Questions and Replies
04 January 2017 - NW2686
Davis, Mr GR to ask the Minister of Basic Education
Why has the contract regarding the Kha Ri Gude Literacy Campaign been extended until September 2017 despite concerns about irregular expenditure as presented by her department to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education on 23 November 2016 (details furnished)?
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.
02 January 2017 - NW4012
Motau, Mr SC to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
(a) For what number of years has Alexkor Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture conducted cofferdam mining in the Richtersveld mining area and (b) under what licence is the allocation for prospecting mining done; (2) whether an environmental impact assessment was concluded in the specified area before a mining licence for cofferdam mining was allocated to the specified company; if not, why not; if so, (a) on what date was the assessment concluded and (b) what did the assessment determine the effects of cofferdam mining to be on the specified area; (3) whether she will make a copy of the assessment available to Mr S C Motau?
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)
|
||
(ii) |
Land Right (Richtersveld Mining Company)
|
||
(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:
|
||
(ii) |
Impact of the construction of the coffer dams with sand:
|
||
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 |
|
28 December 2016 - NW2351
Marais, Mr S to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(1)With reference to the trip she undertook to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where she allegedly assisted a Burundian national, (name and details furnished), to travel with her back to South Africa in 2014, what are the (a) names of each (i) diplomatic, (ii) military and (iii) civilian passenger on board the flight to and from the DRC, including the Ethiopia leg, and (b) costs of the specified flights; (2) whether she and each specified passenger travelling with her were subjected to all immigration processes by the customs officers at the Waterkloof Airforce Base; if not, why not; if so, (3) whether the customs officers made any adverse immigration findings against any of the specified passengers travelling with her; if so, what are the relevant details in each case; (4) whether any (a) communication took place and/or (b) arrangements were made to allow the immigration clearance of the specified person to South Africa upon her return from the specified trip; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?
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.
25 December 2016 - NW2699
Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Basic Education
(1)With reference to her reply to question 998 on 21 June 2016, (a) how many of the specified tablets that were purchased for the paperless classroom project in Gauteng have been (i) lost and (ii) stolen since 21 June 2016, (b) what is the total value of the tablets that were (i) lost and (ii) stolen, (c) what action was taken in this regard and (d) what steps have been put in place to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future in each case; (2) whether the tablets that were (a) lost or (b) stolen will be replaced; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) what will it cost to replace the tablets and (ii) what are the further relevant details?
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.
24 December 2016 - NW2223
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Whether, with reference to his replies to questions 1894 on 12 October 2016 and 1975 on 12 October 2016, the SA Revenue Service (SARS) had any (a) meetings and/or (b) communication with (i) him, (ii) the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and/or (iii) any other (aa) organ of state and/or (bb) entity; if not, in each case, why not; if so, in each case, what was the (aaa) date and (bbb) purpose of each meeting and/or communication; (2) whether SARS experienced a lack of cooperation from the FIC while dealing with the specified matter; if so, what are the relevant details?
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.
24 December 2016 - NW1724
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(1) Whether a forensic investigation has been launched into the SA Revenue Service’s Modernisation and Technology Programme; if not, why not; if so, (a) who authorised the investigation, (b) who is conducting the investigation (c) what is the purpose of the investigation, (d)(i) when did the investigation begin and (ii) when will the investigation be completed and (e) what (i) costs have been incurred and (ii) is the breakdown of such costs; (2) whether he was informed of the investigation; if not, why not; if so, when was he informed?
Reply:
- 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.
21 December 2016 - NW2611
Baker, Ms TE to ask the Minister of Water and Sanitation
With reference to her reply to question 2195 on 31 October 2016, (a) for how many hours has each specified water board sat (i) in the (aa) 2013-14, (bb) 2014-15 and (cc) 2015-16 financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2016 and (b) what is the total amount that each of the specified board members was paid in (i) remuneration and (ii) any other allowances in the specified periods?
Reply:
Requesting the Honourable Member to refer to the Water Boards Annual Reports of each specified financial year.
---00O00---
21 December 2016 - NW2694
Purdon, Mr RK to ask the Minister of Water and Sanitation
(1)With reference to the critical drought that is severely affecting major parts of the Republic, (a) which of the country’s major storage dams are currently under 35% capacity in each province and (b) what measures has her department put in place to urgently conserve the water in the specified dams; (2) whether each municipality affected by the dams is implementing stringent measures to conserve water; if not, (a) why not and (b) what steps will she take in this regard; if so, (i) did the specified municipalities receive direction from the Government and (ii) what are the further relevant details in this regard?
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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. |
|
Krugersdrift |
71 |
26.0 |
Ikgomotseng and Soutpan |
Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 19/02/16: No 39718 |
|
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: |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
Tzaneen |
156 |
13.2 |
Mopani Municipality |
Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No 1066) |
|
Nzhelele |
51 |
8.6 |
Thulamela |
Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No. 1066) |
|
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) |
|
Rhenosterkop |
204 |
16.3 |
Nkangala DM |
Drought Operating Rule determined and communicated at the SOF. Restrictions gazetted on 16/09/16 (No. 1066) |
|
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 |
|
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) |
|
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 |
|
21 December 2016 - NW2744
Mulder, Dr CP to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
What amount is required to pay a bonus of 10% to all pensioners of the Transport Pension Fund and the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund where the rules make provision for this; 2. Whether the present surplusses of the pension funds may be used to increase the base of all pensions; if so, with what percentage will the pensions be increased; 3. Whether she will consider implementing such an increase; if not, why not 4. Whether the pending class action court case plays any part in her decision; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3232E
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.
21 December 2016 - NW2717
Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
Which company is currently in charge of the investments that the (i) Transport Pension Fund and (ii) Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund make; (b) What role does a certain person (name furnished) play in making investments in both funds; (c) What are the specified person’s official positions and involvement in (i) Transnet, (ii) the Transport Pension Fund and (iii) the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund; (d) Who appointed him; and (e) Why was he appointed in the specified positions?
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.
21 December 2016 - NW2663
Mazzone, Ms NW to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
What amount did the former Chief Executive Officer of DENEL, Mr Riaz Salojee receive in payment of a severance package before the specified person’s suspension and subsequent resisignation?
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.
21 December 2016 - NW2678
Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
(1) What was the state of the surplusses of the (a) Transport Pension Fund and and (b) Transnet Second Defined Benefit Pension Fund in (i)(aa) 2011, (bb) 2012, (cc) 2013, (dd) 2014, (ee) 2015 and (ii) at the latest specified date for which information is available; (2) (a) what have the surplusses been used for since 2011 and (b) what is their envisaged application for the future?
Reply:
- 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.
20 December 2016 - NW2577
Mokoena, Mr L to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
(a) How does his department intend to deal with zama-zamas and (b) how will the outputs of this plan be measured?
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:
- Illegal miners were arrested and continued to be arrested and convicted.
- Illegal imigrants who are also involved in illegal mining activities were arrested and continued to be arested and deported.
- Mining permits have been issued to mining companies to conduct legitimate mining in areas that were infested with illegal mining.
- Most of the open holes and open shafts where illegal mining was taking place have been sealed, rehabilitated or closed.
- Land where illegal mining was taking place has been rehabilitated and used for development.
- People were employed through rehabilitation and shaft sealing projects.
- Conviction rates have increased from 2 months to 8 years.
- 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
15 December 2016 - NW2741
Lees, Mr RA to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Whether with reference to his reply to question 1804 on 30 November 2016, the SA Airways (SAA) (a) chairperson and/or (b) board granted the National Treasury permission to commence the specified review; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) what are the (a) names, (b) scope and (c) value of each SAA contract that the National Treasury (i) has reviewed (ii) is reviewing and (iii) will, pending approval by the SAA Board, review; (3) whether he will make a statement on the matter?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2700
Mazzone, Ms NW to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
What (a) steps are Eskom and her department taking to ensure that the financial guarantees from the Republic of Zimbabwe’s government regarding a R150 million debt owed by the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) to Eskom is paid and (b) arrangements have been made by ZESA to pay the specified debt?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2743
Mulder, Dr CP to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)With reference to point (5) of his reply to question 2375 on 30 November 2016, (a) when and (b) how did the Public Investment Corporation violate the strategic asset allocation owing to the movement of the markets in each separate case; (2) whether the investment committee of the Government Employees Pension Fund (a) was informed in each individual case regarding the violation and (b)(i) condoned or (ii) rectified it?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2745
Mulder, Dr CP to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)What is the (a) nature and (b) legal basis for the protection that deposit-taking banks give their clients against fraud (i) inside and outside the banks and also (ii) as a result of online scams to protect their clients’ money; (2) whether banks are obliged to take out insurance for these risks; (3) whether banks are obliged to compensate their clients 100% for losses incurred where the clients themselves did not act negligently and the problem has arisen at the bank itself and with other service providers, such as cellphone companies; if not, why not; if so, what is the legal basis of the obligation?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2388
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Whether he (a) was informed of and / or (b) took any action with regard to the footage of a hostage drama that allegedly unfolded at the SA Revenue Service which surfaced on 27 October 2016; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case; (2) whether he will make a statement on the matter?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2570
Mbatha, Mr MS to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
(a) What is the total number of consultants that his department contracted from 1 September 2015 to 1 October 2016, (b) what services did the consultants render and (c) what was the total cost to his department?
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
15 December 2016 - NW2723
Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Basic Education
With reference to the poor conditions of the Reahlahlwa Primary School toilets in Vaalwater in Limpopo, (a) what are the Regulations for Norms and Standards for School Infrastructure applicable and (b) by what date will the (i) learners and (ii) teachers receive suitable and safe toilets?
Reply:
The information has been requested from the Limpopo Department Education and will be provided as a soon as it is received.
15 December 2016 - NW2589
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Whether an anti-corruption and security unit has been established within the SA Revenue Service recently; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what is the name of the person who heads the specified unit, (b) why was the unit established, (c) what are the (i) functions and (ii) powers of the unit and (d) what is the (i) budget and (ii) detailed breakdown of the budget of the unit for the 2016-17 financial year; (2) whether the unit has been tasked with probing (a) him and/or (b) any other member of the so-called rogue unit; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?
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
15 December 2016 - NW2152
Mileham, Mr K to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Whether the Mogalakwena Local Municipality in Limpopo contributed any (a) funds, (b) resources and/or (c) staff to the Mayor’s birthday celebrations held at the Mapela Traditional Council Stadium on 21 September 2016; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) from which (aa) budget and (bb) Vote were the specified funds, resources and/or staff drawn, (ii) was the use of the specified funds, resources and/or staff approved by the Council and (iii) did the resources spent on the specified event comply with the requirements set out in the Municipal Finance Management Act, Act 56 of 2003, as amended?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW1969
Maimane, Mr MA to ask the Minister of Finance
Which banks that are registered with the SA Reserve Bank, offer home loans in respect of land owned by traditional and/or communal authorities?
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:
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).
15 December 2016 - NW46
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)On what date did (a) he, (b) the SA Revenue Services (SARS) Commissioner and (c) SARS Advisory Board receive the (i) preliminary and (ii) final report of KPMG into the SARS alleged “covert intelligence unit”; (2) whether the SARS Commissioner consulted (a) him and/or (b) the SARS Advisory Board on the appropriate response to the (i) preliminary report and/or (ii) final report; if not, in each specified case, why not; if so, in each specified case, what are the relevant details; (3) whether he consulted the (a) SARS Commissioner and/or (b) SARS Advisory Board on the appropriate response to the (i) preliminary report and/or (ii) final report; if not, in each specified case, why not; if so, in each specified case, what are the relevant details?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2504
Kwankwa, Mr NL to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Whether the staff of the National Treasury and the SA Reserve Bank are involved in the management of the Financial Services Board (FSB); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the reasons for their involvement; (2) what is the total number of persons who have valid Financial Service Providers’ (FSP) licenses who have been driven out of the insurance industry by the FSB since 2004; (3) (a) what is the total number of persons who (i) have had their licences declined, revoked or retracted and (ii) voluntary gave up their FSP licences and (b) of these persons, what is the total number of black, coloured and Indian persons; (4) what is the total number of persons who have or will be adversely affected by the Board Notice 113 of 2015, which enables the National Treasury to account for persons who are expected to be declined the FSB Authority for significant ownership, directorship, managing executive, public officer, auditor or statutory actuary in the insurance industry; (5) whether the FSB has the power to (a) make regulations or subordinate legislation that is considered to be binding on the insurance industry and its practitioners and (b) impose penalties to entities that it considers to have breached legislation; if so, (i) who has the mandate to authorise in each case and (ii) could he furnish Mr N L Kwankwa with the specified legislation promulgated since 1994?
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;
- the need to be an authorised FSP, and
- 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.
15 December 2016 - NW2633
Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
(1)(a) How long does it usually take him and his department to give approval for the transfer of exploration and mining rights and (b) what has been the average period for finalising the transfer of the specified rights over the past five years; (2) (a) how long did it take to approve the transfer of the mining and mineral rights from Optimum to Tegeta and (b) on what date (i) was the request of Tegeta received and (ii) was approval given for the transfer of the mining and mineral rights; (3) (a) why is there a difference between the specified average transfer period and the transfer period of Optimum to Tegeta and (b) who requested that the transfer should be expedited; (4) whether he had discussions and/or written communication with Tegeta and Optimum concerning expediting the transfer of the mining and mineral rights; if not, on what basis did he and his department make the decision to expedite the transfer; if so, (a) on what date, (b) where and (c) with whom did they communicate?
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
15 December 2016 - NW989
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)Whether any investigation(s) into allegations surrounding the alleged covert intelligence unit in the SA Revenue Service (Sars) have been conducted; if not, why not; if so, (a) what were the terms of reference of each investigation and (b) what was the (i) total cost and (ii) breakdown of such costs of the investigation(s); (2) whether the investigation(s) produced any reports; if not, why not; if so, in respect of each specified report, (a) what was the title of the report and (b) on what date was the report (i) finalised and (ii) received by (aa) him, (bb) Sars and (cc) the Sars Advisory Board and (iii) made public?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2666
Van Dalen, Mr P to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
Whether she will furnish Mr P van Dalen with copies of Eskom’s week on week energy availability factor, demand and energy reports since 1 January 2016; if not, why not; if so, by what date?
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 |
15 December 2016 - NW2701
Mazzone, Ms NW to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises
(1) What amount did Trillian Capital Partners receive in service fees for allegedly negotiating the settlement of a massive insurance claim involving the explosion of a boiler at the Duhva power plant; (2) did Eskom appoint the specified company to source a new supplier to replace the exploded boiler at the Duhva power plant; if not, why not; if so, what (a) were the fees payable to the specified company in this regard and (b) are the further relevant details; (3) (a) which other contracts of engagement have been concluded between Eskom and the specified company and (b) what are the costs involved in each case?
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
15 December 2016 - NW2684
Davis, Mr GR to ask the Minister of Basic Education
(1)Whether any action has been taken against any officials of the North West Department of Education that are implicated in the report of the Ministerial Task Team to Investigate Allegations into the Selling of posts of Educators by Members of Teacher Unions and Departmental Officials in Provincial Education Departments in relation to findings of the 2011 Nexus report that the SA Democratic Teachers’ Union irregularly influenced the appointment of educators to senior positions in the Bojanala district; if not, (a) why not and (b) by what date will action be taken against the specified officials; if so, (i) what action has been taken against the officials, (ii) which officials were found to have been implicated and (iii) what was each official found guilty of; (2) whether the Head of Department of the specified provincial department of education took action in relation to the findings of the specified report; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether she will make the report available to (a) the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education and/or (b) Mr G R Davis; if not, in each case, why not; if so by what date in each case?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2507
Carter, Ms D to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
(1)Whether he appointed or overseen the appointment of a certain person in his department (name and details furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what process was followed in the appointment of the specified person and (b) what are the further relevant details; (2) can he provide Ms D Carter with a copy of the (a) advertisement for the position, (b) list of all persons who applied for the position, (c) list of all persons who were shortlisted and (d) interviews score sheets; (3) whether the appointment of the specified persons was approved by Cabinet as required by Public Service legislation; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2921E
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
15 December 2016 - NW2683
Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Finance
Whether a certain person (name furnished) was authorised by the SA Revenue Services to send a letter to the Business Day, which was published on 28 November 2016, entitled Gangster Ratings Agencies; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) whether any disciplinary action will be taken against the specified person; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether he will make a statement on the matter?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW1104
Lees, Mr RA to ask the Minister of Finance
Whether, with reference to a certain person (name furnished) who retired from the South African National Defence Force on 30 September 2015, the specified person qualifies for a pension from the Government Employees Pension Fund; if not (a) what are the details of the reasons for non-qualification and (b) when was the specified person informed of such non-qualification; if so, (i) has such a pension been authorised, (ii) is the pension being paid to the specified person, (iii) when was the pension first paid to the specified person, (iv) what are the reasons for the delay in paying the pension and (v) when will the outstanding funds be paid?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2724
Boshoff, Ms SH to ask the Minister of Basic Education
With reference to the relocation of the Setotolwane Secondary School in Mashashane to the new premises at the Hwiti High School in Mankweng in Limpopo, (a) what (i) was the exact cost of the vandalised premises and (ii) is the total cost of the upgraded school and (b) who was the contractor of the new premises?
Reply:
The information has been requested from the Limpopo Department Education and will be provided as a soon as it is received.
15 December 2016 - NW2739
Lees, Mr RA to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)What are the (a) titles, (b) scopes and (c) values of each contract being investigated under two enquiries launched into procurement and finance irregularities, as contained in a letter from the Chairperson of the SA Airways Board; (2) whether he will make a statement on the matter?
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.
15 December 2016 - NW2567
Mokoena, Mr L to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
(a) How many persons in his department are employed in senior management with a special salary level and (b) what (i) amount has each person been paid, (ii) is the basis for each specified salary level and (iii) are the further relevant details of each appointment?
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
15 December 2016 - NW2691
Lorimer, Mr JR to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
(1)Did he appoint a certain person (name furnished) to the position of acting deputy director-general of his department; if not, who did he appoint in the specified position; if so, (a) when did the specified appointment take place and (b) what are the full relevant details of the process followed to appoint the specified person to the position; (2) has he taken any steps to fill the vacant position; if not, why not; if so, (a) by what date will the specified position be filled and (b) what are the further relevant details in this regard?
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
14 December 2016 - NW2623
Matsepe, Mr CD to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
Whether a certain person (name furnished), stationed at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town, has taken regular sick leave; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the details of sick leave taken by the specified person for each of the past three financial years in terms of the (a) duration, (b) nature of the illness, (c)(i) sick certificates issued and (ii) name of medical practitioner(s) who issued the certificates and (d) sick leave cycles?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2625
Matsepe, Mr CD to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(1)Have the supply chain management and procurement policies of her department been strictly adhered to at all times at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town; if not, why not; if so, what is the position in this regard; (2) has any (a) unauthorised, (b) irregular and/or (c) fruitless and wasteful expenditure been reported to have taken place at the specified military base (i) in each of the past three financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2016; if so, what are the relevant details of the expenditures; (3) were any consequence management measures put in place; (4) (a) what are the challenges in disposing of military vehicles that are beyond economical repair and (b) how will the challenges be resolved?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2626
America, Mr D to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(a) How many (i) SA National Defence Force (SANDF) members in each division are based at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town, (ii) of the specified members in uniform in each division have been involved in traffic accidents (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2016 and (iii) how many of the specified incidents (aa) have been investigated and (bb) remain unresolved, (b) what were the (i) outcomes and (ii) consequences of the resolved cases and (c) what were the total financial costs to the SANDF in each case?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2621
Marais, Mr S to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(1)(a) What are the (i) names and (ii) rank of persons stationed at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town, who received performance bonuses in each of the past three financial years, (b) what amounts did each person receive in each case, (c) how were the bonuses determined in each case, (d) which processes and procedures were followed in this regard and (e) who were the members of the assessment panels in each case; (2) are there any portfolios of evidence and motivations by the line superiors to award bonuses to the specified persons; if not, why not; if so, (3) are the specified files open for scrutiny; if not, why not; if so, where can they be accessed; (4) did a certain person (name and details furnished) also receive a performance bonus in each of the specified financial years; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details on each case?
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:
-
- Each individual score per KRA and GAF is motivated.
-
- Each superior has to have at least two compulsory interviews with his/her member, in order to highlight good or bad performances.
-
- 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.
14 December 2016 - NW2627
America, Mr D to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(1)Why has a certain person (name furnished), who is stationed at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town, not (a) been charged with misconduct and (b) appeared before a disciplinary committee for allegedly being regularly drunk on duty; (2) has any other member of staff at the specified base reported the unacceptable behaviour of the specified person before; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) is a certain Commanding Officer (name furnished), aware of the alleged misconduct that is taking place under his watch; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2618
Esau, Mr S to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(1)(a) What is the total number of burglary incidents that occurred at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town, in each year from 1 January 2014 to date, (b) what is the detailed breakdown of each burglary incident in terms of (i) the date on which it occurred, (ii) where it occurred at the base and (iii) what is the value of each item that was stolen, (c) what were the full details of the outcomes of the investigations conducted, including consequence management measures that were implemented; (2) whether she has found that there was collusion between staff and criminals; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) why (a) are the security guards not effective in combating the burglary incidents and (b) do they remain unarmed; (4) what is the total number of security guards that are on duty on a daily basis and what routine do the security guards follow to secure the military base; (5) does the military base comply with the security requirements according to the National Key Point legislation; if not, what are the full details of non-compliance?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2660
Cardo, Dr MJ to ask the Minister of Economic Development
(a) What amount did the Industrial Development Corporation (i) invest in On Digital Media and (ii) lose in the failed venture and (b) what are the full relevant reasons for the specified failure?
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:………………………..
14 December 2016 - NW2708
Hunsinger, Dr CH to ask the Minister of Transport
With reference to her reply to question 2408 on 21 November 2016, for the (a) 2013-14 (b) 2014-15 and (c) 2015-16 financial years, (i) who were the members that constituted the Traffic Legislation Technical Committee, (ii) who do the specified members represent and (iii) what is the expertise of each person?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2624
Matsepe, Mr CD to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(a) Why have the tools that were stolen from the 26 SA Military trucks at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town, not been (i) reported and (ii) investigated and (b) what (i) tools were stolen and (b) is the value of each tool?
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.
14 December 2016 - NW2661
Cardo, Dr MJ to ask the Minister of Economic Development
(1) (a) What are the names of each so-called politically exposed persons who received a loan from the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) since 1 January 2009, (b) which company is each of the specified persons associated with and (c) what is the amount of money loaned by the IDC to each of the persons and/or their companies in each case; (2) whether each of the specified loans due for repayment were repaid to the company on time; if not, (a) why not and (b) what are the renegotiated terms in each case; if so, what are the relevant details?
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:………………………..
14 December 2016 - NW2742
Bergman, Mr D to ask the Minister of Sport and Recreation
(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 (b) any capital projects undertaken to upgrade the Ethekwini precinct by each (i) national (ii) provincial and (iii) local sport authority; (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? QUESTION 2742.Mr D Bergman (DA) to ask the Minister of Sport and Recreation (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 (b) any capital projects undertaken to upgrade the Ethekwini precinct by each (i) national (ii) provincial and (iii) local sport authority; (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? NW 3230E 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:
(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.
14 December 2016 - NW2622
Marais, Mr S to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(a) How many grievances were lodged by staff members stationed at the Youngsfield Military Base in Wetton, Cape Town (i) in each of the past three financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2016, (b) what is the (i) nature and (ii) trend of the specified grievances and (c) how many of the grievances (i) were resolved and (ii) remain unresolved?
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
14 December 2016 - NW2619
Esau, Mr S to ask the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
Has a certain person (name and details furnished) been suspended on full pay for the past six years; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) why has the investigation into the specified person’s case been delayed for such a long time, (b) what costs has the SA National Defence Force incurred for the specified suspension in terms of (i) remuneration paid to the specified person and (ii) costs to conduct the investigation, (c) what is the current status of the specified person and (d)(i) who fulfilled the duties and responsibilities of the specified person during the period of suspension and (ii) at what cost?
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.