the detail knowledge of the site acquired during their compilation given the complexity and extent of the mining operation. Such audits were completed in March/April 2004 and on the basis of those audits and understanding of the available literature and assessment of the existing 1994 EMPR, a set of rehabilitation specifications/methods to deal with existing disturbances entitled “Rehabilitation Liability Calculation; Specifications/Methods/Rates Used and notes on their calculation (Report #2446/SMR/Rev 1 [April 2005])” was formulated for submission to the DME to elicit their sanction/comment on the approach to the methods of dealing with existing disturbance as this posed the major undefined aspect of the new EMPR given that the 1994 EMPR paid relatively little attention to this element. Such specifications/methods were formally submitted to the DME during April 2005 and DME‟s initial comment was obtained in October 2005.Having achieved some level of co-ordination with DME on the historical rehabilitation, the process of EMPR update could be re-initiated. The approved EMPR states: “Historically coffer dam (sea wall) mining has been carried out at two sites, one in Block 60 in the north and the other at Geeldoring near the Rietfontein-North Plant.”
		(i)	Impacts resulting from coffer dam activities are as follows: Coffer dam mining requires a major relocation of sand from supratidal levels into the surf zone. This results in the removal of sand dunes and the destruction of their associated vegetation. Vegetation in the area not destroyed by dune excavation is damaged extensively by the heavy earth-moving equipment in use. The smothering of rocky shore and sandy beach destroys all biota, both intertidally and sub-tidally to the depth of the coffer dam wall. Coffer dam mining has been carried out using gravels, cobbles and boulders from tailings for the building of the wall. Although the dam wall has been breached by storm conditions, the redistribution of the material has resulted in a smothering of the original rock and the change from a rocky intertidal to a boulder beach environment.
		(ii)	Impact of the construction of the coffer dams with sand: Due to the fact that sand is not readily available in the vicinity further disturbances will be done to the already disturbed dunes along the coast, more manoeuvring of heavy machinery occurs, which in turn leads to increased environmental and economic impacts.
		Based on the above the PSJV has appointed a new independent environmental consultant to revise the approved EMPR. This document is currently out for public comment.
(3)	All documents can be made available to Mr S C Motau

Remarks:     Reply: Approved / Not Approved         Mr Mogokare Richard Seleke   Ms Lynne Brown, MP     Director-General     Minister of Public Enterprises Date:     Date:

Reply:

This matter is the subject of a police investigation, as per this member’s own press release, and as such responses are to be provided as part of that investigation.

Reply:

(1) and (2) On 02 December 2016 the Department of Basic Education (DBE) requested the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) to provide a response. The DBE will provide the necessary response once the information is made available by the GDE.

 

Reply:

1. and (2):

The Minister of Finance has not been informed by Mr Moyane regarding any forensic investigation that has been launched in terms of the South African Revenue Services Modernisation and Technology Programme despite the media coverage on the matter.

I have requested my office to submit this question to SARS to establish the facts. Once the information is obtained, I will respond to this question in more detail.

Reply:

In a previous parliamentary question 2139 [NW2456E], I indicated that there is a lack of accountability and cooperation from the South African Revenue Services top management. I therefore cannot place great reliance on the information that I have received from SARS, particularly in terms of this matter; however, I am able to provide the following in response:

(1) (a) (i) Mr Moyane responded on the 27 October 2016 after a written request from me. Apart from this, SARS has not communicated with me further on the Makwakwa matter beyond what was reported in questions 1894 and 1975, both dated 12 October 2016.

As previously stated, Mr Moyane did not inform me about this matter prior to it appearing in the Sunday Times on 11 September 2016. A meeting was convened at my request on the 12 September 2016 regarding the Makwakwa matter, and thereafter correspondence was exchanged on the 14th and 16th of September 2016, to confirm and follow-up on the meeting. To date, apart from the letter dated 27 October 2016 from Mr Moyane, where he provided his Terms of Reference for the law firm Hogan Lovells (South Africa) Inc, to investigate and conduct disciplinary proceedings related to Mr Makwakwa and Ms Elskie, Mr Moyane has not provided any substantive report on this matter. However, Mr Moyane indicated in his letter that the law firm would conclude the first part of the investigation by 20 December 2016. By 22 December, I have not yet received any such report.

The Terms of Reference do not include the role of Mr Moyane in the Makwakwa matter. Mr Moyane stated in his letter dated 27 October 2016 that he does not accept responsibility for failing to timeously report the Makwakwa matter to the Minister of Finance (as the executive authority of SARS) prior to the 12 September 2016 meeting, as he expected the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) to do so. According to Mr Moyane “…the FIC is under a clear legislative mandate to report to…” the Minister of Finance “….. an investigation into Makwakwa”s affairs, taking into consideration the public importance of the matter and Makwakwa’s position within the SARS”. Mr Moyane holds to this view, despite the fact that section 40 of the FIC Act prohibits the FIC from reporting such transactions or referrals, to the Minister of Finance or to any other person other than those permitted to receive such reports.

I will not say more on Mr Moyane’s failure to act in terms of the FIC Act and other anti-corruption legislation at this stage. This matter is also subject to legal action as reported in the media (e.g. charges by Corruption Watch).

  (i) I will not comment on any further communication between SARS and FIC but want to point out the following. I wrote to Mr Moyane on 23 September expressing my serious concern on a media statement issued by SARS stating that there was a lack of co-operation by the FIC on the Makwakwa matter (refer to SARS media release titled “SARS APPOINTS SENIOR EXECUTIVES TO ACT IN MAKWAKWA’S POSITION” dated 16 September 2016). I pointed out that as the executive authority for both the FIC and SARS, I would have expected that before launching a public attack on the FIC, that he would have first requested my intervention if indeed there were any problems of non-cooperation between SARS and FIC. I requested his explanation for the statement, including what impact such statement will have for their future working relationship, and the steps he intends to take to address such breakdown. On the 27th October 2016, more than a month later, Mr Moyane responded, denying “that there is a breakdown of the relationship between the SARS and the FIC” and states that he does not need any intervention from my office, and that his media statement is not a public attack on the FIC and “….does not constitute a drastic step”.

  (ii) Mr Moyane has indicated to my office that SARS had a meeting with representatives from the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigations (DPCI) on 27 September 2016. This meeting was convened subsequent to an email that had been sent to SARS by DPCI on 15 September 2016 regarding the DPCI investigation into the Makwakwa and Elskie matter. On 30 September 2016, SARS received a written confirmation from DPCI of the meeting that had taken place on 27 September 2016.

I have not had had any explanation from Mr Moyane why he did not contact the DPCI or any other law enforcement agency immediately after Mr Moyane first became aware of the Makwakwa matter after receiving the FIC letter 17 May 2016. Instead, Mr Moyane did not do so for four months and only did so after he was contacted by the DPCI on 12 or 15 September after the media exposure. (I refer the Honourable Member to the SARS response on this matter in PQ 1976 [NW2287E])

2. It is my view that the key issue currently is not any problem related to a lack of co-operation between SARS and the FIC but how best to protect the reputation and integrity of SARS as a critical fiscal institution. The focus must remain on the investigation against Mr Makwakwa, by both SARS and the law enforcement authorities. The issue of co-operation between SARS and FIC is important but must be understood in terms of the role and function of the FIC in terms of the law. As Mr Moyane himself confirms in his letter dated 27th October 2016, there is no breakdown in relationship between SARS and the FIC. This is also the view of the Director of the FIC.

To protect the reputation and integrity of SARS, we need to know why Mr Moyane took more than four months to act effectively after he was first alerted to the Makwakwa matter by the FIC through a letter dated 17 May 2016 and to only act after this matter was exposed in the media. Further, why Mr Moyane takes no responsibility for failing to report timeously to his responsible Minister. Mr Moyane also needs to explain why he continued to allow Mr Makwakwa to remain in his position as part of his top management team, dealing with individual and corporate taxpayers and allowing him to represent SARS at hearings of the Standing Committee of Finance on 23 August 2016 and the Davis Tax Committee on 8 September 2016. These and other matters like that involving Mr Vlok Symington raise serious concerns about the stewardship of a vital fiscal institution. Further consideration will be given to substantially increase the accountability of the top SARS management for their actions and decisions.

Reply:

Requesting the Honourable Member to refer to the Water Boards Annual Reports of each specified financial year.

---00O00---

Reply:

(1)(a) Refer to Annexure A for the list of the country's major dams that are below 35%.

(1)(b) My Department develops annual operating rules which include drought restrictions rules. These are communicated to stakeholders at the System Operations Forums. In addition Joint Operations Committees are established to monitor progress on the implementation of water restrictions and advice provided on further interventions where necessary e.g installation of flow restrictors at household level or supply through water tankers, drilling of boreholes etc. Further details are given in the table and section 2 of the response below.

(2)(a) Yes. Most of the municipalities are implementing measures to conserve water and there is already a reduction in demand. The measures include:

• Restrictors on the bulk meters and the reticulation meters, some municipalities are also restricting consumer meters;
• Pressure Management;
• Education and awareness;
• Water rationing;
• Monitoring Minimum Night Flows;
• Active and passive leakage control, etc.

(2)(b) As mentioned in (a) above, most of the municipalities are already implementing Water Conservation and Water Demand Management measures, for those that are not yet implementing. It is mainly due to lack of human and financial capacity. The Department will continue engaging municipalities through the established structures and the municipalities must actively participate and report in this meetings and prioritize resources and budgets to implement Water Conservation and Water Demand Management.

---00O00---

Annexure A

Table1: Country’s Major Storage Dams below 35%

Provinces: Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, Eastern Cape, North West & Northern Cape

Reservoir Name	Full Supply Capacity in 106 m3	%	Municipality supplied	Measures	Implementation
Free State
Bloemhof	1 240	20.4	Lekwa-Teemane Municipality Bloemhof, Kuruman,	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 12/08/16 (No 40203)	Restrictions for Domestic @15%andIrrigation @ 20% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to monitor achievement of restrictions Joint Operations Committee (JOC) formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last SOF held on 1 December 2016
Kalkfontein	325	3.7	Kopanong Municipality (Koffiefontein, Jacobsdal, Jagersfontein and Fauresmith)	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF Restrictions gazetted on 19/02/16 (No 39718)	Restrictions for Domestic @ 40%&Irrigation @100% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to monitor achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 29 November 2016
Allemanskraal	174	14.0	Masilonyana and Tswelopele Municipality (Brandfort, Bultfontein, Theunissen and Virginia)	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF Restrictions gazetted on 12/08/16 (No 40203)	Restrictions for Domestic: 40%Irrigation 92% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to monitor achievement of restrictions. JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions. -Last Forum held on 1 December 2016
Rustfontein	71	25.5	Mangaung Metropolitan	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF Part of Bloemfontein System. Restrictions gazetted on 12/02/16 No 39679.	Restrictions for Domestic: 30%Irrigation: 75% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to monitor achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions. Last SOF held on 29 November 2016
Krugersdrift	71	26.0	Ikgomotseng and Soutpan	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 19/02/16: No 39718	Restrictions forDomestic: 20%Irrigation: 50% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to monitor achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last SOF held on 29 November 2016
KwaZulu Natal
Goedertrouw	301	19.5	Umhlathuze, Umlalazi, Uthungulu	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 24/03/16, No 39860:	Restrictions for Domestic: 40%Irrigation: 80% Industrial: 15%are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last SOFs held on 12 July 2016
Albert Falls	288	27.3	Umgugundlovu, Ethekwini Metropolitan	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Part of the Umgeni system Restrictions published on 24/03/16 (No 39860)	Part of the Umgeni Water Supply System which is currently at 47,6% and -Restrictions for Domestic: 15% Irrigation: 50%Industrial: 15%are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last SOF was held on 17 June 2016 as part of Mgeni SOF.
Mpumalanga
Kwena	158	23.9	Ehlanzeni	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Part of the Crocodile System. Restriction notices issued by Inkomati/Usuthu Catchment Management Agency. (Compliance not known yet)	Restrictions for Domestic, irrigation are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Committee held on 2 November 2016 as part of the CROCOC
Driekoppies	250	20.5	Nkomazi	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the Komati Joint Operations Forum. Part of the Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA) Restriction notices were issued. (Compliance not yet known)	Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC established to give direction to municipalities on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 17 November 2016 as part of KOBWA
Limpopo
Middel-Letaba	171	16.3	Mopani Municipality	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No 1066)	Restrictions for Domestic 20%Irrigation 80% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions. JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 29 April 2016 as part of the Shingwedzi CMF
Tzaneen	156	13.2	Mopani Municipality	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No 1066)	Restrictions for Domestic @ 20%& Irrigation @ 70% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions. Last Forum held on 25 October 2016
Nzhelele	51	8.6	Thulamela	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No. 1066)	Restrictions for Irrigation: 40% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 21 April 2016
Flag Boshielo	185	17.7	Polokwane Metro	Part of the Polokwane System. Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16, ( No 40284)	Restrictions for Domestic: 30%Mining: 55% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC to be established to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 25 May 2016
Rhenosterkop	204	16.3	Nkangala DM	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No. 1066)	Restrictions for Irrigation: 60%-70%(Depending on rainfall) are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 20th April 2016

Eastern Cape
Darlington	180	18.2	Nelson Mandela Metro	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Receiving water from the Orange River System: Restrictions published on 26/08/16 (No.40229) The Dam is operated below 45% for Dam safety reasons	Restrictions of 15% on all transfers form the Orange River System are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions and communication is on-going to align information Last Forum held on 20 September 2016
North West
Molatedi	200	25.2	Moses kotane	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 14/10/16 (No. 40346)	Restrictions on Domestic @50%& Irrigation @75% are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions JOC formed to give direction to municipality on implementing the restrictions Last Forum held on 16 August 2016 as part of the Marico CMF

Northern Cape
Reservoir Name	Full Supply Capacity in 106 m3	%	Municipality supplied	Measures	Implementation
Spitskop	57	9.2	Mmamusa Municipality SchweizerReneke	Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. 30% restrictions on irrigation recommended. Achievement not yet visible	Restrictions on irrigation are being implemented Early Warning systems established to measure achievement of restrictions Last Forum held on 07 September 2016

Reply:

(a) There is no company in charge of investments of the Transport Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund. The Boards of Trustees of the respective Funds are in charge of their investment activities.

(b) No role is played by the said individuals as the Board of Trustees of the respective Funds are in charge of the investment activities.

(c) The specified person’s official positions and involvement in (i) Transnet is that of a Non-Executive Director and Chairperson of the Acquisitions and Disposals

(d) Committee. He is also Chairperson and Trustee of the Board of Trustees of the (ii) Transport Pension Fund and (iii) Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund respectively.

(d) All non-Executive Directors are appointed to the Transnet Board of Directors by the Shareholder Minister.

(e) The specified person was appointed in the specified positions on the basis of his academic qualifications and technical expertise on the activities of the Board of Directors, and the respective Funds.

Reply:

1. The table below details the surplus for the requested years, as well as the

utilisation:

ENTITY	REF	DATE	SURPLUS	UTILISATION
Transport Pension Fund		31 March 2010	R1605m	-
	aa	31 March 2011	R1739m	-
	bb	31 March 2012	R1548m	R120m as a Transnet 8.333% bonus
	cc	31 March 2013	R1453m	R62m as a Transnet 8.333% bonus, and extra 2.47% pension increase for SAA and PRASA respectively
	dd	31 March 2014	R2903m	R68m as two Transnet 8.333% bonuses, and extra 2.42% pension increase for SAA and PRASA respectively
	ee	31 March 2015	R3644m	R73m as two Transnet 8.333% bonuses, and extra 1.02% pension increase for SAA and PRASA respectively
		31 March 2016	R4325m	R72m as two Transnet 8.333% bonuses, an extra 2.42% pension increase, and 13th cheque bonus for SAA and PRASA respectively
		31 March 2017	-	R70m*
Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund		31 March 2010	R2835m	-
	aa	31 March 2011	R2733m	R335m as two Transnet 8.5% and 8.333% bonuses
	bb	31 March 2012	2346m	R520m as a Transnet 10% and two 8.333% bonuses respectively
	cc	31 March 2013	R2167m	R155m as a Transnet 8.333% bonus
	dd	31 March 2014	R2983m	R305m as two Transnet 8.333% bonuses respectively
	ee	31 March 2015	R3145m	R300m as two Transnet 8.333% bonuses respectively
		31 March 2016	R3807m	R294m as two Transnet 8.333% bonuses respectively
		31 March 2017	-	R360m**

Notes:

* Uses after 31 March 2016 were two Transnet bonuses of 10% and 11% respectively, and an extra 2.07% pension increase and 13th cheque bonus for SAA and PRASA respectively

** Uses after 31 March 2016 were 10% and 11% bonuses respectively

(2)(a) The surpluses have been used to pay bonuses to beneficiaries of the Transnet Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Pension Fund.

(b) The expected future uses a mixture of bonuses and pension increases above 2%, should the Rules be amended to allow this.

 

Reply:

Mr. Riaz Saloojee did not receive a severance package and did not resign. He was only paid up to the end of his contract.

Reply:

1. Based on the actuarial valuation results as at 31 March 2016, the amount required to pay a 10% bonus to all pensioners of the Transport Pension Fund (TPF), i.e. Transnet Sub-Fund, SAA Sub-Fund and PRASA Sub-Fund is R37.7m and for the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (TSDBF) the amount is R172.4m. The Rules of the respective Funds contain a provision that authorises for the payment of ad hoc bonuses. These amounts are paid from the actuarial surplus of each of the Funds, amounting to R4.325 billion for the Transport Pension Fund and R3.807 billion for the TSDBF

2. There is currently no provision in the respective Fund Rules to utilise the surplus to increase the base of the pension.

3. The Shareholder Minister is unable to consider an increase in the base of all pensions as this is not provided for in the pension fund rules.

4. The pending class action court case has no impact on the matter. The rules of the funds guide action related to the pension funds.

 

Reply:

(a) The department has established provincial illegal mining stakeholder forums in Mpumalanga, Free State, Gauteng and Northern Cape Provinces. Various stakeholders such as government departments (i.e. National, Provincial and local government), law enforcement agencies, mining companies, unions and associations, municipalities, certain SOEs, refineries and organized communities participate in these forums. Physical activities such as closure of open mine holes, arrests, prosecutions and convictions, deportations, disruptive operations and encouragement of land use/occupation have been conducted which led to a significant decrease of this practice. The illegal mining space is decreasing which result to illegal miners fighting for the remaining limited space and resorting to other crimes.

(b) The above mentioned Provincial Stakeholder Forums have action plans of which the output is measured against the action plan. Since the establishment of the Provincial Illegal Mining Stakeholder Forums progress has been made on combating illegal mining activities. The following has been achieved through the Provincial Illegal Mining Stakeholder Forums:

1. Illegal miners were arrested and continued to be arrested and convicted.
2. Illegal imigrants who are also involved in illegal mining activities were arrested and continued to be arested and deported.
3. Mining permits have been issued to mining companies to conduct legitimate mining in areas that were infested with illegal mining.
4. Most of the open holes and open shafts where illegal mining was taking place have been sealed, rehabilitated or closed.
5. Land where illegal mining was taking place has been rehabilitated and used for development.
6. People were employed through rehabilitation and shaft sealing projects.
7. Conviction rates have increased from 2 months to 8 years.
8. Reef outcrop and sub-oucrop areas where illegal mining was taking place has been succesfully mined and continued to be mined by legitimate mining companies.

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane, MP

Minister of Mineral Resources

Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2016

Reply:

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

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:

The Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF) has submitted the following:

Yes, in terms of the rules of the Fund, a person who has contributed for more than 10 years qualifies to receive a gratuity (lump sum) and an annuity (monthly pension). The certain person (name furnished) contributed for a period of 42 years.

(a) Not applicable.

(b) Not applicable.

(i) Yes, the pension claim was successfully processed on 28 April 2016.

(ii) Yes.

(iii) The lump sum was paid on 13 May 2016 and the monthly pension (from date of retirement) was paid on 06 May 2016.

(iv) The certain person (name furnished) is divorced and the fund received claim documents from his ex-spouse for her portion of the divorce interest. This had to be finalised first before his pension was paid and the legal department had a backlog which caused a delay in finalising the divorce claim.

(v) There are no outstanding funds. All his pension benefits were paid.

The GEPF would also like to indicate that due to the fact that some of the requested information is personal, it cannot be made available to third party without the written consent of the person involved.

Members of the GEPF could utilise the call centre or walk in centre facilities provided by the GEPF to its members to deal with this type of enquiry.

Reply:

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

Reply:

(a) Three.

(b) Business and advisory services (audit, research reports and project management).

(c) Total contract amount is R1, 148,069.88

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane, MP

Minister of Mineral Resources

Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2016

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:

The National Treasury has a well-established In-year Monitoring and Reporting System to monitor municipal performance. However, our system does not identify the type of details that the question requires. Such information can only be obtained directly from a municipality.

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:

This is a highly contentious matter. It has been further complicated by leaking of documents, a concerted campaign of vilification and even the initiation of criminal charges. The trail of injustice that has characterized this process thus far is evident to all. Under the circumstances the Honourable Member will appreciate that I will, based on legal advice, not venture into past or present details except to say that the South African Revenue Service, as a revenue collection agency, plays an important part in enabling the government to deliver services to its people and as such needs to focus on its core mandate.

It should be noted that some of the detail requested has been provided in a response to a previous parliamentary question.

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:

(1)(a) There is no timeframe in the legislation for the processing of applications for the transfer of a right/interest in a right.

(b) On average three to six months

(2)(a) Three months and two weeks

2(b)(i) 15 December 2015

(ii) 29 March 2016

3(a) There is no difference

(b) There was no request to expedite this application.

4 Please see 3(a) above. The application was not handled differently by the Department

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane

Minister of Mineral Resources

Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2016

Reply:

This is a highly contentious matter. It has been further complicated by leaking of documents, a concerted campaign of vilification and even the initiation of criminal charges. The trail of injustice that has characterized this process thus far is evident to all. Under the circumstances the Honourable Member will appreciate that I will, based on legal advice, not venture into past or present details except to say that the South African Revenue Service, as a revenue collection agency, plays an important part in enabling the government to deliver services to its people and as such needs to focus on its core mandate.

It should be noted that some of the detail requested has been provided in a response to a previous parliamentary question.

Reply:

Herewith is the requested information:

WEEK START DATE	EAF (%)	Weekly System Peak Demand (MW) Including IOS	Weekly System Peak Demand (MW) Including IOS & IPP's	Weekly System Energy (MWh) Including IOS	Weekly System Energy (MWh) Including IOS & IPP's
2016/01/04 00:00	71.86	28531	30090	4 174 029	4 379 957
2016/01/11 00:00	71.72	29808	30551	4 366 433	4 536 181
2016/01/18 00:00	72.66	30408	31166	4 444 243	4 588 116
2016/01/25 00:00	72.36	29953	30851	4 373 779	4 575 471
2016/02/01 00:00	73.48	30534	31475	4 377 616	4 595 062
2016/02/08 00:00	73.83	30490	31466	4 447 442	4 642 052
2016/02/15 00:00	74.20	30254	31316	4 421 569	4 619 527
2016/02/22 00:00	76.54	30942	31876	4 439 988	4 632 660
2016/02/29 00:00	77.29	30607	31654	4 396 548	4 596 759
2016/03/07 00:00	72.98	30604	31699	4 367 156	4 577 630
2016/03/14 00:00	74.36	31022	31984	4 383 798	4 557 577
2016/03/21 00:00	73.49	29662	30705	4 048 077	4 242 914
2016/03/28 00:00	73.57	30431	31393	4 222 967	4 426 056
2016/04/04 00:00	74.84	32095	33194	4 325 270	4 527 750
2016/04/11 00:00	75.96	31401	32330	4 337 243	4 542 074
2016/04/18 00:00	76.41	32077	32752	4 357 402	4 544 637
2016/04/25 00:00	76.16	30495	31749	4 196 797	4 414 522
2016/05/02 00:00	77.13	31698	32645	4 255 040	4 460 191
WEEK STARTDATE	EAF (%)	Weekly System Peak Demand (MW) Including IOS	Weekly System Peak Demand (MW) Including IOS & IPP's	Weekly System System Energy (MWh) Including IOS	Weekly System System Energy (MWh) Including IOS & IPP's
2016/05/09 00:00	77.89	33126	33993	4 433 338	4 595 217
2016/05/16 00:00	79.07	33318	34172	4 426 802	4 624 752
2016/05/23 00:00	80.22	33742	34533	4 486 352	4 673 142
2016/05/30 00:00	80.76	34134	34913	4 518 664	4 683 653
2016/06/06 00:00	80.99	33738	34171	4 525 477	4 672 101
2016/06/13 00:00	80.14	33884	34679	4 510 004	4 669 556
2016/06/20 00:00	80.66	34075	34329	4 549 648	4 674 224
2016/06/27 00:00	81.91	33986	34415	4 534 536	4 694 288
2016/07/04 00:00	80.38	34470	34821	4 585 635	4 738 698
2016/07/11 00:00	79.91	34023	34523	4 542 159	4 703 847
2016/07/18 00:00	80.51	34215	34742	4 504 107	4 672 753
2016/07/25 00:00	81.95	34197	34886	4 592 703	4 757 914
2016/08/01 00:00	79.88	34239	34707	4 465 760	4 632 796
2016/08/08 00:00	78.95	33027	33455	4 348 841	4 520 367
2016/08/15 00:00	77.87	32324	32977	4 391 797	4 557 565
2016/08/22 00:00	76.24	33016	33694	4 312 300	4 513 400
2016/08/29 00:00	77.21	30950	31957	4 230 939	4 464 099
2016/09/05 00:00	75.59	31383	32293	4 338 801	4 570 880
2016/09/12 00:00	78.56	31915	32986	4 384 392	4 648 366
2016/09/19 00:00	76.29	32005	32914	4 366 970	4 621 655
2016/09/26 00:00	76.06	30589	32012	4 242 442	4 522 398
2016/10/03 00:00	72.84	30743	31692	4 296 692	4 561 854
2016/10/10 00:00	77.73	31253	32172	4 361 792	4 611 242
2016/10/17 00:00	75.45	31413	32471	4 417 529	4 644 664
2016/10/24 00:00	75.44	30296	31767	4 349 636	4 610 456
2016/10/31 00:00	74.83	30520	31909	4 349 349	4 610 022
2016/11/07 00:00	74.81	30404	31606	4 303 359	4 595 709
2016/11/14 00:00	75.20	30008	31419	4 283 228	4 560 171

Reply:

(1) 

No amount was paid to Trillian Capital Partners for the Duvha power plant insurance claim. Eskom did not appoint Trillian Capital Partners to negotiate the settlement for the Duvha Power Plant insurance claim.

(2)

No, Eskom did not appoint Trillian Capital Partners to source a new supplier to replace the exploded boiler at the Duhva Power Plant. There was no need to appoint any external party to assist with sourcing.

(2)(a)

Not applicable

(2)(b)

No other additional relevant detail relating to the above is applicable.

(3)(a)

None

(3)(b)

Not applicable

Reply:

(1)

(a) The Department has advised the North West Provincial Department to institute legal action against the implicated individual with a view to determining whether the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 has been violated as well as to implement the recommendations of the NEXUS report.

A progress report has been received from North West where one case has been investigated and finalised.

(b) (i) & (ii) The matter is still under investigation.

   (iii) The North West Provincial Department has been requested to further investigate whether there are other officials involved in the appointment of the official alleged not to meet the requirements.

2. The Head of Department has been advised to implement the recommendations of the MTT report as well as the NEXUs report.

3. The Minister will make the report available to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education as soon after she has received and analysed it.

Reply:

1. Minister of Mineral Resources has not appointed or overseen an appointment of any person in the Department.

2. Not Applicable.

3. Not Applicable.

 

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane, MP

Minister of Mineral Resources

Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2016

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:

(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:

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:

(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. 

   (a) No, the Minister of Finance was not informed by the South African Revenue Service regarding this matter.

   (b) No to date, the Minister of Finance has not been provided with any formal explanation by SARS on this matter.

 

2. What has appeared in the public domain is completely unacceptable. Mr Symington is a person of great expertise and a person of integrity that I have worked with for many years.

Reply:

1. The Chief Procurement Office (CPO) of the National Treasury requested in writing 7 contracts on the 01st November 2016. Documentation has been received for 3 contracts.

No	Titles (a )	Scopes (b )	Values (c)
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
5.	Inflight Services	Wines	R20 m
6.	Inflight Services	Catering in Hong Kong	R47 m
7.	Inflight Services	Cosmetics and Amenity kits	R105 m

2. 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:

(a) The Department employed only one official at the senior management level with a special salary level (b) (i) the amount paid to the official is R1, 420,944 per annum (ii) The official possesses more than fifteen years experience in the public service and was already in this salary level during the time of her transfer to the Department (iii) based on experience and competencies the official was laterally transferred to serve in the current position.

 

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane, MP

Minister of Mineral Resources

Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2016

Reply:

1. Yes, (a) 1 November 2016 (b) The official was appointed to act in terms of chapter 3 of the Senior Management Services (SMS) Handbook.

2. No. The position is not vacant. (a) N/A (b) N/A.

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane, MP

 

Minister of Mineral Resources

Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2016

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

(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:

(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:

(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.