Questions and Replies

Reply:

(1) (a) Universal Service and Aceess Agency of South Africa (USAASA), has informed me that it has appointed three companies (BUA Africa, CZ Electronics and Leratadima) to produce and supply set-top boxes to the South African Post Offices accross the country, including the Northern Cape and the Free State.

(b) USAASA informed me that the companies provided STBs as follows:

(i) Northern Cape: BUA Africa provided 3,506 STBs; CZ Electronics provided 27,000 STBs; and Leratadima provided 150 STBs.

(ii) Free State: BUA Africa provided 1,400 STBs; CZ Electronics provided 16,000 STBs; and Leratadima provided 00 STBs.

(c) USAASA further informed me that BUA Africa did not receive any payments as their invoices came in late. Leratadima and CZ Electronics were paid R680,934.34 and R35,841,674.00 respectively.

(2)  According to the Agency, not all produced STBs are Digital Terrestrial Television: 3,506 are DTH STBs and 27,150 are DTT STBs.

                                                                         

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE

Reply:

In relation to the question of translators in other departments, I am unable to provide answers since these departments are not accountable to me. The honourable Member must feel free to ask each of the departments of government and their respective entities.

Reply:

1. The NFVF currently does not have any regional offices. The main reason is budgetary – the NFVF Act allows for a 25% cap on administration expenditure and the setting up of regional offices would cause NFVF to vastly exceed this cap and reduce funds available to offer as grants.

2. The NFVF does not enter into agreements with individual international companies. However, the NFVF has agreements with official international state entities. South Africa has signed 8 international co-production treaties with the governments of Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Germany, France, Australia and New Zealand. We are currently in negotiation with Brazil, Algeria, Kenya and Netherlands to sign treaties with these countries.

Co-production treaties are signed in order for government entities (such as NFVF) in both countries to facilitate and encourage production and cultural exchange between the respective countries. These co-production treaties are administered by the NFVF.

3. The co-production treaties that has been signed with the 8 above-mentioned countries govern the relationship between South Africa and the respective countries. Please find attached copies of the 8 treaties signed between the government of South Africa and the government of the respective countries.

Reply:

(a) Burglary cases reported

   (i) Military Police Service Stations – Three cases of burglary were reported.

(aa) 2012-13: One case of burglary at haba Tshwane Military Police Area Office (MPAO) and one burglary at Daquar MPAO.

(bb) 2013-14: No burglary was reported.

(cc) 2014- 15: One case of burglary at Bloemfontein MPAO

(b) Nature of stolen goods is TV, two edge cutters.

TV (Thaba Tshwane) R6,000.00

2x edge cutters (Daquar) R5,000.00

Forced entry (Bloemfontein – nothing stolen)

There were no cases reported to the South African Police Service

Reply:

(a) Phase 1 for the installation of the ±45 km pipe work and associated works was completed at a cost of R570 million. Phase 2 commenced in December 2014.

(b) Phase 2 expenditure for the 2014/15 Municipal financial year was R59.6 million. It is anticipated that the expenditure for 2015/16 (30 June 2016) will be R82 million. A further R40 million has been budgeted for the completion of Phase 2 during the 2016/17 financial year.

(c) Phase 2 is scheduled for completion by March 2017 with Phase 3 in December 2018.

---00O00---

Reply:

(a)(i)(ii) Yes, Productivity South Africa does run developmental programmes for Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs), and Cooperatives.

(aa) The entity has developed action learning solutions to assist SMMEs and Cooperatives aimed at equipping them with the right skills, knowledge and attitudes to implement systems and procedures to improve productivity, profitability, growth and employment creation within these sectors.

The details of the program are as follows:

1. PHASE 1: Business Start-up Workshop (BSUW)

The objective of this phase is to cultivate productive behaviour and distribute productivity competencies among emerging entrepreneurs, including SMMEs and co-operatives. They are enabled to achieve the following learning outcomes:

• Demonstrate an understanding of productivity and its measurement.
• Define entrepreneurship and the characteristics of a successful entrepreneur.
• Demonstrate an understanding of business compliance.
• Identify sources of start-up capital.
• Demonstrate an understanding of the business plan guide/ template as a tool during implementation of action plans to establish a business.

    2. PHASE 2: Business Performance Improvement Workshop (BPIW)

The objective of this phase is to apply an action learning solution to assist SMMEs and co-operatives to implement systems and procedures that will result in:

• Wastage elimination
• Increased sales
• Reduced operational costs through speed and quality improvement
• Maximised profits
• An early warning system (EWS) to proactively detect distress.

1. PHASE 3: After-care and Coaching

The third phase of the programme assist delegates with practical assignments relevant to their own businesses in the form of coaching aftercare services. The practical implementation of the programme content facilitates the achievement of the following objectives:

• The assumption of entrepreneurial behaviour
• The ability to calculate basic productivity measurements
• The ability to establish and maintain critical business practices, such as cash-flow management, budgeting and inventory control
• Practical measurement of current productivity levels and setting of achievable improvement targets
• The ability to undertake practical productivity improvement projects based on set targets
• The ability to realise tangible financial savings from productivity improvement projects and improving profitability and growth.

The coaching component is applied throughout the programme as practical improvement projects are presented. Productivity advisors align activities according to the requirements of the group/cluster. The programme is concluded with a comprehensive stakeholder close-out report and entrepreneurs who complete their portfolio of evidence receive certification.

(bb) An amount of R6 277 116.00 has been budgeted for the 2016/17 financial year for this program.

(cc) A total 1 200 SMMEs and 4 300 Cooperatives will be assisted.

 

Reply:

I did not undertake an international trip on government business to either the French Republic and/ or the Republic of Senegal in the 2015 -16 financial years.

Reply:

I have been furnished with a statement by the CEO of the Industrial Development Corporation, Mr Geoffrey Qhena, on the matters covered by the question.

The statement follows:

“It is common knowledge that the IDC has provided financial assistance to Oakbay Resources & Energy Limited. In the period leading up to the finalisation of negotiations regarding the transaction and in the normal course of business, Mr Ufikile Khumalo (who was at the time the Divisional Executive responsible for Mining and Beneficiation) and Mr Abel Malinga (the current Divisional Executive responsible for Mining & Metals Industries) held several meetings with officials, executives and shareholders of Oakbay Resources & Energy including Mr Atul Gupta and Mr Jagdish Parekh. All meetings with officials, executives and shareholders of Oakbay Resources took place at the offices of the IDC. None of these meetings took place at the Gupta’s Saxonwold Estate.

In addition to the meetings referred to above and during the course of the last year, the current Divisional Executive for Mining and Metals Industries, Mr Abel Malinga met twice with the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Oakbay Resources, Ms Ronica Ragavan, to finalise the terms for restructuring Oakbay Resources’ existing facilities with the IDC. The second meeting discussed a possible early redemption of IDC facilities by Oakbay Resources. The meeting to discuss the restructuring of Oakbay Resources facilities took place at the IDC whilst the discussion on possible early redemption of IDC facilities by Oakbay Resources took place at the client’s offices at 144 Katherine Street, Sandton.”

MG Qhena, 11 May 2016

-end-

Reply:

Year & Festival	(a) Number of trips by officials of the department	(c) Number of artists accompanying officials on the specific trips	(b) Estimated costs – actual costs are being collected from financial records and will be supplied as soon as available	(d) How did film producers benefit from the specific trips
2011/12 FISAHARA Film Festival in Tindouf in Algeria	1 trip	3 artists	Estimated costs R600 000 - Actual costs being obtained	The work of SA film producers was showcased
2012/13 FISAHARA Film Festival in Tindouf in Algeria	1 trip	4 artists	Estimated costs R650 000 Actual costs being obtained	The work of SA film producers was showcased
2013/14: FISAHARA Film Festival in Tindouf in Algeria Cannes Film Festival in France	1 trip 1 trip	11 artists None	Estimated costs R800 000 Actual costs being obtained Estimated costs was R814 180.00. Actual costs being obtained	The work of SA film producers was showcased The work of SA film producers was showcased. Signing film coproduction treaties allow SA film producers to access partnerships, access co-financing, to coproduce, and access distribution, exhibition and marketing opportunities.
2014/15 FISAHARA Film Festival in Tindouf in Algeria	1 trip	2 artist	Estimated costs R400 000 - Actual costs being obtained	The work of SA film producers was showcased
2 FISAHARA Film Festival in Tindouf in Algeria 015/16	1 trip	1 artist	Estimated costs R400 000 - Actual costs being obtained	The work of SA film producers was showcased

Reply:

(1)(a)(i) My Department's Top Management discussed the Auditor-General (AG)’s report on the following dates, refer below:

• 13 October 2014;
• 23 February 2015; and
• 23 March 2015.

Furthermore the Risk Management Committee also discussed the AG's report on 13 October 2014.

(1)(a)(ii) The meeting took place in Pretoria.

(1)(b) The meeting was attended by members of Top Management and Risk Management.

(1)(c) The outcomes of the discussions was to mitigate risks as identified by the AG and to continue to improve the internal control environment.

(2) My Department’s audit committee report has been included in the annual report for 2014/15 financial year.

(3) No, the structure of the sanitation function remains as transferred from the Department of Human Settlements. The organisational structure of my Department is currently being reviewed in its entirety.

(4) A Steering Committee functions within my Department and is attended by Top Management, Internal Control, AG and National Treasury, which worked in tandem to resolve the issues raised during the AG Audit.

---00O00---

Reply:

(a) The Universal Service and Access Agency for South Africa, which is the entity charged with the responsibility of managing the production and installation of set top boxes, informed me that 823 STBs were installed country wide as at 29 February 2016.

(b) The companies USAASA contracted to install the specified STBs are: Amigen Investments, Duramics Trading & Projects, Ketelelo Trading, Krosworx, KST Consortium, Lamec, Maziya Construction, Silverwell Business Enterprise and Ellies Industries.

(c) USAASA further informed me that Amigen Investments was paid R15,400.00; Duramics Trading & Projects was paid R 3,850.00; Ketelelo Trading was paid R15,950.00; Krosworx was paid R14,300.00; KST Consortium was paid R2,750.00; Lamec was paid R18,150.00; Maziya Construction was paid R12,650.00; Silverwell Business Enterprise was paid R24,200.00; and Ellies Industries has not redeemed any vouchers at SAPO.

 

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

Reply:

I am advised that the government expert witness signed the requisite confidentiality agreement supplied to him by government lawyers prior to gaining access to confidential information.

-END-

Reply:

According to Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, the institution has not yet established who gave the instruction for the billboards to be removed and it is still investigating the matter.

Reply:

(1)(a)(i) With reference to my Department’s advertisement to train 15 000 youths as plumbers, the following are in place. My Department has appointed Rand Water and Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA) as implementing agents responsible for project/programme management and training, respectively. The training takes place in three phases, namely:

• Phase 1 commenced last year 2015 and 3000 learners were recruited.
• Phase 2 to start in July 2016 and 7000 prospective learners are being recruited country wide.
• Phase 3 to start in 2017 and remaining 5000 learners to be recruited as part of Phase 3.

Since the objective of the programme is to fix water leaks in municipalities, the learners are recruited from priority municipalities across the country that experience high water loses. The learners will be placed in these municipalities as part of experiential training.

(1)(a)(ii) Qualifications that successful trainees will receive upon completion of the programme are as follows:

• Water Agents;
• Artisans; and
• Plumbers.

(1)(b) Eligibility for the specified training programme. Since the programme requires technical expertise in water environment, the following entry requirements are defined:

• Grade 10 – 12 for Water Agents; and
• Grade 12 / N3 with Maths and Science for Artisans and Plumbers.

(1)(c) Training of the programme takes place at TVETS and private technical colleges across the country. The practical part of the training programme takes place at the municipalities and technical facilities provided by TVETS and private technical colleges.

(1)(d) All learners are recruited for a 36 month period, which includes the theory and workplace/experiential part of the programme.

(1)(e) The programme was launched on 28 August 2015 by the Honourable President, Mr Jacob Zuma.

1. Phase 1 started in September 2015;
2. Phase 2 to start in July 2016; and
3. Phase 3 planned to comments April 2017.

(2)(a) Cost per candidate within the respective disciplines, which includes stipend paid for the duration of 36 months.

     (i) Artisans – R175 489;

     (ii) Plumbers – R177 345; and

     (iii) Water Agents – R69 494.

(2)(b) The funds for the programme will be from the Water Trading Entity.

(2)(c)(i) The learners will be placed in priority municipalities across the county, which have high water loses.

(2)(c)(ii) The learners will be at these municipalities for the contract period of the programme.

---00O00---

Reply:

According to the information received from the Metropolitan Municipalities,

(a) The total number of leakages that were (i) reported and (ii) fixed since 1 July 2015 are indicated below:

Buffalo City: leakages reported 1 928 and fixed 1 928;

City of Cape Town: leakages reported 27 500 and fixed 27 500;

City of Johannesburg: leakages reported 22 431 and fixed 22 408;

City of Tshwane: leakages reported 61 000 and fixed 56 000;

Ekurhuleni: leakages reported 31 857 and fixed 31 850;

eThekwini: leakages reported 104 960 and fixed 103 176;

Manguang: leakages reported 16 976 and fixed 13 442;

Nelson Mandela Bay: leakages reported 8 014 and fixed 8 014.

(b) The litres of water that were lost due to leakages since 1 July 2015:

Buffalo City: not measured;

City of Cape Town: 2 978 Million Litres;

City of Johannesburg: 11 531 Million Litres;

City of Tshwane: 64 000 Million Litres;

Ekurhuleni: 41 880 Million Litres;

eThekwini: 279 Million Litres per Day; (approximately 2,511 million)

Manguang: 3,658 Million Litres per Day; (approximately 32,922 million)

Nelson Mandela Bay: 34 000 Million Litres.

(c) The average response time to fix the leakages are:

Buffalo City: 3 hours;

City of Cape Town: less than 24 hours;

City of Johannesburg: 32 hours;

City of Tshwane: 48 hours;

Ekurhuleni: 47 hours;

eThekwini: 1 to 2 working days;

Manguang: 3 working days;

Nelson Mandela Bay: 4 hours.

Reply:

1. Vetting has been completed. Judges will be appointed before the end of May 2016.
2. The Military Discipline Bill has recently received pre-certification from the State Law Advisers and this marks the way for the introduction of the Bill into Parliament. The Bill once passed will go a long way towards strengthening the military justice system.

Reply:

(a) (i) See the attached specifications.

(ii) There is a budget allocated for the 2016/17 financial year.

(iii)The initial date was end of May 2016 but the tender adjudication process is underway and can alter the delivery date.

(b) It has recently been determined that the Aircraft will be leased for a period of 12 Months.

SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

Reply:

I have been furnished with a statement by the CEO of the Industrial Development Corporation, Mr Geoffrey Qhena, on the matters covered by the question.

The statement by the IDC follows:

“(A) There were no political considerations associated with the restructure;

(B) The restructuring was done purely on commercial terms as set out below;

(C) Point of correction – the amount is R250 million and not R250 billion.

The original R250 million loan is expected to be fully repaid, as R137,5 million has already being received to date and R112,5 million is outstanding as at 30 April 2016. The next instalment of R37,5 million is payable by end of June 2016, with intention of the full capital being repaid by 31 March 2018.

The interest of R257 million being from 14 April 2010 to 31 May 2014 (the date on which the amount converted was determined) was converted into shares when the entity was listed (at a 10% discount to the listing price).

The additional interest (after conversion) of prime plus 2% will be repaid as a lump sum on 31 March 2018.

The risk profile of the company at the time of our initial investment compared to the risk profile of the company at the time of restructuring differed materially. At the time of the acquisition, the mine was under care and maintenance and the company was not generating any revenue which needed to be brought back into production.  The turnaround strategy of the company was based on an improvement in operational efficiencies and productivity. The IDC initially viewed the asset as a pure uranium play (the gold potential was not considered at the time due to level of accuracy of the information) compared to the time of restructuring, there was a demonstrable open cast gold reserve with a proven operational record. At the time of the acquisition, the “perceived” risks were higher, hence the equity type return of 10% Real After Tax Internal Rate of Return (RATIRR).

Our pricing mechanism always takes into account both the level of risk and developmental impact and the repayment profile mirrors the anticipated cash flow generation of the asset/project.

At the time of the restructuring, IDC demanded that the company part settle R100 million of the original facility before the restructuring of the facility. In addition the main shareholder had injected an additional R293 million and the company was generating positive cash flows from the gold production concomitant with now a demonstrable operational track record from the gold production. Moreover, the IDC facility was reduced by R100 million and the balance of the original capital continued to be secured by the assets of the company, giving the IDC a security cover of more than one times – hence the prime plus two percent post the restructuring. It is not the first time that the IDC has done a restructuring of this nature where a debt facility is converted into equity. Ordinarily both the interest and capital is converted into equity. The difference in this instance is that only the interest portion was converted retaining the capital for it to still be repaid thus putting us in a better position.”

MG Qhena, 23 May 2016

-END-

Reply:

The information required relates to the movement of the President and for security reasons, the response to this question can only be presented to closed session of the Joint Standing Committee on Defence.

Reply:

1 (a) No inspection conducted at Chloorkop Primary School in Kempton Park, Gauteng.

   (b) Due to the fact that there was no inspection conducted, there are no findings.

   (c) There is no stipulation in the Occupational Heath and Safety Act regarding the frequency of inspections for any workplace and there is no other legislation.

(2) (a) Inspection will be conducted at end of May 2016.

(b) inspection reports are not made public in terms of Section 36 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act as amended.

Reply:

(1)(a) Yes, my Department has incurred irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditures as determined by the Auditor-General in the 2014-15 financial year.

(1)(b) The findings have not yet been determined by Auditor-General since the audit for the financial year 2015/16 has not been finalised.

(1)(b)(i) The irregular expenditure was incurred for various reasons as disclosed on the financial report for the year end 2014/15 which was made public and is available on my departmental website.

(1)(b)(ii) Recipients are various service providers who provided service to my Department. In terms of the National Treasury instruction on the treatment of irregular expenditure, my Department is bound to pay for the service when the obligation has been made by my Department officials on behalf of the Department. After the payment has been made the Department has to investigate how the transgression was done and take appropriate disciplinary actions as directed by the PFMA.

(1)(b)(iii) Refer to the list below for the tender processes followed that led to the transgressions committed:

• Procurement of IT services not following the SITA Act;
• Procurement of goods and services deliberately split into parts or items of smaller value merely to avoid complying with the requirements of the SCM policy and legislation;
• The final decision on the acceptance of quotations not done by a properly delegated official or committee;
• Goods or services of a transaction value of more than R2 000 procured without inviting at least three written price quotations from prospective suppliers and the deviation not approved by delegated person;
• Deviations from competitive bidding and not test the market by procuring goods and services from none approved sole supplier;
• Correct Supply Chain Management (SCM) processes and procedures not adhered to.
• Payment may only be made in terms of a valid contract to a duly authorised payee.
• Incorrect authorisation of transactions (delegations not complied with);
• Expenditure exceeding original excess of the approved contract or quoted amount or no contract in place;
• Lowest quotation not selected and no motivation provided;
• Contracts awarded without original tax clearance certificates or tax clearance certificates expired;
• The method of procurement is inconsistent with those prescribed in terms of PN 8 of 2007/2008. Goods or services of a transaction value of R10 000 to R500 000 were procured without inviting at least three written price quotations from prospective suppliers and the deviation was not approved by delegated person; and
• Goods and services were rendered by the supplier and paid for without a valid written signed contract.

(2)(a) My Department is investigating the matter to determine whether the transgressions were in the interest of the State or not.

(2)(b) The appropriate actions will be taken upon completion of the investigation.

---00O00---

Reply:

QUESTION	FINANCIAL YEAR	MEMBERS TRAINED
a)	2011/2012	1093
b)	2012/2013	997
c)	2013/2014	1697
d)	2014/2015	1055
e)	2015/2016	1578

 

Reply:

Soldiers of the SANDF are not deployed in in the KZN game parks per se but are responsible for border safeguarding operations. Amongst other, along the KZN-Mozambican borders therefore there is no financial implications related to the above mentioned question, only OP CORONA budget is spent for border safeguarding.

Reply:

(a) The Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA), which is the entity charged with the responsibility of managing the procurement of set-top boxes, informed me that Ellies Industries, Temic Manufacturing and QEC Pty Ltd are the three companies appointed to provide DTT antennas in the Northern Cape and Free State as at 29 February 2016.

(b) The entity has informed me that Ellies Industries provided 15,680 DTH Antennas, Temic Manufacturing provided 9,640 DTT Antennas, and QEC Pty Ltd provided 3,100 DTT antennas.

(c) USAASA informed me that an amount of R8,834,200.00 was paid to Ellies Industries. QEC and Temic Manufacturing were paid R17,770.32 and R27,018.00 respectively.

 

MR NN MUNZHELELE

DIRECTOR GENERAL [ACTING]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE:

MS AF MUTHAMBI (MP)

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

DATE

Reply:

Costs relating to the hosting of the 17th Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) in Johannesburg, Gauteng from 24 September 2016 to 05 October 2016 include:

• Host Country Agreement with the CITES Secretariat (translation, interpretation, documentation, report writing, travel of CITES Staff) = USD647 234 .
• Costs associated with logistical arrangements associated with the CoP, including venue, professional conference organiser, technical requirements (voting system, microphone and audiovisual systems) opening and closing ceremonies = R34 280 547.
• Costs associated with communication, community empowerment and participation and legacy programme = R31 188 808.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. The Department of Labour’s spent on SMMEs for 2015/16 accounted for 59.2% of the total procurement spent.

2. When taking all its entities into account, 29.6% accounted for SMMEs procurement.

3. Cooperatives accounted for negligible share and the Labour Activation Programme is focusing on Enterprise Development Programme with a special focus on Cooperatives.

Reply:

The National Department of Basic Education contacted the Eastern Cape Education Department to seek clarity on the matter as we could not find a Seymour High School in the Amathole region on the national database. The Eastern Cape Department indicated that there is no Seymour High School in the Amathole but Seymour Primary School, located in the Fort Beaufort district. The province and the district were not aware of any disruptions at Seymour Primary School – a school that had been visited by district officials at the beginning of the year to assess readiness for the 2016 academic year. The principal of Seymour Primary School has also sent in a written response indicating that the school has operated normally since the opening of schools on 11 January 2016, and no disruptions have been experienced at the school. The response from Seymour Primary School attached (Annexure A)

Reply:

According to the South African Council for Educators (SACE) Annual Performance Plan, educators were registered as follows, both on-and off-line:

2013/14: 25 315

2014/15: 26 000

2015/16: 20 000 educators were targeted for registration.

The online system is being piloted from April to June 2016. Data will then be available.

 

Reply:

1. (a), (b), (c) and (d). The table below shows the number of appropriately trained sign language teachers at Foundation, Intermediate, Senior and Further Education and Training Phases in each province.

Province	Foundation Phase	Intermediate Phase	(c)Senior Phase	(d)Further Education and Training Phase	Total
Eastern Cape	35	22	26	16	99
Free State	16	2	3	3	24
Gauteng	11	10	11	1	33
KwaZulu-Natal					31
Limpopo	26	20	22	17	85
Mpumalanga	13	9	No school catering for FET	22
North West	12	11	2	0	25
Northern Cape	4	3(7)	3(6)	2(5)	12(18)
Western Cape	7	5	5	5	22

Source: Provincial reporting

2. (a) and (b). The table below shows the names of schools that cater for learners with hearing impairments; and the number of appropriately trained teachers in specified schools in each province.

Province	(a) School	(b) Number of Teachers
Eastern Cape	Efata	35
	St Thomas	28
	Reubin Birin	21
	Sive	15
Totals	4	99
Free State	Bartimea Special School	13
	Thiboloha Special School	11 (2 specialist teachers teaching sign language as a subject.
TOTAL	2	24
Gauteng	Dominican	9 (7)
	Filadelfia	2(4)
	Katlehong School for the Deaf	6(7)
	MC Kharbai	4(4)
	Sizwile	5(3)
	St Vincent	4(3)
	Transoranje	3(3)
Totals	7	33(31)
KwaZulu-Natal	Fulton School for the Deaf	2 (4) assistants in brackets.
	KwaThintwa School for the Deaf	2(6)
	VN Naik School for the Deaf	3(4)
	Durban School for the Deaf	3(4)
	KwaVulindlebe School for the Deaf	0(5)
	Indaleni School for the Deaf	1(7)
	Vuleka School for the Deaf	7(5)
	St Martin de Porres	8(2)
	Bumbisizwe Special School	1(2)
	Inkanyezi Special School	2(1)
	Inkanyiso Special School	0(1)
TOTAL	11	29(43)
Limpopo	Setotolwane	34
	Yingisani	17
	Bosele	15
	Tshilidzini	15
	Sedibeng	4
TOTAL	5	85
Mpumalanga	Kamagugu	6
	Silindokuhle	12
	Bukhosibetfu	4
	Marietjie	2
	Wolvenkop	3
TOTAL	5	27
Northern Cape	Retlamelang	12
TOTAL	1	12
Western Cape
	De la Bat	80% 0f teachers in the schools completed SASL linguistic training university level
	Nuwe Hoop
	Dominican Wittebome
	Mary Kihn
	Noluthando School

Source: Provincial reporting

(3) (a)(b)(c). The table below shows the number and names full service schools catering for learners with hearing impairments; and the number of appropriately trained teachers deployed at each school. Only the Free State and Mpumalanga have Full Service Schools that cater for learners with hearing impairments.

Number of Schools; And (b) Names of schools	Number of appropriately trained teachers
Free State
Botle ba Thuto P/S	No teachers appropriately trained Teachers and parents of learners who are identified with hearing impairments were provided with strategies on how to support these learners
Jagersfontein I/S
Mofulatshepe P/S
Oranjekrag I/S
Zama P/S
Christiaan de Wet I/S (Ordinary School)
Gelukwaarts IF/S
Hermana P/S
Jim Fouche P/S
Mabela P/S
Maboloka P/S
Pontsheng P/S
Dieketseng P/S
Hlaboloha P/S
Kegomoditswe
Winburg C/S
Kweetsa P/S
Letsibolo P/s
Malebaleba P/S
Ntuthuzelo P/S
Refihletse P/S
Reseamohetse P/S
Thoriso P/S
Chris van Niekerk I/S
JJ Kubheka P/S
Ntshwephepa P/S
Poelamo P/S
Sentrale Volkskool P/S
Theha Setjhaba P/S
Lesoana P/S
Letlotlo P/S
Mafube P/S
Leifo Iziko I/S
Mphatlalatsane P/S
Masaleng P/S
Pulamadiboho P/S
Qhubeka P/S
Sekgothadi P/S
Theboho P/s
TOTAL= 41 SCHOOLS
MPUMALANGA
Bukihosibetfu Full Service School	4
TOTAL= 1 SCHOOL

Source: Provincial reporting

(4) The following are the steps taken to bridge the gap caused by shortages for appropriately trained sign language teachers in each province.

Eastern Cape

The Eastern Cape Department of Education has entered into a partnership with the Education and Training Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP SETA) to train all educators in four Schools for the Deaf. The EDTP SETA has in turn, contracted University of Witwatersrand (WITS) to train educators in two workshops of five days per year in 2014 and 2015. The partnership with Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) continues in the 2016/17 until all educators in these schools are qualified to teach Sign Language.

Free State

Teachers at Bartimea and Thiboloha Special Schools for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing were trained on the South African Sign Language (SASL) Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) at Home Language level. Teachers were also trained on sign language as a means of communication.

Gauteng

• Continuous SASL competency training takes place.
• Currently all teachers teaching SASL as a subject have NQF Level 5.
• All SASL teachers have deaf class assistants to compliment the language skill and to adopt the team teaching approach;
• Collaboration with Wits Centre for Deaf Studies to assist with Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) for SASL, focusing on prose and poetry.

KwaZulu-Natal

The Inclusive Education Directorate has arranged with ETDP SETA to fund SASL training and the up-skilling of teachers from the above-mentioned schools. ETDP SETA has secured the services of the Wits Language School to undertake the training, assessment and certification of teachers. In the current training cohort, there are six (6) District officials and fifty seven (57) teachers receiving training in SASL. The training programme which extends over 15 days commenced in December 2015 and will continue in March-April 2016.

Mpumalanga

• There is ongoing orientation of stakeholders on the approved SASL CAPS which includes, Curriculum Implementers (CIs), School Management Teams (SMTs), Deaf Teacher Assistants and educators;
• The Education department of Mpumalanga is providing training of teachers, Language Subject Advisors and Deaf teacher assistants on SASL;
• 45 teachers have to date been trained on NQF Level 4 and 5;
• 60 Foundation Phase Language Subject Advisors and Inclusive Education officials have been trained on the basics of SASL; and
• For the financial year 2015/16, 60 teachers will be trained on NQF Level 4 and 5 by the University of Free State. The training will take place from 25 February to 12 March 2016.

Limpopo

All teachers teaching learners with hearing impairments have been trained on basic SASL and further advanced training at the University (Advanced Diploma) level is planned for the future.

Western Cape

18 educators are being trained on SASL through the ETDPSETA by the University of Witwatersrand. Of the number given eight (8) are doing the advance level. In 2014 to 2015; thirty four (34) educators and officials were trained on SASL. The training on SASL will continue annually for all the educators.

Reply:

1. (a) First of all we need to remind the Honourable member that the mandate of managing landfill sites belongs to municipalities. This response relates only to our support work that we do. The Marselle waste disposal facility was identified to be licensed for closure because it is nearing its capacity. After rehabilitation one of the options for its alternative use was that the site be used as a transfer station. The site was licensed for closure on 16 March 2015. The license holder is required to commence the closure and rehabilitation activities under the supervision of a registered engineer and an Environmental Control Officer (ECO) within a period of three years from the date of issue.

(b) The site was inspected for compliance with the licence conditions on 10 June 2015, which is a routine monitoring function of the Provincial Department, and concerns were raised with the licence holder. Thereafter, concerns from local residents’ associations were received by the Department, and a meeting between the Ndlambe Local Municipality and the Chairpersons from Kenton-on-Sea Ratepayers Association (KOSRA) and Natures Landing Homeowners Association was convened on 14 September 2015 to try and address non-compliance issues associated with the site. It transpired that the Municipality has put aside a budget to appoint a service provider that will commence with the closure activities, but is overwhelmed with the quantities of waste still going to the site to enable the closure. The Department committed to assist the municipality to source funds for a project that will help with diverting waste away from going to landfill, and the project was approved and allocated a budget of R2, 026 million for the 2016/17 financial year. The project will employ a total of 46 people to assist with access control and security services at the landfill site, cleaning illegal dumps, door-to-door awareness campaigns in hotspot communities, promoting a culture of separation at source and recovery of materials.

2. The Department received this complaint in an e-mail sent to the office of the Chief Director: Regulatory Services on 08 February 2012. An inspection was conducted on 17 February 2012 at Marselle/Boesmansriviermond disposal site, and a meeting was held between the officials from the Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) and Ndlambe Municipality. On 23 February 2012, Ndlambe Municipality submitted a letter to the Department where they clearly indicated that there is currently no budget to render a 24-hour access control/security; however, staff members had been instructed not to start fires on site. Measures were also put in place as from
20 February 2012 to extend the working hours of the municipal employees to monitor the situation and ensure that fires were not lit.

It was also highlighted to the Department that, due to limited space for waste disposal, the Kenton-on-Sea garden waste site was closed, and more pressure was placed on Marselle disposal site as the garden waste was then brought to this site. The interim plan for the Municipality was to negotiate with the Kenton-on-Sea Ratepayers Association as they were keen to make available a chipper and ask garden services to drop off their garden refuse at a point where it could be chipped. This was to open up space for domestic refuse in the area that was to be used for garden refuse.

Since the matter focused on general waste management activities which fall within the mandate of the provincial sphere of government, the matter was then referred to the provincial DEDEAT on 29t February 2012.

Subsequently, the site was inspected for compliance with its licence conditions on 10 June 2015 by the DEDEAT as part of their routine monitoring function as indicated in question 1(b) above. Accordingly, the events following this inspection are outlined above.

---ooOoo---

Reply:

1. (a). There is currently a total of fifteen (15) translators in service to the department,
2. (b) these in house translators perform translation work in all the official languages including French and Portuguese,
3. (c) (i) the annual remuneration of translators are according to their levels which are level eight (8) with notches ranging from 91,404 to 107,670 and level nine (9) with notches ranging from 311, 784 – 376, 626 per annum, (ii) the sum total of all the translators in the department is fifteen (15).

(2). Yes, steps have been taken in the department with regards to building of capacity of translation services. Translators attended on-going development training in areas such as basic copy editing, proof reading and advancement in foreign languages. In addition, there are a number of translators who have registered with various institutions of higher learning through the DAC bursary scheme for the long term formal programs such as studies in applied linguistics.

Reply:

Refer to the table below for the summary of the acquired hardware and software for the periods in question:

	(i) 2014-15 financial years	(ii) 2015-16 financial year
(a) Hardware	My Department awarded three (3) tenders for the acquisition of hardware	My Department awarded three (3) tenders for the acquisition of hardware
(b) Software	No tenders were awarded for acquisition of software	My Department awarded four (4) tenders for the acquisition of software

The specific details for the tenders awarded for the acquisition of hardware and software during the period in question is detailed in Annexure A.

---00O00---

Reply:

Yes. The provincial equitable share formula is reviewed and updated annually with new data, where available. Periodic reviews of the formula are also undertaken.

The provincial share of nationally raised revenue is disbursed to provinces using the Provincial Equitable Share (PES) formula. The formula comprises of six components, of which health is one of them, weighted at 27 per cent.

The structure of the health component in the provincial equitable share was amended through a review undertaken in 2010/11. The revised health component, introduced from 2011/12, uses a risk-adjusted capitation index and output data from public hospitals to estimate each province’s share of the health component. These two subcomponents work together to balance the needs (risk-adjusted capitation) and demands (output component). Caseload data in the health component, which measures demand on the ground, changes from year to year and is updated every year with data from the national Department of Health’s Information System. However, the epidemiological landscape that drives the risk profile of a population in a province is unlikely to change from year to year and this subcomponent of the health component is updated on a 4 to 5 years interval cycle.

A review of the provincial equitable share formula is currently underway that will, amongst others, assess all data sources available for each of the components of the formula, including the health component. The outcomes of this review will be implemented in future medium term expenditure frameworks (MTEFs).

(i) Not applicable.

(ii) With respect to the health component, yearly data updates were applied for (a) 2013/14, (b) 2014/15 and (c) 2015/16 as follows:

• 2013/14

          The health component for 2013/14 was updated with the 2011 General Household Survey, 2012 mid-year population estimates, data from the Council for Medical Schemes’ Risk Equalisation Fund, and District Health Information Services data for 2010/11 and 2011/12. The details of such updates are contained in pages 77 to 79 of the 2013 Division of Revenue Bill.

• 2014/15

        The health component for 2014/15 was updated with the 2012 General Household Survey, 2013 mid-year population estimates, data from the    Council for Medical Schemes’ Risk Equalisation Fund, and District Health Information Services data for 2011/12 and 2012/13. The details of such updates are contained in pages 77 to 78 of the 2014 Division of Revenue Bill.

• 2015/16

         The health component for 2015/16 was updated with the 2013 General Household Survey, 2014 mid-year population estimates, data from the Council for Medical Schemes’ Risk Equalisation Fund, and District Health Information Services data for 2012/13 and 2013/14. The details of such updates are contained in pages 79 to 80 of the 2015 Division of Revenue Bill.

Reply:

(1)(a) Yes, on 31 March 2015.

(1)(b) On grounds of medical conditions. The member was informed in writing to submit a full set of the correctly completed exit documents to the South African Police Service.

(2)(a) No. The member’s exit documents are still at the Government Pension Administration Agency (GPAA) for further processing of pension payout.

(2)(b) According to the rules of the pension fund, pension monies will be paid out within 60 days from the date after the day on which GPAA received exit documents from SAPS (11 March 2016). Expected finalization/payment date is before or on 8 June 2016.

(3)(a) No. According to Polmed records, the member still has medical aid cover, and her medical aid benefits were never suspended at any stage.

(b)(i)&(ii) The member’s pension benefits were suspended during the period 1 April 2007 until 30 September 2007.

(aa)&(bb) The member was on leave without pay for the period 1 April 2007 to 30 September 2007 which emanated from the disapproval of temporary incapacity leave by the Health Risk Manager.

Upon receipt of supporting medical report from the member, SAPS reconsidered the representation and converted the leave without pay for the period 1 April 2007 to 30 September 2007 into temporary incapacity leave.

The member was reimbursed for the period of leave without pay on 24 February 2014. The pension contribution to GPAA was deducted from the reimbursement and paid to GPAA for the said period.

(4) SAPS is responsible for processing Ill-Health Retirement and the Government Pension Administration Agency (GPAA) is responsible for pension payout.

(5) No case of negligence is being investigated.

No negligence was found on the side of SAPS but rather on the side of the member due to the following reasons:

- The member submitted documents of poor quality, e.g. the decree of divorce was certified more than once.

- The member’s lawyer refused to submit the decree of divorce that was duly certified.

Reply:

The short answer is that the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) is not an “investigating authority”, and is therefore not mandated to undertake nor conduct investigations to gather evidence to prove criminal conduct in a prosecution.

Legal provisions in the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, Act No 38 of 2001 (the FIC Act), prevent the FIC from disclosing any information on what matters the FIC may be working on or not.

In particular, the FIC Act contains strict limitations to protect the confidentiality of reporters, on the disclosure of information reported to it, information at its disposal and of details of its activities concerning such information (section 29 read with section 53, and sections 40 and 41 read with section 60, of the FIC Act).

The FIC is therefore not able to provide the information requested.

The way the Honourable Member has phrased this Question 1247, reflects certain misunderstandings of the FIC Act and how the FIC is called upon to lawfully administer the FIC Act, which I need to clarify, and do so below, to ensure the Honourable Member is better informed.

The FIC Act requires designated financial and other institutions to establish and verify the identities of their customers, and maintain related records of their customers and their transactions. The FIC Act also requires designated institutions to report certain information, such as large cash transactions (R25 000 and above) and suspicious and unusual transactions to the FIC. Importantly, an institution which reports a suspicious or unusual transaction to the FIC may continue with the reported transaction(s) unless instructed by the FIC not to do so.

The FIC Act currently does not require a financial institution to pay special attention to any category of customers. The FIC Act also does not contain any provisions which require financial institutions to apply a risk-based approach to the manner in which they manage customer relationships. In this respect the FIC Act is not in line with current international standards on measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing (the Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (the FATF)).

These FATF standards require, among others, that financial institutions understand the risks associated with different business relationships and apply enhanced due diligence where they perceive higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Enhanced due diligence implies more diligent identification and verification measures and stricter monitoring of customers’ transaction activities.

Parliament is currently considering amendments to the FIC Act to give effect to the requirements of the international standards. These requirements include the application by financial institutions of a risk-based approach to customer due diligence and applying additional due diligence to PEPs (described in the amendments as Persons in Prominent Positions).

I re-affirm that the FIC does not itself undertake “investigations” with a view to gather evidence to prove criminal conduct in a prosecution.

Instead, the FIC analyses information reported to it and at its disposal, and supplies financial intelligence on financial transactions of reported persons or entities, but not evidence, to competent authorities, such as investigating law enforcement authorities, statutory supervisory bodies and state security agencies, to facilitate the administration and enforcement of the laws of the Republic.

These competent authorities, as lawful recipients of FIC issued financial intelligence, in turn undertake independent criminal investigations, supervisory inspections, or other actions, respectively, within their respective legal mandates.

Accordingly, the sharing of information by the FIC with other competent authorities enables them to better discharge their respective responsibilities in the administration of the criminal justice system, the financial and non-financial sector regulatory systems, and the protection of national security, in the Republic.

The FIC Act contains strict limitations on the disclosure by the FIC of information at its disposal. This also applies to disclosure by the FIC of details of its activities concerning such information. Section 29(4) of the FIC Act provides that:

“No person who knows or suspects that a report has been or is to be made in terms of this section may disclose that knowledge or suspicion or any information regarding the contents or suspected contents of any such report to any other person, including the person in respect of whom the report is or is to be made, otherwise than-

(a) within the scope of that person’s powers and duties in terms of any legislation;

(b) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act;

(c) for the purpose of legal proceedings, including any proceedings before a judge in chambers; or

(d) in terms of an order of court.”

Contravention of this provision is an offence punishable by imprisonment for 15 years or to a fine not exceeding R100 million under section 53 read with section 68 of the FIC Act.

Moreover, section 40(1) of the FIC Act restricts the FIC to disclosing information under its control:

“(a) to an investigating authority inside the Republic, the South African Revenue Service and the intelligence services, which may be provided with such information-

(i) on the written authority of an authorised officer if the authorised officer reasonably believes such information is required to investigate suspected unlawful activity; or

(ii) at the initiative of the Centre, if the Centre reasonably believes such information is required to investigate suspected unlawful activity;

(b) to an entity outside the Republic performing similar functions to those of the Centre, or an investigating authority outside the Republic which may, at the initiative of the Centre or on written request, obtain information which the Centre reasonably believes is relevant to the identification of the proceeds of unlawful activities or the combating of money laundering or financing of terrorist and related activities or similar offences in the country in which that entity is established;

(c) to an accountable institution or reporting institution which or any other person who may, at the initiative of the Centre or on written request, be provided with information regarding the steps taken by the Centre in connection with transactions reported by such accountable institution, reporting institution or person, unless the Centre reasonably believes that disclosure to such accountable institution, reporting institution or person of the information requested could-

(i) inhibit the achievement of the Centre’s objectives or the performance of its functions, or the achievement of the objectives or the performance of the functions of another organ of state; or

(ii) prejudice the rights of any person;

(d) to a supervisory body, which may at the initiative of the Centre or on written request be provided with information which the Centre reasonably believes is relevant to the exercise by that supervisory body of its powers or performance by it of its functions in relation to an accountable institution

(e) in terms of an order of a court; or

(f) in terms of other national legislation.”

In terms of section 41 of the FIC Act:

“No person may disclose confidential information held by or obtained from the Centre except-

(a) within the scope of that person’s powers and duties in terms of any legislation;

(b) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act;

(c) with the permission of the Centre;

(d) for the purpose of legal proceedings, including any proceedings before a judge in chambers; or

(e) in terms of an order of court.”

Contravention of these two provisions (sections 40 and 41) is an offence and punishable by imprisonment for 15 years or to a fine not exceeding R100 million under section 60 read with section 68 of the FIC Act.

Confirmation or denial by the FIC in the public domain on whether the FIC has received or disclosed any information relating to a particular person or entity to another competent authority, or taken any other action related to such information would amount to a contravention of the above-mentioned provisions of the FIC Act and is therefore not legally permissible.

Moreover, since the FIC’s mandate requires it to assist and work in collaboration with other competent authorities in any given criminal investigation or supervisory inspection or action, any public disclosure of information relating to a specific person or entity who may be the subject of an investigation, supervisory inspection, or details of an operation being conducted by such competent authorities,. It would therefore be irresponsible for the FIC to comment in public on operational matters in which the FIC may or may not be involved. is likely to have a serious detrimental impact on the investigation, inspection or operation.

In conclusion, as Minister of Finance I therefore cannot confirm or deny whether the FIC has information relating to the specific persons or entities previously mentioned at its disposal, nor whether the FIC has or has not made information available to law enforcement authorities in support of investigations of allegations of money laundering against the specific persons or entities.

Reply:

Department

(a) An audit on possible existence of ghost employees in the Department of Transport was undertaken by the Inhouse internal audit activity in the 2011/12 financial year, with a follow-up audit in the 2012/13 financial year.

(b) The results of both full-scale and follow-up audits revealed that there were no ghost employees in the payroll system (PERSAL) of the Department of Transport.

The issue of ghost employees is indicated as a high risk in the fraud risk register of the Department and is regularly and closely monitored by the relevant risk owners

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

1.(b) The Airports Company South Africa has conducted audits to establish whether any “ghost workers” existed on the payroll for the financial years mentioned above, 2011 to 2016.

   (i) Yes, an audit was conducted to determine how many ghost workers with the Company in the 2011-12 financial year.

   (ii) Yes, an audit was conducted to determine how many ghost workers with the Company in the 2012-13 financial year.

   (iii) Yes, an audit was conducted to determine how many ghost workers with the Company in the 2013-14 financial year.

   (iv) Yes, an audit was conducted to determine how many ghost workers with the Company in the 2014-15 financial year.

   (v) Yes, an audit was conducted to determine how many ghost workers with the Company in the 2015-16 financial year.

2. (a) Audits have been conducted by Internal Audit and External Auditors for the period 2011 to 2014.

    (b) Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) and Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo (SNG) for the period 2011 to 2014. The Auditor General of SA (AGSA) audited for the period 2015 to 2016.

    (c) There were no findings raised related to the existence of “ghost workers”.

    (d) – (f) Please see response to (c) above.

Air Traffic and Navigation Services SOC Limited (ATNS)

1. As part of the part of the annual Internal Financial Controls audit, the payroll process is subject to audit annually with audit procedures applied to detect ghost employees.

(b) (i) 2011-12

(ii) 2012-13

(iii) 2013-14

(iv) 2014-15

(v) 2015-16

(aa) the audits are done annually.

(bb) the audits are done annually.

2. The audits are undertaken annually between November and February by internal audit and further by external auditors. There have been no ghost employees found through audit procedures over the years.

   (a) The audits are done annually.

   (b) Both ATNS internal audit and external audit.

   (c) No ghost employees were found.

   (d) None of the above.

   (e) None of the above.

   (f) None of the above.

   (g) None of the above.

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

1. Yes (a) N/A

(b) the SACAA’s Internal Audit division conducted ghost employee checks/reviews through payroll audits which are performed annually.

(i) No audit was conducted in 2011-12,

(ii) Audits were conducted in 2012-13,

(iii) and 2013-14, (iv) and in 2014-15.

(v) The audit for 2015-16 has not taken place yet.

(aa) None of the above

(bb) 2015-16 audit is scheduled to take place during the 2016-17 FY.

2. (a) In each case the audits are conducted after the end of the financial year.

(b) The audits are carried out by the Internal Audit division using the Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) to identify any anomalies within the payroll system.

(c) For the audits conducted in 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 NO ghost employees were identified.

(d) None of the above.

(e) None of the above.

(f) None of the above.

(g) None of the above.

(i) None of the above.

(ii) No incidences were revealed by the audits in the SACAA.

Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA)

(1) (b) The C-BRTA has not undertaken any audits specifically to determine how many ghost workers are on the books on any of the given financial years i.e. 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15 and (v) 2015-16. However, the Agency has put internal control measures in place to ensure that only valid employees are paid and therefore mitigating against the risk of paying ghost employees. Among others, these internal control measures include but are not limited to:

• Input on certain payroll transactions by one employee (a Senior Administrative Officer), where approval for processing is then provided by the Payroll Specialist;
• The review of the monthly payroll by another employee at Senior Manager level, against all input documentation; and
• The approval of Payroll for payment after a further review by the Executive Manager.

Furthermore, the periodic internal and annual external audits of the entity are undertaken with payroll being one of the specific audit items on the programme. None of these audits have uncovered any ghost workers in the reporting periods in question. (aa) The Agency has not seen the need to conduct these audits because the internal control processes in place have been found to be adequate and the risk of paying ghost employees is mitigated.

(bb) While there are no specific audits conducted on the ghost employees, the following internal auditors have conducted payroll audits and have found the controls within payroll environment to be effective:

Financial year	Internal auditors	External auditors
2011-12	IA Professionals and Related Services	Auditor General South Africa
2012-13	Nkonki	Auditor General South Africa
2013-14	Nkonki	Auditor General South Africa
2014-15	Price Waterhouse Coopers	Auditor General South Africa
2015-16	Price Waterhouse Coopers	Auditor General South Africa

Road Accident Fund (RAF)

1. (b) To determine whether any ghost workers are on the books of the Road Accident Fund (RAF), the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), as part of its annual audit of the RAF, performs an audit to identify possible ghost employees, whilst the RAF performs: a 100% data analytics review, and on a sample basis, verification of employees on the SAP system against the physical information on personnel files; internal financial control reviews, on a sample basis, to ensure that employees who resigned, or who were dismissed, are timeously terminated on the SAP system; and, further ad hoc audits.

The number of respective audits totalled (i) 1 audit in the 2011-12, (ii) 2 audits in the 2012-13, (iii) 6 audits in the 2013-14, (iv) 6 audits in the 2014-15 financial years;

(aa) this question is not applicable as audits were undertaken during the aforementioned periods, (bb) the annual and other regular audits referred to in 1(b) will continue in future;

(2) In each case the audits -

(a) were undertaken:	(b) by:
following the RAF’s year-end at 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013, and 31 March 2014, as part of the statutory annual audit,	AGSA,
on 24 and 25 November 2011, in respect of an ad hoc 100% physical head count audit,	RAF Internal Audit Department,
during June 2013, September 2013, November 2013, March 2014, April 2014, July 2014, November 2014, and March 2015, as part of the internal financial control reviews,	RAF Internal Audit Department,
during April 2013 and April 2014, as part of the data analytics review,	RAF Internal Audit Department,

(c) no ghost employees were identified, therefore questions (d), (e), (f), and (g)(ii) are not applicable to the RAF.

Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC)

1. There hasn’t been any ghost employees for the period 2011/2012 – 2014/2015

The latest physical verification / audit was done during September 2015. In this verification process/ audit no ghost employees identified.

The 2015/2016 verification is still under progress, the results of which will be available once done.

2. (a) The latest verification was done during September and October 2015 – this verification relates to the 2014/2015 financial year.

(b) The verification for 2014/2015 financial year was done by the Payroll unit of the RTMC

(c) The outcome for the 2014/2015 verification dictates that there were no ghost employees at RTMC.

(d) Not Applicable as there was no ghost employees.

(e) There was no cost incurred for the 2014/2015 verification as the exercise was done internally by Payroll unit of the RTMC. The 2015/2016 verification process has not been completed, but were can indicate that there are no amounts to be incurred as the exercise is done internally by RTMC Payroll.

(f) Not Applicable as there was no ghost employees

(g) Not Applicable as there was no ghost employees

Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA)

1. Yes, audits have been undertaken by the Road Traffic Infringement Agency in (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15 and 2015-16 Financial years.

(aa) Not Applicable

(bb) Not Applicable

2. (a) 2011/12 - ; 2012/13 – 01 May 2013; 2013/14 – 01 May 2015; 2014/15 – 05 May 2015; 2015/16 – 30 April 2016.

(b) Auditor General, SEMA/IRS and Audit & Risk Management Solutions

(c) No ghost employees were found

(d) Internal controls are in place and are reviewed periodically

(e) Payroll audits are conducted as part of Auditor General’s scope for audit. Internal audit does the payroll audit as part of their annual systems audit.

(f) Not Applicable

(g) Not Applicable

South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL)

1. Yes, audits have been undertaken by the Road Traffic Infringement Agency in (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15 and 2015-16 Financial years.

(aa) Not Applicable

(bb) Not Applicable

2. (a) 2011/12 - ; 2012/13 – 01 May 2013; 2013/14 – 01 May 2015; 2014/15 – 05 May 2015; 2015/16 – 30 April 2016.

(b) Auditor General South Africa

(c) No ghost employees were found

(d) Internal controls are in place and AGSA performs on audit on an annual basis verifying each employees

(e) Payroll audits are conducted as part of Auditor General’s scope for audit.

(f) Not Applicable

(g) Not Applicable

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PRSA)

1. (b) There were no special audits undertaken by the Ports Regulator since both the internal and external auditors perform employee verification for all employees taking into account the fact that the Ports Regulator employs only 17 employees. The verifications are done annually and did take place in (i) 2011/12, (ii) 2012/13, 2013/14, (iv) 2014/15 and (v) 2015/16. (aa) N/A, (bb) N/A.
2. (a) these audits were undertaken each year by (b) internal and external auditors and (c) there were no ghost employees found on the payroll. (d) Strict internal controls prevented this, (e) the audits were done as part of the annual audit (f) there were no guilty parties to be handled.

 

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA)

SAMSA has not undertaken audits on ghost workers as a separate audit exercises. However, the Auditor-General does verify the existence of employees on the SAMSA payroll during their audits. The AG has not identified any ghost worker on the SAMSA payroll during their previous audits.

Railway Safety Regulator (RSR)

The Human Resources and Payroll Audits are undertaken on a yearly basis by both the Internal Auditors as well as the Auditor-General and no audit findings for ghost employees were identified for the following financial years:

Financial Years	Ghost Workers
2011-2012	No audit findings for non-existing employees during the Payroll auditing
2012-2013	No audit findings for non-existing employees during the Payroll auditing
2013-2014	No audit findings for non-existing employees during the Payroll auditing
2014-2015	No audit findings for non-existing employees during the Payroll auditing
2015-2016	No audit findings for non-existing employees during the Payroll auditing

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

1. No audits have been undertaken to determine specifically how many ghost workers are on the books of PRASA in the financial years mentioned. PRASA Internal Audit Department performs Human Capital Management (HCM) audits, where the scope relates to the adequacy and effectiveness of HCM processes including:

• Policies and Procedures
• Staff Retention and Succession Planning, Scarce Skills Plans
• Overtime Management
• Leave Management, Productivity and Absenteeism
• Recruitment  and Selection
• Terminations and Suspensions
• Salary increases and promotions
• Payroll
• Organisational structure and reporting lines
• Employee Wellness Programme

The Auditor General also performs audit on the HCM function as part of their annual year end audit. PRASA also undertakes monthly payroll reconciliations, and to date no discrepancies have been uncovered.

2. See (1) above.

Reply:

I have been advised by the Department as follows:-

1. No.

(a) The Department has engaged with USAASA to ensure alignment of the Broadband initiatives being funded through the USAF and SA Connect Phase 1 hence USAASA’s current and future plans are aligned with the SA Connect Phase 1 District Municipalities.

(b) The Department and USAASA will continue to engage to outline the agency roles on SA Connect implementation taking into consideration developments in the sector

2. (aa) (i)-(ii) The estimated cost for Phase1 of SA Connect is R6.56billion

(bb) (i) – (ii) The estimated cost for Phase2 of SA Connect is R67.4 billion

(b) (i)-(iii) Phase 1 detailed breakdown

Phase 1 Budget Allocation (Million)
2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	Total
R 516.34	R 719. 52	R 720. 37	R6.56 Billion

(i)- (iii) Phase 2 detailed breakdown

Phase 2 Budget Allocation (Million)
2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	Total
R 823, 9	R 1, 557	R 2, 213	67.42 Billion

(c) The funding for Phase 1 will come from Budget allocation MTEF 2016/-2018/19. No allocation for Phase 2

Reply:

I have been advised by the Department as follows:-

1. (a) Since 1 October 2015, the National ICT Forum has held a number of meetings through its various structures, which comprises of the Chairpersons Forum, Chamber meetings and Working Committees.

(b) (i) Meeting Dates:

• • • Chairpersons Forum – 30 November 2015, 11 March 2016 and 06 May 2016
    • Economic Chamber – 3 March 2016
    • Social Chamber – 27 November 2015 and 19 February 2016
    • Governance and Security Chamber – 7 December 2015
    • ICTs and Disability Chamber – 2 December 2015 and 17 March 2016

(ii) Venues:

• Chairpersons Forum – Director General’s Boardroom (Department)
• Economic Chamber – Blue Crane Boardroom (Department)
• Social Chamber – Blue Crane boardroom (Department)
  • Governance and Security Chamber – Blue Crane Boardroom (Department)
• ICTs and Disability Chamber – Burgherspark Hotel (Pretoria)

 

(iii) Agendas:

Chairpersons Forum – Stakeholder Mobilization and Participation, Resource Mobilization, Draft Work Programmes of Chambers, National Workshop

Economic Chamber – ICT Skills, ICT SMMEs support, Electronic Manufacturing, Postal Sector and ICTs

• Social Chamber – e-Health, e-Education, e-Justice and e-Agriculture
• Governance and Security Chamber – e-Commerce, Internet Governance, Policy Mapping and Cyber Security.
• ICTs and Disability Chamber – ICT Assistive Devices, Access to Government websites, Access to Banking Services

(iv) Records of decisions:

• Chambers have developed their Terms of Reference and firmed up their structures
• Chambers have now resolved and are prepared draft Work Programmes which still need to
• be approved by the department
• The Chairpersons Forum agreed to convene a National Workshop to discuss and endorse
• the draft Work Programmes

(2)(a) Reports and (b) Initiatives

Initiatives that are coming out of the draft work programmes of the chambers include the following:

• Conduct a National ICT Skills Audit with relevant stakeholders
• Develop and implement a basic National e-Literacy Programme
• Facilitate creation of Creative Hubs for SMMEs in townships with relevant support
• Support development of ICT applications that will enable SMMEs to expand business opportunities
• Develop and implement a Cybersecurity Awareness programme
• To develop a National set of Principles/framework for Internet Governance in South Africa
• Establish/ or revive an Intergovernmental Forum on Internet Governance
• Create a cybersecurity Body of Knowledge for general access by South Africans
• Explore Youth Job Creation Programme focusing on cybersecurity awareness
• Facilitate engagements with relevant to improve access to banking services, government websites, employment, education and broadcasting for people with disabilities.

A National Workshop will be convened before the end of June 2016 to discuss and endorse the draft programmes of each Chamber. The workshop will also discuss resource mobilization for implementation of the work programme and timelines.

Reply:

(1) (a)(i) & (ii) There are approximately 2.5 million distinct vehicles using the GFIP on a monthly basis. Approximately 1,45 million vehicles are currently registered or making payment. SANRAL received more than 600 000 enquiries on the less60% offer via the web or via inbound calls from the public. Of the 600 000, approximately 130 000 have settled their account or made arrangements to settle. There is however still work in progress related to the balance of the 600 000 users indicated above.

(b)(i) R136m discounted paid and payment agreements for a further R123m discounted entered into.

(ii) (aa) & (bb) – the system is not set up to distinguish between type of users.

(2) SANRAL is an agency of Government and must comply with the requirements of the PFMA. There is a legal obligation on users to pay toll at a toll plaza or tolling point. SANRAL is obliged to collect outstanding debts to Government in terms of the PFMA.

(a) The SANRAL Act allows for both civil and criminal legal processes. Both are available to SANRAL and the prosecuting authorities.

(b) The extent of these processes are determined by legislation

(c) The NPA already successfully prosecuted a person in 2015 for the non-payment of toll as well as fraud. Further cases are investigated. The issuing of civil summonses already commenced.

(d) We trust that the honourable member is not suggesting that due to legal costs, SANRAL should neglect its obligation to collect the debt owed as mandated in the PFMA. As the honourable member would appreciate the costs are dependent on the particular process, legal costs are determined by the courts.

Reply:

1. South African Airways has indicated that on all destinations they have stopped transporting fire-arms for passengers. Additional information is available on SAA’s webiste at http://www.flysaa.com/za/en/flyingSAA/baggage/firearms.html

2. The Minister does not intend to make an announcement on this matter.

Reply:

(a) There have not been attempts to replace the Councillors. Minister met with the previous Chairperson and expressed the intention to change the structure of the Council to derive maximum value for all stakeholders.

(b) There is currently no designated Chairperson of the council.

(c) There has not been any meetings with the Chairperson.

Reply:

1. No. The Minister has not earned any additional income from doing business with government

a) N/A

b) N/A

c) N/A

d) N/A

(2)     whether his (a) spouse, (b) children and (c) close family earned income from businesses, in particular businesses doing work for the Government, through his appointment as Minister; if so, in respect of each case, (i) when, (ii) how much did each earn, (iii) from which businesses and (iv) for what work?          NW1019E

ANSWER

2. No family members of the Minister have earned incoming from doing business with government.

i) N/A

ii) N/A

iii) N/A

iv) N/A

 

Reply

Approved/not approved

Mr MJ Zwane, MP

Minister of Mineral Resources

 

 

Date Submitted:-………………/………………/2016

 

Reply:

1. (a) R1.54 million is allocated for the implementation of SA Connect Phase 1.

(b) The allocated amount will be spent to procure broadband connectivity services for the Phase 1 sites. Detailed Breakdown:

Budget Allocation (Million)
2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	Total
336 600	422 300	711 900	1 450 800

2. (a) The Department is engaging with SITA to explore options of the appointment of the service provider that will be in line with the existing procurement legislations and regulations.

(b) The lead agency should be an organisation with the following capabilities:

   (i) To coordinate between public & private sector players,

   (ii) To raise funding to expand fibre infrastructure,

   (iii) To rollout simultaneously in all the phase 1 districts as per the Broadband Implementation Plan,

   (iv) To leverage on existing infrastructure to minimise duplication.

(c) The Department is engaging stakeholders to finalise the appointment process and no requests for proposals have been published yet.

    (i) - (iii) See (c) above

3) (a) In the 2015/2016 financial year R200 million was allocated for this project of which R100 million was transferred to Sentech for dual illumination and R50, 240 million to SAPO for the National Address System.

(b) No funds were spent since 1 April 2016. Because the department was engaging with the relevant stakeholders to finalise the appointment process.

4) In the 2015/2016 financial year R200 million was allocated for the project. An amount of R49, 760 million was rolled over.

Reply:

I have been advised by the Department as follows:-

(1)(a) The amount allocated to the Cybersecurity Hub for the 2016/2017 financial year is R 16, 418, 000.00

(b) Specific deliverables include

• Formalise engagements with stakeholder, which supports the sharing and technical integration of cybersecurity incident information
• Operationalisation of the Proactive and Reactive services
• Increased functionality of Hub’s tools
• Assist in the enablement and establishment of sector CERTs
• Dissemination of incident and thereat information to stakeholders
• Undertaking of a cybersecurity awareness programs which includes upgrade of the Hub’s website functionality

(2)(a)(i) In the 2017/2018 financial year R 15, 325, 000.00 has been allocated

(ii) In the 2018/2019 financial year R 12, 297, 000.00has been allocated

It should be noted that the allocated budget for these two financial years are subject to change as the MTSF is yet to be finalised.

(b) The monies will be used as follows:

• Obtaining international certification for the Hub
• Establishment of both private and public sector industry specific CERTs
• Integration of incident information
• Development and deployment of cybersecurity audit and readiness tools
• Ongoing awareness programs

(3)(a) The Department is the sole funder of the Hub

(b) N/A

(c) N/A

(4)(a) In the 2014/2015 financial year R 18 533 013 was allocated

In the 2015/2016 financial year R 15 156 157 was allocated

(b) In the 2014/2015 financial year the monies were used for:

• Establishment of the Hub
• Development of Operational Processes
• Development of Policies and Procedures

In the 2015/2016 financial year the monies were used for:

• Research
• Technical and operational support
• System integration
• Facilities, facilities maintenance
• Infrastructure costs
• Stakeholder engagement

Reply:

The details of the reprioritisation of funds in the 2016 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, subsequent to the aggregates tabled in the 2015 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement are set out below.

(a)(i) Amounts reprioritised from national departments:

see the link:  http://www.pmg.org.za/files/RNW990Table.docx

1. As part of the reprioritisation exercise, the Department of Energy receives additional funding taken from the local government level: Integrated National Electrification Programme. This results in a net positive reprioritisation of R87.2 million in 2016/17.

(a)(ii) Amounts reprioritised from provinces:

The provincial department-specific impact of the provincial equitable share reprioritisation is determined through separate provincial-own budgetary processes and legislative approval. Thus the details for each province were not known at the time of tabling the 2016 national budget; however the aggregate provincial reprioritisation was. The provincial equitable share reprioritisation per province is shown in the table below.

Provincial equitable share: heres the list: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/RNW990Equitable.docx

The amount reduced from grant allocations to each recipient province was determined by the department that acts as the national transferring officer. The effect of grant reductions on provincial aggregates is shown in the table below and is informed by the respective allocation criteria for each individual grant. Details of allocation criteria are provided in the respective conditional grant frameworks for each grant as contained in 2016 Division of Revenue Bill.

Provincial conditional grants:

 heres the link: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/RNW990Accountable.docx

(a)(iii) Amounts reprioritised from municipalities:

Local government equitable share:

The impact on municipalities of the R1.8 billion in reprioritisation of the local government equitable share over the MTEF is not shown separately per municipality, as many factors influenced these allocations. These are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Division of Revenue (Annexure W1 to the Division of Revenue Bill and the Budget Review). The allocations amount to 26.4 per cent of the local government level reprioritisation and 5.5 per cent of the total reprioritisation over the MTEF.

The changes affecting municipal allocations include data updates to variables in the local government equitable share formula; to account for changes in projected inflation, electricity and water bulk costs and household growth rates. Significant changes also resulted from the decision by the Municipal Demarcation Board to re-determine multiple municipal boundaries, including the merging of several municipalities. All new demarcations are reflected in the 2016 Division of Revenue Bill and therefore allocations for individual municipalities in the 2015 and 2016 Division of Revenue Bills are not directly comparable where demarcations have been changed. The allocations for Special Support for Councilor Remuneration and Ward Committees also changed as a result of the merging of some municipalities.

The amount reduced from grant allocations to each recipient municipality was determined by the department that acts as the transferring officer. The aggregate grant reductions for individual grants are shown in the table below and are informed by the respective allocation criteria for each individual grant. Details of allocation criteria are provided in the respective conditional grant frameworks for each grant as contained in 2016 Division of Revenue Bill.

Local government conditional grants:

here's the link: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/RNW990conditiongrant.docx

(b)(i) &

(b)(ii) The percentage that each amount represents of the funds reprioritised in the sphere of government that it resides in is show in the tables above under (a)(i), (a)(ii) and (a)(iii). These tables above also show the percentage that funds represent of the total amount of reprioritisation over the MTEF.

Reprioritisation at each sphere of government as a percentage of the total:

see the link: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/RNW990reproriasition.docx

Reply:

(a) (i) 5449 individuals

(ii) 837 Corporate/businesses

(b) Smallest amount = R204.75

Largest amount = R10 551 548.16

(c) The Legal cause is Non Payment of Toll.

(d) (i) & (ii) From a Summons issue perspective Daly Attorneys were used. They form part of the Contractor’s business model with their sub-contractors.

Werksmans Inc. is on a retainer as Sanral’s attorneys of record related to e-Toll matters. A due SCM process was followed in their initial appointment.

(e) (i) Senior advocates may be appointed depending on the specifics of the defences offered for specified claims. However, no matter has reached a stage where the particular defences are known.

(ii) (iii) The appointment of senior advocates depends on the legal matters to be argued and the availability of a particular senior advocate.

(f) (i) There are fixed costs applicable to the drafting of summonses, costs of the court and sheriff costs. (ii) There is no specific budget for legal costs. SANRAL has a general budget for legal costs. Furthermore, depending on the particular process, legal costs are determined by the courts and if a defendant found guilty, the costs are carried by the defendant.

Reply:

1. Yes. According to South African Airways, their sponsorships in the financial years (a) 2013-14, (b) 2014-15 and (c) 2015-16 were as following (all these sponsorships were approved in accordance with the company’s delegation of authority requirements and followed an internal approval process which included the approval of a business case):

Sponsorship Property	Right Holder	Value	Period
Springboks	SA Rugby	R22.5m per annum	2013-14
SA Olympic Teams	SASCOC	R6m per annum	2014-15
Springboks	SA Rugby	R22.5m per annum	2014-15
SA Olympic Teams	SASCOC	R6m per annum	2015-16
Springboks	SA Rugby	R22.5 per annun	2015-16
Miss South Africa	Sun International	R594k	2015-16
World Routes	UBM	R1.5m	2015-16
NBA Africa Games	NBA Africa	R1.3m	2015-16
International Jazz Extravaganza	Teacup Projects Proprietary Limited	R1.1m	2015-16

Notes:

• The SA Rugby sponsorship was a four (4) year agreement that ended in on 31 December 2015
• The SASCOC sponsorship is a three (3) year agreement that expires in March 2017
• All other sponsorship listed above with the exception of SA Rugby and SASCOC were agreements reviewed annually
• All SAA sponsorships including the ones listed above, are offered strictly on Value-In-Kind (VIK) basis with no outlay of cash. The sponsored parties are liable for airport taxes.

2. There is no mandatory provisions in the cost containment measures (National Treasury Instruction 01 of 2013/14) prohibiting sponsorships although accounting authorities were required to implement measures to contain operational costs and eliminate all non-essential expenditure. SAA is only required to obtain the Minister’s approval for significant transactions outlined in terms of Section 54(2) of the PFMA.

3. According to SAA, the Bafana Bafana sponsorship is valued at R110m in value in kind over a five (5) year period.

4. The Minister does not intend to make an announcement on this matter as SAA announces and accounts for all its sponsorships.

Nonetheless, prudence is required in exercising financial authority during times of financial constraints.

Reply:

a) The process of updating our website is underway including Contact us page. We have appointed an Online Media Service personnel to deal with it

b) The process is already underway and the Online Media Personnel is working on it

c) Its Communications Directorate to update content that goes on the Website

d) Online Media Service will be working with all stakeholders to collect information and update the website

Reply:

(a) The original contract commenced on 13 November 2011 and the contract was terminated (DPW) on 13 March 2014 due to the contractor not performing his obligations. The second contract to finalise the outstanding work was awarded on 10 November 2015.

(b) The contractor failed to perform his obligations and the National Department of Public Works had to re-start the tendering process in order to appoint the new contractor for completion of the project.

(c) The anticipated date of completion is 9 July 2016.

(d) The budget allocation for the construction and completion of the specified police station is R 31 581 451-00.

(e) The amount spent to date is R 16 887 830-00.

(f) The projected expenditure for the project is R 31 581 451-00.

Reply:

The Honourable Member should note that the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) provides in section 32(2) that the Municipal Council must recover all irregular expenditure incurred unless the municipal council has, after an investigation by a council committee, certified the expenditure as irrecoverable and has decided to write it off. The municipal council is the only appropriate authority that should take action in relation to the irregular, unauthorised, fruitless and wasteful expenditure that has been incurred. The overall accountability process for municipal budget and expenditure must take place in a municipality, Provincial and national oversight is ‘distant’ and intervention by the two spheres only warranted as a last resort where local government has collapsed. Therefore, detailed information in this regard is therefore best obtained from the municipality concerned.

The following response is provided based on the disclosures in municipal audited annual financial statements, monitoring reports submitted by the municipality and engagements during mid-year meetings with municipal officials. The Honourable Member should also note that National Treasury has recently introduced consequence management measures that were elaborated on in MFMA Circular 76 issued in October 2015. This provided practical information on how municipalities should address such matters. It must therefore be understood within the context of the phased-in approach to implementation; hence, please noted that further actions may have been taken since these engagements with municipalities which are not reflected in this response as they are subject to ongoing monitoring and reporting.

(a) Irregular expenditure relates to categories of expenditure incurred in contravention of or not in accordance with the MFMA, Municipal Systems Act, Public Office-Bearers Act, and Supply Chain Management policy. These are listed below for metropolitan municipalities:

Buffalo City incurred R1.8 billion irregular expenditure of which none was condoned. No information was reported on amounts to be recovered, although MPAC was tasked with the responsibility to investigate such matters. During mid-year engagements the municipality advised that 8 employees were dismissed, however, no information was provided on write-offs or recovery.

City of Cape Town incurred R1 million irregular expenditure of which R85 000 was condoned. Disciplinary procedures were in place. A forensic unit was established to investigate allegations; however, no information was available on write-offs or recovery.

Ekurhuleni incurred R794 million of irregular expenditure of which R32 million was condoned; however, the majority of the cases were still under investigation by MPAC and other organs of state. In instances where MPAC had concluded investigations, these were reported to council for condonement. Section 32 processes will be used to follow up on recoveries.

eThekwini incurred R500 000 of irregular expenditure of which R400 000 was condoned. The municipality advised that it is addressing this matter in terms of the legislated processes.

City of Johannesburg incurred R1.5 billion of irregular expenditure of which R4 million was condoned. 83 cases are being investigated and 10 have been completed. The municipality has implemented measures to recover money. For example, when an employee resigns before the disciplinary case has been completed, the municipality withholds the employees pension payout. No information was available on write-offs and recoveries.

Mangaung incurred R289 million of irregular expenditure of which none was condoned. A special adjustments budget in terms of Section 32 was passed. No information was available on write-offs and recoveries.

Nelson Mandela Bay incurred R2.1 billion of irregular expenditure of which R12 million was condoned. Investigations are being conducted by Internal Audit and reports are tabled at MPAC from time to time, for recommendations and follow-up actions, including those instances where amounts are write-off and recoveries instituted. No further details were available.

City of Tshwane incurred R1.6 billion of irregular expenditure of which R28 million was condoned. A number of cases are currently under investigation. No information was available on write-offs and recoverable.

(b) Unauthorised expenditure means any expenditure incurred by a municipality otherwise than in accordance with section 15 or 11(3) of MFMA and includes overspending of total amount appropriated in the municipality’s approved budget or overspending of the total amount appropriated for a vote in the approved budget or expenditure from a vote unrelated to the department or functional area covered by the vote or expenditure of money appropriated for a specific purpose, otherwise than for that specific purpose or spending that is inconsistent with any conditional allocation, amongst others. These are listed below for metropolitan municipalities:

Buffalo City incurred R432 million of unauthorised expenditure of which none was authorised through a special adjustment budget in terms of section 28 of the MFMA read with regulation 23(6) of the Municipal Budget and Reporting Regulations. No information was available on any recoveries. However, a report was submitted to MPAC for investigation and recommendation.

City of Cape Town had reported no unauthorised expenditure.

Ekurhuleni had reported no unauthorised expenditure.

eThekwini had reported no unauthorised expenditure.

City of Johannesburg incurred R2.7 billion of unauthorised expenditure. No information was provided on amounts authorised through an adjustment budget in terms of section 28 of the MFMA read with regulation 23(6) of the Municipal Budget and Reporting Regulations, or on amounts recovered.

Mangaung incurred R2.1 billion of unauthorised expenditure. A special adjustments budget in terms of Section 28 of the MFMA read with regulations 23(6) of the Municipal Budget and Reporting Regulations was passed by council. No information was available on recoveries.

Nelson Mandela Bay incurred R780 million of unauthorised expenditure, of which R623 million was authorised through a special adjustment budget. No information was available on recoveries.

City of Tshwane incurred R2 billion of unauthorised expenditure, of which R1.2 billion was authorised through an adjustment budget. A report was tabled in Council to address accounting-related transactions, such as over-expenditure relating to provision for depreciation, loss on disposal of assets, finance charges and debt impairment.

(c) Fruitless and Wasteful Expenditure relates to expenditure incurred that could have been avoided had reasonable care been exercised. These are listed below for metropolitan municipalities:

Buffalo City incurred R5 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure. No expenditure was condoned and no information was available on write-offs or recoveries. However, a report was submitted to MPAC for investigation and recommendations.

City of Cape Town incurred R440 00 of fruitless and wasteful expenditure, of which none was condoned; however, R146 000 was recovered. The municipality is in the process of condoning the outstanding amounts.

Ekurhuleni incurred R181 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure, of which R1.2 million was condoned. These have been referred to MPAC and other organs of state for investigation.

eThekwini had reported no fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

City of Johannesburg incurred R20 million fruitless and wasteful expenditure of which R23 000 was condoned, and R361 000 was still to be recovered. The remainder is subject to the outcome of further investigations.

Mangaung incurred R29 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure. A special adjustments budget in terms of Section 32 was passed by council. No information was available on condoned amounts, write-offs or recoveries.

Nelson Mandela Bay incurred R551 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure of which R226 000 was condoned. MPAC are still investigating. No confirmation of outcomes was received with regard to write-offs or recoveries.

City of Tshwane incurred R19 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure of which R513 000 was condoned. A number of cases are still under investigation. No confirmation of outcomes were received on write-offs or recoveries.