Questions & Replies: Water & Environmental affairs

Share this page:
2012-03-31

THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.

SEARCH ON THE TOPIC/KEYWORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 296
Mrs. M. A. A. Njobe (Cope) to ask the Minister of Human Settlements:

Whether, with reference to his statement (details furnished), he intends to announce a cut-off date for providing free housing to the poor; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY

The Department and State has a constitutional and electoral mandate and responsibility to ensure that all citizens more specifically the poor and vulnerable are provided with reasonable access to basic services and housing.

The Department will on a periodic basis review and where necessary amend the strategic and operational planning, funding and implementation of the programme, to ensure that the goals and outcomes as required of the state and government are achieved. It is within this context that the statement referred to must be read and understood.

The Minister nevertheless wishes to stress that with the economy performing not optimally, coupled by the approximately unemployment figure, the provision of free housing may be unsustainable within the given budgets.

The opposite is also true. An improved economy means more jobs and less dependency on the State.

Reply received: April 2012

QUESTION NO. 284

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.6 NW362E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 16 March 2012

Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs(interdepartmental transfer):

(1) Whether a policy is in place regarding the display of portraits of (a) current political leaders and (b) founders of the Kruger National Park (KNP) in prominent places at the KNP; if not, in terms of which authority are these portraits being displayed in the national park; if so, what is this policy;

(2) whether he intends to establish a policy that will guarantee and regulate the display of portraits of founders of the KNP; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

284. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) a & (b) No, SANPaks does not have a separate policy on the display of portraits. As far as the protection of the existing memorial structures (portraits, etc is concerned, SANParks cultural heritage guidelines stipulates that SANParks will manage all its cultural heritage resources in accordance with the National Heritage Resources Act no 25 of 1999. The National Heritage Resources Act specifically refers to section 9 which requires state entities to conserve and maintain all heritage resources under their control in accordance with the standards set out by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). SANParks will not make decisions that contravene national heritage legislation in as far as conserving heritage resources is concerned. SANParks always consult SAHRA when faced with decisions affecting heritage resources under its control.

(2) There is therefore no compelling reason for SANParks to develop policy specifically aimed at portraits of founders of KNP or current leaders as conservation of cultural heritage is adequately legislated at national level in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 263
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 4 NW155E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 24 February 2012
Mr N J J van R Koornhof (COPE) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:


Whether her department intends engaging with Eskom and other role players in the energy sector to take visible pollution into account when planning the possible expansion of power line infrastructure in nature reserves and the building of wind farms which can have a negative effect on nature reserves and tourism; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

The construction of infrastructure for the generation of energy over a maintain threshold is identified as an activity which requires environmental authorization in terms of the Environmental ImpactRegulations, 2010. Issues of usual impact are considered through the EIAprocess. Should the activity result in a Visual Impact (Visible Pollution), it will be addressed with a specialist study commissioned as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report. This does not only apply to projects in nature reserves but all projects with sensitive visual receptors

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 246

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW267E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

With reference to Annexure 8 of the Auditor-General's National Audit Outcomes 2010/11 as they relate to the SA National Parks (SANParks), (a) what are the details of the (i) case where procurement from a supplier without a SA Revenue Service Tax clearance was enacted, (ii) three cases where competitive bids were not invited and where no deviation from the procurement procedure was approved, (iii) five cases where three written quotations were not invited and the approved deviation was not reasonable or justified (iv) 11 cases mentioned under otherfindings and (b) what action has been taken to rectify the situation in each case?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

246. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) The following are the details with reference to Annexure 8 of the Auditor-General's Audit Outcomes of 2010/11:

(i) Initially an original valid tax clearance certificate which is supposed to be filed as required by the National Treasury was not received from a supplier regarding the Kruger National Park. Subsequently, a valid tax certificate was thereafter obtained from the supplier, proper processes have been put in place and staff have been trained to ensure that tax certificates are obtained for all transactions exceeding R30 000.00

(ii) With respect to the three cases where competitive bids were not invited, one case pertains to the Addo Elephant National Park and the other two cases pertain to the Golden Gate Highlands National Park.

In the case of the Addo Elephant National Park a contract for the provision of security services had been awarded to a service provider in 2008 on the basis of three quotations. In 2010 quotations were once again sourced through a public advertisement and a three year contract awarded to the service provider. A full tender process was, however, not followed. Due to an escalation of crime in the area and with the addition of further land to the Park there was a greater requirement for security capacity and the value of the three year contract was in excess of R500 000 per annum. This service provider, however, cancelled the contract in 2011 due to financial reasons and the provision of security services was put out on tender. A new service provider has been appointed following due process with effect from 1 March 2011.

In the case of the Golden Gate Highlands National Park a contract for the provision of security services had also been awarded on the basis of quotations rather than going out on open tender. The services were provided from 2006/7 onwards on the basis of short term renewable contracts which initially did not exceed R500 000 per annum. An increase in crime and a requirement for greater security capacity to manage the Park which was expanded by the inclusion of the former QwaQwa Reserve into the Park led, however, to the annual amount exceeding R500 000. Following the adverse audit finding a full tender process was followed and a new security service provider appointed with effect from 1 February 2012. The short term contract was allowed to run until the appointment of the new service provider in order to ensure continuity of security for the Park, but was terminated as from 01 February 2012..

The third case relates to the provision of satellite communications and television services for the Golden Gate Highlands National Park. In 2007 SANParks took over the management of the Golden Gate Hotel from the Protea group and in so doing inherited a contract for the provision of television services for the hotel. In order to provide a more cost effective service, which would have to take into account hotel renovations resulting in additional accommodation rooms. The Park sourced additional quotations for the provision of satellite communications and television services. As a consequence of this process a five year contract was signed with Teljoy on 19th March 2008. After completion of the hotel expansion and upgrade 66% more television sets were required by the hotel and the value of the contract grew from R318 000 in 2009/10 to R494 000 in 2010/11 thus, collectively exceeding R500 000 for the five year period. As this contract will expire in March 2013, a tender process will be initiated in the second half of 2012 for a new contract for the provision of these services.

In all three cases the procedural irregular expenditure arose due to the organisation entering into contracts – with an accumulating value of R500 000.00 – with suppliers over the last three years by requesting three quotations instead of using the open tender process. Though deemed irregular, it was not wasteful expenditure as there was a justifiable exchange of services. The accumulated amount of R5.3 million was for the duration of the contracts, ie over three (3) years, and not once off. SANParks effected corrective measures which resulted in an open bidding process and the appointment of service providers to render the same services at the above-mentioned parks. Disciplinary actions were taken against the responsible SANParks employees for not following procedures.

(iii) All five cases refer to the procurement of goods and services which were needed urgently. The motivation and documentation submitted were not in accordance with the Treasury Regulations. The amounts involved were between R11 000.00 to R160 000.00 per case. Corrective measures were put in place 2011/2012 to prevent similar incidences in future.

(iv) Various SBD forms, namely SBD 4 form (declaring of interest) and SDB 8 form (declaring bidders past supply chain management practices), were found not to be part of the tender documents as required by the Treasury Practice Note. The Auditor-General inspected the bid documentation for each bid, and except for the SBD forms not being submitted, the bidding process was found to be transparent and therefore not regarded as constituting irregular expenditure. Corrective measures are now in place to ensure compliance, which included the recruitment of new, qualified supply chain management personnel.

(b) Addressed in each case as stated above.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 245

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW266E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has found any difficulty in executing her duty of reporting to Parliament with regard to the international environmental instruments in terms of section 26(1) of the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) what is the status of the annual performance report on sustainable development as prescribed in section 26(2) of the said Act?

Mrs M Wenger (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

245. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) These reports are tabled annually. They are tabled in terms of section 26(1) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). The report to Parliament on international environmental instruments (2010/11) was tabled on 6 July 2011.

(2) The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) in consultation with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation continues to coordinate the development of a country report in relation to the thematic areas under review by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Therefore, this year South Africa will coordinate a synthesis report that take stock of the country's progress since the adoption of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) in light of the upcoming UNCSD scheduled for June 2012 in Brazil. The DEA will consult with the relevant ministries and stakeholders including government departments, non-governmental organisations, labour and business in this regard.

It should be noted that South Africa has aligned the writing of its reports on sustainable development to the UNCSD programme of work. Therefore, the last country report covering the thematic issues of mining, transport, sustainable consumption and production, chemicals and waste was developed through a consultative process.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 244

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 17 FEBRUARY 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 02)

265. Mrs NWA Michael (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the current state of operation of all waste water treatment works (WWTWs)

In the (a) Tswaing and (b) Ditsobotla Local Municipalities in the North West

(2) whether any (a) maintenance or (b) repairs have been conducted on any of these WWTWs to improve their performance; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) when is expected that each of these WWTWs will attain Green Drop status? NW265E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) In general, all four wastewater treatment works (namely, Ottosdal, Delareyville, Atamelang and Sannieshof/ Agisanang) in the Tswaing Local Municipality (LM) are in a good state of operation. Regarding the slight over-loading in the Sannieshof Wastewater Treatment Works, special attention has been given to increase the operations' efficiency (e.g. through proper manning of screening inlet, raising of the pond walls, reinstatement of the aerators) in order to handle the additional load. As a long-term plan, the Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality (DM) as the responsible water service authority has planned to construct a new wastewater treatment works by end of 2012.

(1)(b) Although two of the three wastewater treatment works (i.e. Lichtenburg and Coligny) in the Ditsobotla LM are able to handle sewage treatment, they are however not fully operational due to certain unit components not being functional which results to overload of their current available capacity. The third wastewater treatment works
(i.e. Itsoseng) is currently not in operation and as an interim measure, sewage is currently diverted and treated in the existing (old) oxidation pond system.

(2) During 2010, the Ngaka Modiri Molema DM appointed consulting engineers/ contractors to perform limited repairs, operation and maintenance in all wastewater treatment works in the Ditsobotla and Tswaing LMs. Such limited work (amid budgetary constraints) resulted in considerable improved operational levels e.g. raising of pond walls to prevent sewage overflow; diverting of sewage from the Itsoseng Wastewater Treatment Works to oxidation ponds to prevent the flowing of raw sewage into the Springbokpan River.

In an attempt to further improve operation levels of Ditsobotla LM, for the 2012/13 financial year, the Department has set aside a total amount of R11.3 million from its Accelerated Community Infrastructure Programme to assist with emergency refurbishment of the three wastewater treatment works. The funding will be allocated as follows:

No

Wastewater treatment works

Funding

1

Lichtenburg

R4 million

2

Coligny

R4.2 million

3

Itsoseng

R3 million

(3) The Department is not in a position to indicate the period when each of wastewater treatment works will attain Green Drop status as such is dependent on a number of processes to be put in place by the responsible water service authority (e.g. investment in process optimisation, asset management, process control skills and all other relevant risk areas, and to maintain those performance levels of excellence) prior a regulatory acknowledgement can be given in form of Green Drop certification.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 243

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 17 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 02)

243. Mrs N W A Michael (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Department of Water Affairs has (a) commissioned or (b) funded any studies into water losses in the Joe Gqabi District Municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of water losses for each town;

(2) whether she has put any measures in place to assist the district municipality or relevant local municipalities to reduce water losses; if not, why not; if so, what measures? NW264E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Department has commissioned and funded a number of water conservation demand management initiatives (refer to 2 below) in the Joe Gqabi District Municipality (DM). The studies confirmed high water losses between 30% and 45% as well as very limited available information on water metering and control.

(2) Since 2008, the Department has funded a number of water conservation demand management projects into water losses in the Joe Gqabi DM to assist the Municipality to reduce the water losses as follows:

a) In a 2008 partnership between the Department and the Joe Gqabi DM, a Water Conservation Unit staffed with four officials was established in the Municipality with an amount of R1 500 000 from the Department. The four officials were then trained to conduct awareness campaigns on water conservation and demand management projects as well as identifying and rectifying water problems.

b) In 2010, the Department allocated an amount of R 230 000 to the Joe Gqabi DM towards a meter reading training session in order to improve skills in meter reading. The training assisted officials in obtaining the correct water usage in readings which has enabled the Joe Gqabi DM to establish the amount of water losses throughout the Municipality areas.

c) In 2011, the Department allocated an amount of R1 000 000 to the Joe Gqabi DM to implement water conservation and demand management projects in Burgersdorp where an unacceptable leak challenges were experienced. The main challenges occurred in the old Reconstruction Development Programme houses where inferior toilet cisterns were installed. A further amount of R2 000 000 was then allocated to enhance the above-mentioned project and spread it to other communities.

d) In 2012, an amount of R750 000 has been allocated to replace the filter sand at the Burgersdorp Water Treatment Works to address the water losses experienced due to too much backwashing and to do urgent leak repairs in Barkley East, Lady Grey and Gariep Municipality.

In summary, the above initiatives have reduced the water losses from 45% to 30%. Such achievement should also be viewed in the context that the introduction of metering (mentioned in 2b above) also revealed additional losses. In addition to the achieved water losses, the Joe Gqabi DM attained a Blue and Green Drop Certification during 2011.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 242

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 17 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 02)

242. Mrs N W A Michael (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How much drought assistance has been given to the Joe Gqabi DistrictMunicipality by the Department of Water Affairs since 1 January 2010 and (b) how have the allocated funds been used;

(2) whether the use of the funds has been audited to ensure fiscal responsibility and the achievement of desired outcomes; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the funding has resulted in any sustainable water provision solutions to any towns in the district municipality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether water carting provided by the drought assistance programme always relied on sourcing water from safe chlorinated sources; if not, how was this justified; if so, how was this conclusion reached? NW263E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a)(b) A total amount of R25, 752 054 was allocated to the Joe Gqabi District Municipality (DM) since 1 January 2010 to date. The table 1 below shows the amount allocated to the Joe Gqabi DM, date paid and how have the allocated funds been used.

Table 1

No

Amount

Date

Purpose

1

R833 000

24/02/2010

Protection of 17 springs in the Elundi Local Municipality (LM)

2

R11, 204,311

25/03/2010

Drought relief programme: Funds earmarked for emergency water supply.

3

R213 743

20/04/2010

Drilling borehole, equipping and connection to existing network in Mount Fletcher Town

4

R1, 100, 000

7/06/2011

Burgersdorp Water Conservation Demand Management.

5

R12 401 000

7/06/2011

Refurbishment of Oviston Sterkspruit Barkly East WWTWs.

(2) Yes, the Department was audited by the external and internal auditors during the period of 29 August 2011 to 2 September 2011 regarding those funds allocated to the Joe Gqabi DM and audit was successful.

(3) Yes, the funding has yielded significant impact which resulted in theMount Fletcher having interim water supply. All the wards in the Elundini LM benefited in terms of spring protections. Water carting was done to most of the towns that were facing drought on the Joe Gqabi DM.

(4) Yes, water carting provided by the drought assistance programme always relied on sourcing water from safe chlorinated sources. The Joe Gqabi DM uses water tankers to reach the communities.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 241

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW262E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Dr L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Since 1 January 2010, what (a) work has a certain entity (name furnished) been contracted to perform for the Kruger National Park and (b) amount has been paid to it for work completed;

(2) whether a certain person (name and details furnished) has any personal connection to the (a) owners, (b) directors or (c) any other employees of the company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) since 1 January 2010, what (a) work has a certain entity (name furnished) been contracted to perform for the Kruger National Park and (b) amount has been paid to it for work completed;

(4) whether a certain person (name and details furnished) has any personal connection with the (a) owners, (b) directors or (c) any other employees of the company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) since 1 January 2010, what (a) work has a certain company (name furnished) been contracted to perform for the Kruger National Park and (b) amount has been paid to it for work completed?

Dr L L Bosman (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

241. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) No, it is incorrect to say the official employed her brother at Satara Camp. It is the official's son that was employed. The Kruger National Park's human resource policy, since 1926, allows family members of resident staff to be employed in the park on condition they are suitably qualified for the advertised positions, subject themselves to a transparent competition and are not interviewed by their own family members in management positions.

(1) a. Supply and delivery of furniture for Marula Region

b. R275 694.00

(2) It has been established through a forensic investigation that none of SANParks officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors or employees of the said company.

(3) a. Supply and delivery of furniture to KNP for another part of Marula Region.

b.R272 500.00

(4) It has been established through a forensic investigation that none of SANParks officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors or employees of the said company.

(5) a. No. Tebfin was never contracted to do work for SANParks.

b. R275 694.00 was paid by SANParks as a result of a cession agreement between Treasure Exquisire Trading Enterprise and Tebfin

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 240

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW261E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Dr L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What work has a certain entity (name furnished) been contracted to perform for the Kruger National Park since 1 March 2008, (b) on what date was it appointed and (c) what amount has been paid for each of the tenders;

(2) whether a certain person (name and details furnished) has any personal connection with the (a) owners, (b) directors or (c) any other employees of the company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any action has been taken against a certain person (name and details furnished) in connection with the awarding of any of the contracts to the said company; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any of the contracts awarded to this company were initially awarded to a certain company (name and details furnished); if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, why was this contract cancelled in favour of the other company?

Dr L L Bosman (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

240. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park



On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the Kruger National Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

1(a) Santolina Trading cc, a general trading company, was appointed to supply toilet paper to the Kruger National Park

(b) Santolina has been the supplier to the KNP since 2005

(c) A total amount of R7.4 million has been paid to date

(2) No, Dr Mabunda does not have personal connection with Santolina.

The CEO of SANParks, does not evaluate or adjudicate tenders. According to the SANParks Supply Chain Management Policy and Procedures this is a function of duly constituted evaluation and adjudication committees working in collaboration with user business units (parks). Furthermore, the personal file of Dr Mabunda and his Declaration of Interests submission to his employer do not reflect the existence of such relationships with the owner of Santolina Trading CC Registration No 2000/03985/23. A CIPRO check on this CC reveals that the owner is Abdul Rehman Mohamed ID Number 7704275182087 and is a 100% shareholder. Dr Mabunda or his family members neither have business nor personal links with Santolina. This transaction was part of the extended audit of the Auditor-General's 2010/11 Financial Management Report, for a missing tax clearance certificate. The tax clearance certificate was later submitted.

(3) No, no action was taken against Dr Mabunda because he had nothing to do with tenders in general or this one in particular.

(4) No. The contract was not awarded to any other company prior to it being awarded to the successful company.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 239 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW260E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Dr L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the brother of a certain official (name furnished) of SA National Parks (Sanparks) has been employed at Satara camp in Kruger National Park; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, (a) what is the name of the official's brother, (b) what is his designation and (c) on what date was he appointed;

(2) whether the said official interviewed her brother for the position; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, how is this justified;

(3) whether any action has been taken against the said person for recruiting her brother; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Dr L L Bosman (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

239. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) No, it is incorrect to say the official employed her brother at Satara Camp. It is the official's son that was employed. The Kruger National Park's human resource policy, since 1926, allows family members of resident staff to be employed in the park on condition they are suitably qualified for the advertised positions, subject themselves to a transparent competition and are not interviewed by their own family members in management positions.

(a) Senzo Beau Mhlophe (the son)

(b) Receptionist

(c) 20th December 2010.

The fact that this question only arises now in February 2012, two years later is indicative of the statement I made earlier wherein I provided contexts within which all these questions needs to be understood – which is the dismissal of the certain official.

(2) No, she did not sit on the interview of her son. According to our HR Policy managers may not preside in recruitment processes where their own next of kin or children are in involved. Such family members may not report to their parents or spouses as supervisors.

(3) No, It was unnecessary to take disciplinary action as everything happened within policy.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 238 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW259E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr N D du Toit (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What are the details of the contract that was awarded to a certain company (name furnished) to perform work at the Kruger National Park since 1 January 2011, (b) how much money has been paid to it, (c) how many quotations were sourced before awarding the specified contract and (d) what were the names of the entities from whom they were sourced;

(2) whether she has found that any of the entities from which the quotations were sourced were linked to the (a) owners, (b) directors and (c) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, how is this justified;

(3) whether she has found that certain officials at the Kruger National Park (names furnished) have any personal connection to the (a) owner, (b) directors and (c) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether any action has been taken against the specified officials for matters surrounding the awarding of the specified contract; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr N D du Toit (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

238. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) No, it is incorrect to say the official employed her brother at Satara Camp. It is the official's son that was employed. The Kruger National Park's human resource policy, since 1926, allows family members of resident staff to be employed in the park on condition they are suitably qualified for the advertised positions, subject themselves to a transparent competition and are not interviewed by their own family members in management positions.

(1) Ilifu Trading was contracted to supply and deliver beds to the Kruger National Park

(b) R178 432,80 has been paid since inception of the contract as a full and final settlement.

(c) Three quotations were sourced from different suppliers as per SCM Policy and government guidelines. The names of companies who responded to the RFQ are:

· Ilifu Trading 150cc

· Afribee Investments

· Miramar Trading 35 cc

(2) It has been established through an extended AG Audit of this transaction that none of KNP officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors or employees of the said entities.

(3) It has been established through an extended AG Audit of this transaction that none of KNP officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors or employees of the said transaction.

(4) No action was taken as allegations were baseless.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 237

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW258E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr N D du Toit (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What work has a certain company been contracted to perform in the Kruger National Park since 1 January 2010 and (b) how much money has been paid to it for work completed;

(2) whether she has found that certain officials (names furnished) at the Kruger National Park have any personal connection with the (a) owners, (b) directors and (c) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, how is this justified;

(3) whether any action has been taken against the specified officials for awarding any contracts to the said company; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the said company has ever been awarded a contract without a compulsory site inspection; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, how is this justified;

(5) whether, for any tender that the said company was awarded, it came in second cheapest after a certain other business (name furnished); if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, why was the other business not awarded the tender?

Mr N D du Toit (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

237. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) (a) Lulu Suppliers and Distributors was contracted to supply and deliver linen to the Kruger National Park

(b) R 1 289 727.60

(2) It has been established through an internal investigation arising from the Public Protector's Office dated January 2011, an extended AG Audit and the SizweNtsaubaGobodo forensic report that none of KNP officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors or employees of the said transaction.

(3) No. No action has been taken as allegations were proven to be incorrect by the investigations under (2).

(4) No. The Request for Quotation (RFQ) was only for supply and delivery of goods, there was no requirement or condition for a compulsory site inspection to be conducted. The specifications were clear and precise as per SANParks Standard Manual.

(5) Yes, Due to an urgent need for the goods at the time of transacting, one of the requirements of award was availability of goods as it was a peak season for SANParks due to the 2010 Soccer World Cup. The 1st bidder, though a bit less in price, had a longer lead time to delivery of goods which was post the soccer event 2010 awarding of a contract to a second or third bidder is not always dependent on lower price only but on many other factors. Policy allows this kind of variation.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 236

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW257E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr N D du Toit (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Since 1 January 2010, (a) what work has a certain company (name furnished) been contracted to perform in the Kruger National Park and (b) how much money has been paid to the said company for work completed;

(2) whether a certain (a) procurement manager of the Kruger National Park and (b) buyer (names furnished) have any personal connections with the (i) owners, (ii) directors or (iii) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any action has been taken against the said persons for matters relating to the awarding of this contract; if not, why not; if so, what action;

(4) whether, with regard to all tenders won by the said company three quotations were obtained before determining the winning bidder; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr N D du Toit (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

236. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) Ilufu Trading 150 cc was appointed to supply and deliver furniture to theKruger National Park

(b) R205 542.00

(2) It has been established through an extensive Auditor General Audit of this transaction that none of KNP officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors or employees of the said transaction.

(3) No, no action has been taken as allegations were proven to be incorrect by the Auditor General Audit and therefore nothing warranted enforcement of a disciplinary action against an employee/s of SANParks.

(4) Yes, due process was followed and three quotations were obtained, evaluated and awarded accordingly.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 235 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW256E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Since 1 January 2010, (a) what work has a certain company (name furnished) been contracted to perform in the Kruger National Park, (b) on what date was the said company appointed to perform the work and (c) how much money has been paid to the said company for work completed;

(2) whether a certain (a) manager and (b) finance manager (names furnished) of the Kruger National Park has any personal connections with the (i) owners, (ii) directors or (iii) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any action has been taken against the said persons with regard to the awarding of this contract; if not, why not; if so, what action;

(4) whether the said company was paid for work completed before a requisition order was issued; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether the services of the said company were extended without a competent bid process having been undertaken; if not, why not; if so what are the relevant details?

Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

235. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) No, it is incorrect to say the official employed her brother at Satara Camp. It is the official's son that was employed. The Kruger National Park's human resource policy, since 1926, allows family members of resident staff to be employed in the park on condition they are suitably qualified for the advertised positions, subject themselves to a transparent competition and are not interviewed by their own family members in management positions.

(1) (a) Capella Designs and Decor was contracted to supply and deliver conference centre furniture.

(b) July 2010

(c) R1 570 176.72.

(2) (i-iii) It has been established through the first investigation arising from the Public Protector's January 2011 enquiry, the extended AG audit on the same allegation and the SizweNtsalubaGobodo forensic investigation that none of the two KNP officials has any personal connections with the owners, directors oremployees of the said company. CIPRO checks did not show any links either.

(3) No, no action has been taken as allegations were proven to be incorrect by the investigations mentioned in (2) .

(4) In all instances payments were made for work completed as per the contracts.

(5) No, no extension of work was carried out.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 234

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW255E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Since 1 January 2010, (a) what are the details of tenders that have been won by a certain security company (name furnished) in the Kruger National Parkand (b) how much money has been paid to the said company for work completed;

a) The said company is still contracted. It is a three year contract, starting 1stNovember 2010 and ends on 31st October 2013.

b) Amount paid since inception (1st November 2010) to date is R 8, 616, 411.35

(2) whether any tenders won by this entity have been increased since it was first awarded; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

No. Subsequent to the award however, the then Manager for the Protection Services Unit identified certain posts which he wanted additional manpower for. He submitted the necessary motivations and the required authorizations were accordingly obtained. After he was fired for dishonesty and maladministration, the situation was re-evaluated and the number of additional posts was returned to the level where we were at tender stage.

(3) how many (a) vehicles has the said company been expected to provide since being awarded the tender and (b) operational vehicles has it been paid for;

4 vehicles, and that is what they have been paid for. The Protection Services Manager constantly monitors delivery in line with the agreement

(4) whether a certain person name furnished of the Kruger National Park has any personal connection with the (a) owners , (b) directors or (c) employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

No connection. Confirmed by the Auditor General's report.

(5) whether any action has been taken against the said person for matters related to the awarding of this tender; if not, why not; if so what action?

No action was taken as the tender award was done according to SCM policy and procedures

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 233 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW254E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether a certain senior staff member (name furnished) of the Kruger National Park (KNP) has any personal connection with a certain person (name also furnished) that was appointed at the KNP; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, (a) into what position was the person appointed, (b) on what date was the person appointed and (c) what are the further relevant details;

(2) whether the said senior staff member also has a personal connection with another certain person (name also furnished) that was recruited in 2010 and appointed at the Orpen Gate of the KNP; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any action has been taken against the said senior staff member with regard to the appointment of the two persons; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G G Hill-Lewis (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

233. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) No, it is incorrect to say the official employed her brother at Satara Camp. It is the official's son that was employed. The Kruger National Park's human resource policy, since 1926, allows family members of resident staff to be employed in the park on condition they are suitably qualified for the advertised positions, subject themselves to a transparent competition and are not interviewed by their own family members in management positions.

(1) There are no relationships or family ties between the Managing Executive of the Kruger National Park and the newly appointed General Manager of Human Resources. The General Manager of Human Resources comes from a different family although it shares the same surname (Nkosi) as the Managing Executive's wife. There are many Nkosi families in the Lowveld and it doesn't mean they are all related or one big family.

a. General Manager : Human Resources

b. 1st May 2011

c. No further details

(2) The Managing Executive has no personal relationship with any person that was appointed at Orpen Gate. Staff at gates is recruited and appointed by their supervisors and managers and not the Managing Executive. A forensic investigation was conducted by SizweNtsalubaGobodo to establish the alleged relationship, and no evidence was found to corroborate this allegation.

(3) No:

a. According to the SANParks delegation framework, the Managing Executive does not participate in the recruitment of staff beyond E and D band.

b. There is no basis for any action to be taken against the Managing Executive.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 232

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW253E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) What work has a certain entity (name furnished) been contracted to perform in the Kruger National Park, (b) on what date was it appointed, (c) what amount has been paid to it as at the latest specified date for which information is available and (d) when does the contract end;

(2) whether she has found that a certain person (name and details furnished) has any personal connection with the (a) owners, (b) directors or (c) any other employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether any action has been taken against a certain person (name and details furnished) in connection with the awarding of this contract; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

232. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWER

Parliamentary Questions on Alleged Tender Corruption and Maladministration in the Kruger National Park

On 17th February 2012 the Democratic Alliance opposition party sent me 15 parliamentary questions (PQs) alleging widespread tender corruption and maladministration at the Kruger National Park. The PQs raised accusations of "personal connections" or "close associations" between certain senior SANParks officials with service-providers bidding for tenders. Unfortunately the "personal connections" or "close associations" were undefined, and appeared to be speculative and spurious.

On closer examination I noticed that the said allegations bear a striking resemblance to a "dossier" I received last year from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Hon Adv Johnny De Lange (MP), who had received it from one official who claimed to have been dismissed from his position as security manager in the Kruger National Park for exposing tender corruption and maladministration.

It later transpired, after, that said official was dismissed in June 2011 for corrupt activities and abuse of SANParks property. It was said he was dismissed for circumventing the Supply Chain Management Policy and awarding contracts for the acquisition and maintenance of CCTV equipment to companies in which his younger brother and his friend, were directors. Other companies that are alleged to have benefitted from the third officials generosity" included names given as encapsulated in Annexure A. These companies had never traded with the KrugerNational Park before the said official's appointment in 2008. His modus operandi was to split amounts to levels below the R500 000 Treasury Regulations' threshold which would have compelled him to go for a full tender process. The total amount involved was R 4 760 098. 00. It is interesting to note that in his "dossier of tender corruption" that he submitted as complaints to a number of parties, the said official conveniently omitted to mention the companies associated with his name.

Furthermore the said official was also found guilty for unauthorized use of a SANParks vehicle Registration FLF 918 MP, failure to comply with existing rules governing the use of official vehicles and for exceeding the speed limits while driving inside and outside the park (vehicles are fitted with Tracker and can show speed travelled). Needless to say the said official did not survive both the corruption and abuse of property disciplinary hearings. He was summarily dismissed in June 2011. He appealed the dismissals for the two cases, one subsequent to the other but was unsuccessful. It is further alleged that soon after his dismissal he tried to lobby the CEO of SANParks, through an anonymous email from an untraceable email address, knpmabundana@hotmail.com, telling him to set aside the disciplinary results against said official in order to avoid a media exposure on tender irregularities and maladministration which he claimed had reached epidemic levels. The CEO of SANParks, tells me that he refused to bargain with guilty employees and so did not attend to this email. The matter of said official dismissal then went to the CCMA and deadlocked. It was referred for arbitration and it is now awaiting a trial date at the Labour Court.

While the above processes were underway, said official began what can only be called a dirty-tricks campaign. It is said he delivered a "dossier of evidence of tender corruption" to the Auditor-General's Office, City Press newspaper and the Public Protector simultaneously. The AG decided to extend the scope of SANParks annual audit to include the allegations. The results are reflected in a special section of the SANParks annual audit report for 2011/12 and did not find evidence of fraud, irregularities and non-compliance with supply chain management policy. The companies involved in this extended audit are listed in Annexure B. It found administrative gaps which needed to be strengthened around Treasury Practice Notes (4 and 8) in particular to which SANParks has obliged. City Press did not publish the story. The Public Protector has not yet concluded her investigation.

The SANParks Board, as an accounting authority, instituted a forensic investigation on the allegations of unethical relationships between its officials and certain service-providers. SizweNtsalubaGobodo audit firm was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation. The forensic report was completed in December 2011 and its recommendations were accepted by the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board at its January 2012 meeting. The forensic investigation exonerates the accused officials on allegations of corrupt relationships. The Audit and Risk Committee will be recommending the adoption of the forensic findings to the full Board at its next meeting scheduled for 20th March 2012.

In January 2012, I was alerted to the existence of a vitriolic and scathing Facebook Profile by one "Knp Mabundana/ Kelogs Mabundana/Kelogs Mabundanai/Kelogs Mabundy" which was and still is spewing bile and launching scathing attacks on SANParks and its officials for corruption and maladministration using aliases. The faceless blogger, whom we suspect to be the said official, is derogatory referring to my officials as "corrupt baboons and hyenas who have no morals". The names of the companies that the DA alleges in its PQs to have gotten tenders through nepotism and corruption are named and shamed. Among these are listed in Annexure C It is my hope that the Honorable Members of Parliament are not aiding the trial by the media campaign orchestrated by the said official against SANParks and its officials, thereby aiding in the undermining of a state institution.

In conclusion I would also like to make reference to the recent Mail & Guardian (17.02.2012) story on the same subject. I have no doubt that said official was behind the story and the M&G used our elected representatives' comments to give credence to his uncorroborated and wild accusations. SANParks has since approached the South Gauteng High Court, to seek relief from these unprecedented attacks on itself, systems and officials. Charges have also been laid with the police and other relevant state authorities. The smear campaign is not just causing reputational damage to SANParks and its officials, it is also sowing public distrust in the institution affecting its relations with financiers and donors and instilling disobedience among staff thus making it difficult for managers to maintain discipline.

It is in the above context that the responses to the parliamentary questions should be understood.

(1) (a) Garden services

(b) 1st November 2010

(c) R 1 761 392.12

(d) 31st October 2013

(2) No, it has been established through the SizweNtsalubaGobodo forensic investigation that none of the mentioned KNP officials, including the official in question has any personal connections with the owner, directors or employees of the said company.

(3) No, no action was taken as allegations were proven to be incorrect by the forensic audit and the procurement process that led to the award was found to be in order by the AG. Therefore there was no justification to warrant such action being taken.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 231 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.2 NW252E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Since 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available, (a) what are the details of the tenders won by a certain company (name furnished) to supply goods and services to and at the Kruger National Park and (b) what amount has been paid to the company for the supply of these goods and services;

(2) what are the names and entities from whom quotations were received prior to the tender being awarded to the said company;

(3) whether any of the entities from whom quotations were received other than the company to whom the tender was awarded has any personal links to the tender holder; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether a certain person (name and details furnished) has any personal connection with the (a) owners, (b) directors or (c) any other employees of the said company; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether any action has been taken against the said person (name and details furnished) in connection with the awarding of this contract; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

231. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) AKK Investment supplied and delivered the single door pine wardrobe for trail camps.

(b) The total amount paid is R59 000.

(2) AKK Investments, Tiyamike Investments and Luphawulwesive investors.

(3) There are no personal links, either by shareholding or directorships, listed on CIPRO. The quotations were sourced from all companies with different company registration numbers.

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(c) No, Mr Frank Ngcobo personally confirmed that he has no relationship with any of the persons mentioned; a comparison between the content of the CIPRO and his personal file was conducted and no relationship could be determined.

(5) No, there is no basis for action.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 230 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW251E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 230 FOR A WRITTEN REPLY

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the (a) chief executive officer (CEO) or (b) Board of SA National Parks (SANParks) has conducted any forensic investigations into management at Kruger National Park since 1 March 2010; if not, why not; if so, (i) why was the investigation instigated and (ii) what were the significant outcomes;

(2) what (a) was the name of the entity that conducted the investigation and (b) amount of money was paid to it for the investigation;

(3) whether she has found that a certain person (name furnished) has any personal connection to the (a) owners, (b) directors or (c) employees of the investigating entity; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the outcomes of the investigation have been communicated to her; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

230. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1. (a) The Chief Executive Officer of the SA National Parks (SANParks) did not conduct any forensic investigation because he was one of the allegedly accused officials.

(b) The Board of the SANParks conducted the forensic investigation.

(i) The Auditor-General's (AG) Office advised the SANParks Board to conduct a forensic audit into the allegations of improper relationships that were perceived to exist between certain service providers and senior managers at head office and the Kruger National Park. The AG's Office had earlier received such allegations from an unknown individual who described himself as a "whistle-blower."

(ii) The forensic audit showed that no shred of evidence could be found that suggested that the accused SANParks officials had relationships with the service providers that were cited in all the allegations.

2. (a) Sizwe Ntsaluba VSP (now known as Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo).

(b) The amount paid to Sizwe Ntsaluba was R114 986.78, VAT included. It also included R10 000 as a disbursement and the rest was professional fees.

3. (a) This allegation of relationship of the said incumbent with the Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo forensic was not part of the Terms of Reference of the forensic investigation but appeared on the questions asked by the Honourable S V Kalyan's (DA MP) letter dated 14.02.2012. It can, however, be stated with certainty that Dr Mabunda does not have any personal connection with the owners of the auditing firm, Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo.

(b) Dr Mabunda has no personal relationship with any of the directors/partners of Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo.

(c) Dr Mabunda has no personal relationship with any of the employees of Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo.

Conclusion reached:

· the personal file of Dr Mabunda and his Declaration of Interest submission to his employer do not reflect the existence of such relationships;

· A CIPRO check on Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo and its Prospectus does not list Dr Mabunda or his family members as associates, beneficiaries, employees, shareholder or Director of the said company; and

· Dr Mabunda or his family members have never conducted personal business with Sizwe Ntsaluba Gobodo.

4. I was made aware of the outcomes of the investigation but not yet read them, at the time of this enquiry (Friday 17 February 2012), but was later made aware of them . The investigation report was completed in December 2011; the Audit Committee of the SANParks Board met on 25 January 2012 and recommended that the Board adopt the report at its next meeting scheduled for 20 March 2012. I will still await the final recommendations of the board.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 229

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 17 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 02)

229. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) Which of the mines currently operated by a certain company (name furnished) have water use licences (WULs), (b) on what date was each specified WUL issued and (c) what is the (i) name and (ii) contact details of the official in her department from which a copy of each specified WUL can be obtained;

(2) (a) which mines that are currently being operated by the said company do not have WULs and (b) what is the status of the application for a WUL in each case;

(3) whether her department has taken any action in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, against the specified mines that do not have WULs; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether she has found any cases in which mines of the said company having closed down without ever having obtained a WUL during the course of operation; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so,

(5) whether her department has taken any action against the company for having operated and closed these specified mines without WULs; it not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW250E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1)(a) Table 1 below indicates the names of the mines operated by the company which were issued with water use licences (b) the date each specified water use license issued and (c)(i) name and (c)(ii) contact details of the official in the Department from which a copy of each specified water use licences can be obtained

Table (1) There are four storm water management dams on the SAPREF refinery site. The SAPREF refinery is currently in the process of registering with the Department in terms of regulation 3(b)(i) of the Water Use Registration Regulations published under Government Notice R1352 in Government Gazette 20606. This registration is for the storm water management system which is designed to route all rainwater to a point where it is automatically pumped into a set of holding basins. The first flush dirty water is separated and routed to the effluent treatment system and the clean rainwater is discharged into the tidal canal.

The SAPREF refinery is also in the possession of a Section 20 Permit Environment Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003) issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs for the two re-use dams located on site.

(2) The re-use dams have not been inspected by the Department in 2011. However, the Department will ensure that these dams are inspected in conjunction with the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development before
15 March 2012.

One of our officials (name furnished) conducted an inspection of the discharge into the tidal canal on 5 December 2011 to determine whether any oil was entering the system. At the time of the inspection, no oil was visible.

(3) The stormwater basins are concreted structures and the re-use dams are lined. Groundwater monitoring is conducted by the SAPREF refinery to monitor for any possible groundwater contamination.

(4) No, this has not been concluded as the Department is still waiting for the results from an investigation still to be commissioned by SAPREF refinery. The Department will thereafter interrogate the findings of the latest infrastructure integrity study and groundwater monitoring report in order to determine whether there is cause for concern with the structural integrity of the dams.

(5) No, there is no direct discharge of water into the ocean. However, water containing waste from the facility is treated in an on-site effluent treatment plant prior to being discharged to the eThekwini Municipal sewer system which is ultimately discharged via the Southern Wastewater Treatment Works (operated by the eThekwini Municipality). The Southern Wastewater Treatment Works discharges via a marine outfall pipeline. Only rainwater which has passed through the oil/water separator is released into the tidal canals which are regulated by theeThekwini Municipality.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 228 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW249E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) With reference to the Annexure 7 of the National Audit Outcomes 2010-11 of the Auditor-General as they relate to the SA National Parks (Sanparks), what (a)(i) are the details of each case totalling R3 585 000 where awards of contracts or tenders were made to officials of the organisation, (ii) are the (aa) names and (bb) designations of the officials involved and (iii) action has been taken to remedy the situation and (b)(i) are the details of each case in which officials did not declare their interests in businesses, (ii) are the (aa) names and (bb) designations of the officials involved and (iii) action has been taken to remedy the situation;

1) SANParks has not awarded bids to the value of R3.5million to its employees. The R3.5million as reported in the AG report relates to the value of transactions in which SANParks employees (13) have interest in companies with contracts with other state institutions/departments. (a) Only three of these individuals (Annexure A) were found to have interest in SANParks suppliers, R517 123 in value, see the attached schedule. Nine (9) employees who did business elsewhwere and not with SanParks declared their interests as per the disclosure requirements. Four (4) employees did not declare their interests in transactions worth R322 348.74 (Annexure B). The irregularities therefore in this case are confined to the four people who failed to declare their interest. Corrective measures were put in place to prevent repetition in future. Disciplinary action on the three employees who did business with Sanparks were undertaken and one employee was dismissed.

(2) whether she has taken any action to prevent such situations from occurring again in future; if not, why not; if so, what (a) actions and (b) are the further relevant details?

SANParks reviewed its policy of declaration of interest and widely enforced it for compliance by all its employees. SCM processes were enhanced to identify employees with interest in bidding companies during the procurement process.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 227 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW248E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has identified any measures to end pseudo rhino hunts; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether she has met with the Member of Executive Council (MEC) for Environmental Affairs in the (a) North West and (b) Limpopo provinces regarding the pseudo hunts that are being conducted in these provinces; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether she intends to stop nationals of certain countries that have weak controls for implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) from hunting in South Africa; if not, why not; if so, what (a) is the current status of the memorandum of understanding with Vietnam on rhinos and (b) are the further relevant details;

(4) whether she intends to meet with her counterparts in other countries regarding means to reduce rhino poaching in 2012; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

227. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Yes, these measures are contained in the proposed amendments to the norms and standards on marking of rhinoceros horns and hunting of white rhinoceros for trophy hunting purposes. The amended norms and standards, which were developed subsequent to the public participation process, have been submitted for approval through the cooperative governance structures and will be published for public participation in a short while from now.

(2) Yes, at a meeting between myself and the Members of the Executive Council (MECs) responsible for the environment (MINMEC) on 30 September 2011, pseudo hunts were discussed and various interventions were proposed, including the provisions included in the amended norms and standards to strengthen administrative and compliance procedures.

(3) Yes. (a) The MoU will be signed as soon as the feedback on inputs by the Vietnamese is received and legal process has been finalised. (b) The proposed amendments to the norms and standards include a requirement that the issuing authority must consider whether the country of usual residence of the hunting client, where the rhinoceros horns and the rest of the hunting trophy will be imported to, has adequate legislation to ensure that the rhinoceros horns and the rest of the hunting trophy will be used for the purpose as indicated on the CITES export permit.

(4) Yes, as Minister, I have met with my counterpart from Mozambique to discuss interventions relating to rhino poaching. I also met with counterparts in the People's Republic of China to finalise the addendum to the existing MoU, which will be signed around April 2012, focusing on enforcement matters. By mid March a departmental delegation led by the DDG Biodiversity and Conservation will visit the People's Republic of China to meet with their counterparts to discuss amongst others, the rhino poaching problem.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 119 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW128E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether SANParks has decided to re-erect the fence between Mozambique and the Kruger National Park; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what is the estimated (i) cost and (ii) length of the fence, (b) how will this impact on the future of the peace park initiative and (c) what are the further relevant details?

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

119. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1.In terms of the Protocol Agreement on Transfrontier Management between Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa, party reserves a right to erect fences between the two countries or otherwise.

SANParks has yet to conclusively decide to rebuild the fence between Mozambiqueand the Kruger National Park. This is one of the many options to explore before making a final decision.

(a) The current position in this regard is to put more emphasis on the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) buffer zone in Mozambique and to erect a fence to the east of this area.

(b) Meetings between senior officials and the responsible Ministers of SA and Mozambique have already taken place to pave the way for better future cooperation in this regard, especially in the area south of the Rio das Elefantes river. A road map spelling out the project plan is under consideration.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 118 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 2 NW127E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17 February 2012

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

Whether her department has made an assessment of the environmental damage caused by the recent floods in the (a) associated private nature reserves and (b) areas adjacent to the Kruger National Park in January 2012; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what assistance does her department intend to offer in this regard?

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

118. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(a) No, the areas are outside the boundaries of the Kruger National Park.

(b) No, please refer to (a) above.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 110

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 01)

110. Mrs J F Terblanche (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has been informed that an employee of the Department of Water at Voëlvlei Dam (name furnished) has been arrested in January 2012 for possession of illegal firearms, among other things; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether her department intends to conduct its own investigation of the said person; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether her department has suspended the said person after his arrest; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW121E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) No, I have not been informed that an employee of the Department has been arrested in January 2012 for possession of illegal firearms; howeverofficials of the Department investigated the matter and found it to be untrue.

The Department was informed on 11 January 2012 that a member of the public reported a case of illegal firearm possession against one of the Department's official who is stationed at the Voëlvlei Dam with the Tulbagh South African Police Services (SAPS) case number MAS 129/1/12. The SAPS investigated the matter and found that the allegations were unfounded. The fire-arm in question was given in to the SAPS by this official, on behalf of another person, to be disposed of. The employee was not arrested.

(2) The Department has conducted its own investigation about the allegations against the official. The allegations were found to be untrue and the Branch Commander of the Tulbagh SAPS confirmed this.

(3) No. This employee will not be suspended because the allegations were found to be untrue.

Reply received: February 2012

QUESTION NO. 101

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 NW110E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Mr J H Steenhuisen (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) Which persons or groups have served as accounting officer since the establishment of the SA Weather Service (SAWS) and (b) for which period in each case;

(2) whether any contradictions between the SA Weather Service Act, Act 8 of 2001, and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Act 1 of 1999, have been found since the SAWS was established, if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the SAWS has faced any challenges with complying with being an entity listed on Schedule 3A of the PFMA; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr J H Steenhuisen (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

101. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1. (a) Accounting Officer(s) (b) Period/Financial Year

Mr Donovan Nadison (Interim CEO) 2001/2002 (July 2001 – October 2002)

Mr Gerhard Schulze (Acting CEO) 2002/2003 (November 2002-February 2003)

Mr Ratlaleng D J Lengoasa (CEO) 2002/2003-2004/05 (1 March 2003-5 July 2005)

Dr Jonas N Mphepya (Acting CEO) 2005/2006 (July 2005 – March 2006)

Mr Bruce Tashe (Interim CEO) 2006/2007 (1 April 2006-October2007)

Dr Jonas N Mphepya (Acting CEO) 2006/2007 (November 2006-March 2007)

Dr Linda Makuleni (CEO) 2007/2008 – 2011/12 (1 April 2007 to date)

2001/2002 (from February 2002)

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Mr Donovan Nadison (Interim CEO), Mr Sibusiso Gamede,
Mr Leslie Maasdorp, Mr Prince Maluleke, Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Tlharesang Mkhwanazi,Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo, Prof Derrick I Swartz, and Prof Geoff Brundrit.

2002/2003

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Mr Ratlaleng D J Lengoasa (CEO appointed 1 March 2003), Mr Leslie Maasdorp, Mr Prince Maluleke,Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo, Prof Derrick I Swartz, Prof Geoff Brundrit, Dr Joseph Matjila (DEAT Representative); Mr Sibusiso Gamede (resigned May 2002), Mr Donovan Nadison (resigned 1 November 2002), Ms Tlharesang Mkhwanazi (resigned 1December 2002) and Dr Nombasa Tsengwa (resigned 1 March 2003)

2003/2004

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Mr Ratlaleng D J Lengoasa (CEO), Prof Geoff Brundrit, Mr Leslie Maasdorp, Mr Prince Maluleke, Dr Joseph Matjila (DEAT Representative), Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo, and Prof Derrick I Swart.

2004/2005

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Mr Ratlaleng D J Lengoasa (CEO), Prof Geoff Brundrit, Mr Leslie Maasdorp, Mr Prince Maluleke, Dr Joseph Matjila (DEAT Representative), Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo, Prof Derrick I Swart (resigned 24 August 2004), Dr Jonas N Mphepya (appointed 15 September 2004) and Mr Ian Robinson (appointed 15 September 2004).

2005/2006

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Mr Ratlaleng D J Lengoasa (CEO – resigned 5 July 2005), Dr Jonas N Mphepya (resigned June 2005 and an Acting CEO from 5 July 2005), Prof Geoff Brundrit (resigned November 2005), Mr Leslie Maasdorp (resigned November 2005), Mr Prince Maluleke, Dr Joseph Matjila (DEAT Representative), Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo, Mr Ian Robinson, Dr Linda Makuleni (appointed 1 March 2005),Rev. Lulamile Mbete (appointed 1 March 2005), Mr Welcome Msomi (appointed 1 March 2005) and Mr Rowan Nicholls (appointed 1 March 2005).

2006/2007

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Dr Jonas N Mphepya and Mr B Tashe* (Acting CEOs respectively), Prof Geoff Brundrit (co-opted April 2006), Mr Prince Maluleke, Ms Joanne Yawitch/Mr Peter Lukey; DEAT Representative(s), Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo (resigned December 2006, Mr Ian Robinson, Dr Linda Makuleni (resigned December 2006), Rev Lulamile Mbete, Mr Welcome Msomi, Mr Rowan Nicholls, and Ms Medi Mokuena (appointed 1 December 2006).*resigned January 2007

2007/2008

Ms Sizeka Rensburg (Chairperson), Prof Geoff Brundrit (co-opted), Mr Prince Maluleke, Ms Joanne Yawitch/Mr Peter Lukey; DEAT Representative(s), Ms Patricia Maqubela, Ms Lindiwe Sangweni-Siddo (resigned December 2006, Mr Ian Robinson, Dr Linda Makuleni (appointed CEO 1 April 2007), Rev Lulamile Mbete, Mr Welcome Msomi, Mr Rowan Nicholls, and Ms Medi Mokuena.

2008/2009-2011-12

Ms Khungeka Njobe (Chairperson), Dr Linda Makuleni (CEO), Rev Lulamile Mbete, Mr Welcome Msomi, Ms Medi Mokuena, Dr Thembakazi Mali, Mr Siyabonga Makhaye, Prof Lindisizwe Magi, Prof Harald Winkler, Mr Lance Williams, Ms Hanlie Grobler, CFO (resigned February 2009), Mr Slingsby Mda, CFO (appointed CFO in June 2009 and as an executive member of the Board in April 2010), Ms Joanne Yawitch* (resigned February 2010), Mr Peter Lukey* (appointed April 2010)

*Department of Environmental Affairs Representatives)

2. Yes.

Section 49(2)(a)(b) of the PFMA reads as follows:

"(2) If the public entity-

(a) has a board or other controlling body, that board or controlling body is the accounting authority for that entity; or

(b) does not have a controlling body, the chief executive officer or the other person in charge of the public entity is the accounting authority for that public entity unless specific legislation applicable to that public entity designates another person as the accounting authority."

Section 17(1) of the SA Weather Service Act reads as follows:

Accounting Authority

"17.(1) Despite the provisions of section 49(2)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999), the Chief Executive Officer is the accounting officer of the Weather Service, and must comply with the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999."

The CEO is indeed the Accounting Officer. It is however, SAWS' understanding that section 17(1) of the SAWS Act was an interim arrangement meant to enable the Interim/first Chief Executive Officer to assume the role of the Accounting Authorityrather than Officer, in the absence of the Board; in line with the heading of section 17 "Accounting Authority"; which would in turn address section 49(2) of the PFMA.

For instance, SAWS was established on 15 July 2001, with the first Board appointed from February 2002.

The SA Weather Service Act is currently being amended. The proposed amendments as contained in the SAWS Amendment Bill, include the amendment to Section 17 as reflected hereunder:

Amendment of section 17 of Act 8 of 2001

8. Section 17 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following

subsection:

"(1) [Despite the provisions of] In accordance with section 49(2)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999), the [Chief Executive Officer] Board is the accounting [officer] authority of the Weather Service, and must comply with the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999."

3. SAWS has or had no major challenges with complying with the requirements of being a Schedule 3A Entity. SAWS have a dual mandate i.e. to provide both public good and commercial services (which are inherently profitable in nature).

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 99 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 NW108E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her approval of the waste tyre recycling plan by the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) on 15 November 2011, she fulfilled all the requirements of the approval process as stipulated in the Waste Tyre Regulations, 2009, that were gazetted on 13 February 2009; if not, what are the relevant details; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(2) whether, with reference to section 10(1) of the Waste Tyre Regulations, Redisa (a) took appropriate steps to bring the contents of its proposed integrated waste tyre management plan to the attention of (i) relevant organs of state, (ii) interested persons and (iii) the public and (b) called for comments on the plan; if not, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(3) whether, with reference to regulation 10(2) of the Waste Tyre Regulations, Redisa (a) considered comments in respect of its proposed integrated industry waste tyre plan and (b) submitted a copy of all comments and responses to her; if not, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(4) whether, with reference to section 11(1) of the Waste Tyre Regulations, the integrated industry waste tyre plan (a) was published for comment in theGovernment Gazette for a period of 30 days; if not, how was this justified; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

99. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1. As Minister of Environmental Affairs, I fulfilled the requirements of the approval process as stipulated in the regulations, except for the adminstrative procedural inadequacies that I discovered after the plan was approved. The waste Tyre Regulations, stipulate the process that the developers of a plan and the Minister should follow in developing such plans. Sub-regulation 11(1)(b) requires the publication of the plan in the Government Gazette for a period of 30 days for public comment. A notice informing the public of the plan and the details of where the plan could be accessed was published on the departmental website, as opposed to publishing the whole plan in the gazette, as the regulations strictly require. Upon discovering this fact, out of my own initiative, I decided to withdraw the approval of the plan, in order to allow for publishing the whole plan in the government gazette. It MUST be noted that my withdrawal had little to do with the contents of the plan but the administrative requirement that we needed to fulfil.

2. REDISA had a list of all its consultation processes with different stakeholder groups and government authorities as part of their consultation process. Comments received on the REDISA plan included both stakeholders within the waste tyre sector as well as from interested members of the public outside the sector. It was discovered however that, in bringing the plan to the attention of the public Redisa did not place an advert in the newspapers, although various other initiatives were undertaken to bring the plan to the attention of the public. It must be stated however that placing an advert in the papers is not stipulated in the regulations but it is thought to be a reasonable way of bringing the plan to the attention of the public. Once again, the Minister, on her own decided to withdraw the approval to allow for a fulfillment of what is considered to be reasonable to bring the plan to the attention of the public.

3. Comments were received and REDISA considered comments and also produced a Comments and Response document which was submitted together with their amended plan for the Minister's consideration.

4. As stated in the first response, a notice was placed in the Government Gazette for 30 days notifying people of the plan and outlining where they could submit their comments on the plan. Contact details of relevant officials were also placed in the Notice as well as newspaper adverts to ensure that everyone had access to the plan and could make their comments.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 98

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO.1 NW107E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to the integrated industry waste tyre management plan of the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa), she has found that the allowance for unregistered collectors does not result in an upsurge in tyre theft; if not, what steps has she taken to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(2) whether Redisa will use a tender process to identify contractors that offer services to it, especially in the field of transport; if not, (a) what is the position in this regard and (b) how can this be justified; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether the Redisa plan has been approved by the Competition Commission; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

98. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) It is not envisaged that approval of the plan would cause an upsurge in tyre theft. All collectors will be registered with Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (REDISA) and tyres that are not waste tyres, would be more commercially valuable than waste tyres.

(2) Yes, it is the Department's understanding that REDISA will use a tender process for larger commercial endeavours, while smaller amounts/contracts will use an adjudication system more suited to potential traders in that bracket.

(3) The REDISA plan was submitted to the Competition Commission for their comment, to ensure that Competition laws of this country were observed. The Commission was satisfied that no aspect of the REDISA plan, as presented to them, would result in anti-competitive practices.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 97

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 01)

97. Mr N D du Toit (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to lapsed question 3406 on 31 January 2011, there have been any further progress by the Water Research Commission on the occurrence of beta-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) in our water bodies; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) since her specified reply, (a) how many cases of (i) human and (ii) animal poisoning as a result of contact with cyanobacteria have been recorded and (b) where have these cases been recorded? NW106E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) Yes, there is progress on the development of methodologies for the detection of beta-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) in our water bodies. The following reports on the developed methodologies are available on the WRC website:

· "Improved sensitivity using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) for detection of propyl chloroformate derivatised β-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) in cyanobacteria". Authors: Esterhuizen-Londt M; Downing S; Downing TG; (2011/04/14); Research Report No. 1719/1/10 Water SA Manuscript.

· "Solid phase extraction of β-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) from South African water supplies". Authors: Esterhuizen-Londt M; Downing S; Downing TG; (2011/10/26); Water SA Manuscript.

(2)(a)(i) Since the specified reply, there has not been any report to suggest or confirm human poisoning due to cyanobacteria.

(2)(a)(ii) Since the specified reply, there has not been any report to suggest or confirm animal poisoning due to cyanobacteria.

(2)(b) Not applicable.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 96 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 NW105E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Dr L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether any other waste tyre management plans have been submitted to her department other than the integrated industry waste tyre management plan that was produced by the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what is the name of the entity that submitted the plan and (b) on what date was the plan first submitted;

(2) whether, on receipt of the specified plan, she requested (a) any additional information and/or (b) a revised plan to be submitted within a specified time frame in terms of regulation 11(1)(a) of the Waste Tyre Regulations, 2009, gazetted on 13 February 2009; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(3) whether, in terms of regulation 11(1)(d) of the Waste Tyre Regulations, 2009, she at any time (a) reviewed the revised integrated industry waste tyre management plan, (b) approved the specified plan with or without conditions or (c) rejected the specified plans with reasons and with a time frame for its resubmission; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(4) whether any amended plan had been resubmitted to her within a time frame specified by her in terms of regulation 11(2) of the Waste Tyre Regulations, 2009; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Dr L L Bosman (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

96. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Other than the Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan (IIWTMP) submitted by Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (REDISA), other plans have been submitted to the Department by the following entities:

· South African Tyre Recycling Programme (SATRP): This Company initially submitted their first draft of their plan in June 2009.

· Retail Motor Industry Association (RMI): This Company first submitted their plan on the
21 December 2011.

(2) Upon receipt of the first draft of the SATRP IIWTMP, there was consultation and inputs made by the departmental officials prior to the plan being forwarded to the Minister and the SATRP was given an opportunity to work on these inputs. The RMI IIWTMP is still under consideration by the Departmental officials.

(3) The Minister considered the SATRP plan and rejected it in a letter dated 15 November 2011. The letter detailed reasons why the plan was rejected. SATRP has now been given until April 2012 to review and resubmit their plan.

(4) No Plan has been resubmitted as yet by SATRP and the agreed timeframe for resubmission (April 2012) has not lapsed.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 95

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 01)

95. Dr L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether the Department of Water Affairs has granted a certain mine (name furnished) in Mogale City a water use licence; if not, what is the status of the application; if so, (a) when was it granted and (b) what (i) is the (aa) name and (bb) designation and (ii) are the contact details of the official who granted the licence;

(2) whether there is evidence that rigorous consultation was held with interested and affected parties before the licence was granted; if not, what steps does she intend to take to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(3) whether the licence is available for scrutiny by members of the public; if not, how can this be justified; if so, where can it be obtained? NW104E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) No, the Department has not granted a water use licence authorisation to the mine (name furnished). However, an application of a water use licence authorisation to the mine was received by the Department on 19 April 2010 and the application is still under evaluation. The water use licence application (WULA)was presented on 31 August 2011 to the Water Use Authorisation Assessment Advisory Committee (WUAAAC) which recommended that officials should conduct a site visit. Officials of the Department conducted a site visit to the mine on 5 September 2011. The Department is currently finalising the assessment on the WULA and will be presented to the WUAAAC for recommendation.

(1)(a) Falls away

(1)(b) Falls away

(2) Although the water use licence has not yet been granted, it should be noted that the document submitted by the Mine to the Department on
19 April 2010 indicated that a Scoping and Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR) Amendment was communicated to the community on 8 March 2005 at the Muldersdrift Police Station Lapa.

(3) Falls away

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 94

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 01)

94. Dr LL Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(a) Who has ownership of sediments in the Leeukraal Dam and (b) how can a person or entity obtain permission to make use of sediments in the dam?

NW103E

REPLY:

(l)(a) The Leeukraal Dam is a Government Water Works and the sediments thus belong to the state.

(b) The Department will have to advertise the opportunity in an open bid procedure or alternatively the applicant will have to follow the unsolicited proposal procedure as prescribed by the National Treasury to obtain the right to the sediments. Multiple authorisations including a Water Use License for altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a water works from the Department of Water Affairs; a mining license from the Department of Mineral Resources for exploiting mineral resources; and an Environmental Authorisation from the Department of Environmental Affairs for the listed activities triggered which include working within 22m of a water course will be required before mining of the sediments commences.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 92 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 NW101E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) How many jobs is the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) expect to create in each of its first five years of implementation;

(2) whether the jobs that are expected to be created are decent jobs; if not, how can this be justified; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(3) (a) how much money does Redisa expect to spend on administration of the implementation of its plan in the first two years and (b) what amount as a percentage of total revenue is it expected to receive in the first two years;

(4) whether the plan to set up 150 collection sites for waste tyres is economically feasible; if not, what will be done to rectify the situation; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(5) what will happen with regard to waste tyre collection in the interim while the collection sites are being established?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

92. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Redisa, as per its submitted plan, is expected to create 801 jobs in year 1; 1534 jobs in year 2; 2120 jobs in year 3; 2860 jobs in year 4; 2685 jobs in year 5 (as shown in the table below).

ea.

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

TOTAL

Head office

200

1

200

1

200

Depot

12

3

36

27

324

40

480

40

480

40

480

150

1800

Recycler

20

2

40

8

160

12

240

14

280

14

280

50

1000

Transporter

1.75

300

525

600

1050

800

1400

1200

2100

1100

1925

4000

7000

Total Jobs

801

1534

2120

2860

2685

10000

(2) The Department is of the view that the jobs will be decent jobs. The REDISA model proposes to uplift the socio-economic conditions of previously disadvantaged individuals through a programme of training and nurturing, at no cost to these individuals. The intention of this programme is to impart necessary business skills which will ultimately help people to progressively own their own businesses within the tyre sector.

(3) The proposed cost breakdown of the expenditure in relation to the implementation of the REDISA plan is shown below: This needs to be specified if known. The explanation is inadequate. If we do not know, we have to say so.

(4) According to the plan, depots will be identified through a detailed assessment of where waste tyres arise, transport routes, and the location of any existing recyclers, amongst other considerations. This assessment will include an analysis of the relevant economics. It is important to note that sites will vary in size depending on the concentration of tyre consumers. Some of the larger depots will not only store tyres, but also pre-process in an effort to reduce transport costs. The current figure of 150 depots also takes into account the current volumes of waste tyres already in the country.

(5) Waste tyre collection for waste tyre categories 1 to 5 will begin no later than 10 months after the date of publication of an approved plan. Waste tyre collection for tyres falling into categories 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 will begin no later than 18 months after the date of publication. This time frame will allow for the establishment of the collection sites. During the time when none are in place, there will be no waste tyre collection.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 91

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 09 February 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 01)

91. Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether there have been deviations by the operators of the King Shaka airport from the Record of Decision that accompanied the environmental authorisation; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the water usage of the (a) airport and (b) Dube Tradeport agrizone is within the expectations of the Record of Decision; if not, what are the relevant details; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(3) whether the water usage of the (a) airport and (b) Dube Tradeport agrizone is placing any pressure on competing water usage in the area; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details? NW100E

---00O00---

REPLY:

(1) The Department of Environmental Affairs is aware that there has indeed been some deviation from the Record of Decision issued to Airport Company of South Africa (ACSA). We became aware of these deviations, subsequent to a compliance site investigation conducted by the Green Scorpions by the Directorate: Compliance and Enforcement. During the site inspections several deviations were identified and a Compliance Notice and a Directive were issued to ACSA. Subsequently, several meetings were held between the Department and ACSA where some of the problems or deviations were discussed and resolved. ACSA agreed to submit action plans to the Department for approval in order stay within the parameters of the Record of Decision.

(2) Please note that the Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs consists of two Departments with different respective mandates; i.e. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (environmental matters) and Department of Water Affairs (DWA) (water resource management).

The Record of Decision for the airport indicated that 3.5 Ml/day was allowed for the airport. The Environmental Authorisation for the Agrizone was not specific in this regard. Should they need to abstract water from any water source, a Water Use License must be obtained from the DWA.

(3)(a) The water usage by the King Shaka Airport is a very small portion of the overall supply and therefore cannot be considered to be placing pressure on competing water users in the area. The King Shaka Airport is supplied water from the eThekwini Coastal Metropolitan water supply system which stretches from Pietermaritzburg to the coast, and from KwaDukuza in the North to Scottburgh in the South. A study to reconcile the water demands with the available supply for this area was finalised by the Department of Water Affairs in 2009. A strategy has been developed to identify, prioritise and confirm the essential interventions necessary to meet the water requirements of the area for the next 25 years. The area has experienced rapid growth and various demand and supply side interventions are being implemented to ensure there is sufficient water.

(3)(b) The agrizone in the Dube Tradeport area is also using limited ground water that falls within the General Authorization levels of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) and cannot be considered to be placing pressure on competing water users in the area.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO. 90 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 NW99E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) What is the current state of the Ramsar site at Ndumo Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal;

(2) whether the Department of Environmental Affairs has found this Ramsar site to be in good health; if not, why not; if so, how was this conclusion reached;

(3) whether there are any risks to the health of this Ramsar site; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) what entity is responsible for managing this Ramsar site;

(5) whether the Department of Environmental Affairs is offering any assistance with the management of the Ramsar site; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS 90. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) According to the records of the Department of Environmental Affairs, the Ndumo Game Reserve Ramsar site is in compliance with the prescripts of the Ramsar Convention.

(2) Yes. (Refer to number 1 above.)

(3) The Department of Environmental Affairs is not aware of any risks. (Refer to number 1 above.)

(4) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.

(5) No. The management of the Ramsar sites is carried out by the relevant authority under whose jurisdiction each site falls. (Refer to number 4 above.)

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION 88/ NW96E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: Thursday, 09 February 2012
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 01 of 2012

Mrs. AT Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:


(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to Question 194 on 27 October 2011, her Department utilises its National Identification System (HANIS), to rectify duplications proactively, rather than react once a complaint is received; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) how many cases of the issuing of duplicate identity numbers to two separate persons were encountered (a) in the (i) 2009/10and (ii) 2010/11financial year and (b) during the period 1April 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; (3) how many cases of the issuing of two identity numbers to one person were encountered (a) in the (i) 2009/10 and (ii) 2010/11financial year and (b) during the period 1April 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; (4) whether her Department has set measures in place, or intends to implement measures, to prevent duplication of identity numbers; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:


(1) Yes. The Department of Home Affairs utilises its National Identification System (HANIS) to, proactively, rectify Duplicate Identity Documents. The Home Affairs National Identification System (HANIS) is able to detect whether an identity number has been allocated to more than one person, or where one person has been allocated with more than one identity number. To reduce the number of duplicates, the Department has implemented a major Initiative, which is aimed at dealing with the most urgent cases, and preventing new cases from arising. The initiative
include: • All fingerprints which were recorded, manually, and stored in the Department's Fingerprint Database, were digitised on the database of the 2 Automated Fingerprint Identifying System (AFIS), during the 2007/08 financial year • As a result, the AFIS identified various duplicate cases, and have, since, been marked, as such, on the National Population Register (NPR) • HANIS has the ability to identify, and prevent occurrence of duplicate cases • There are some cases, where client contact is required, At present, clients are being contacted, in order to resolve their duplicate cases, Correspondence letters are sent out, and telephone calls are made to clients to complete the necessary required forms, in order to finalise the duplicate cases(2)(a)(i) A total of 5 021 cases of duplicate identity numbers to two separate persons were finalised in the 2009/10 financial year, (2)(a)(ii) A total of 9 331 cases of duplicate identity numbers to two separate persons were finalised in the 2010/11 financial year, (2)(b) A total of 5 099 cases of duplicate identity numbers to two separate persons were finalised in the period 1April 2011 to 31 December 2011,(3)(a)(i) Atotal of 36865 cases of duplicate identity numbers to one person were finalised in the 2009/10 financial year. (3)(a)(ii) A total of 75 241 cases of duplicate identity numbers to one person were finalised in the 2010/11 financial year. (3)(b) A total of 35713 cases of duplicate identity numbers to one person were finalised in the period 1April 2011 to 31 December 2011, (4) Yes, The Department has implemented a standard operating procedure, This procedure is subjecting each identity document application to the following procedures, in order to prevent duplication of identity numbers: • To be verified through HANIS, as it enters the ID application workflow process • To be verified again through HANIS, before the issuance of an identity document


Reply received: February 2012

QUESTION NO. 18 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 1 NW22E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 February 2012

Mrs A Steyn (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether she has been informed that the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa) waste tyre plan is taking fees from members of the tyre industry up to ten months before any delivery of service has taken place; if so, why is Redisa permitted to take the specified fees;

(2) whether she has found that the Waste Tyre Regulations, 2009, that were gazetted on
13 February 2009, contemplates the possible approval of multiple waste tyre recycling plans; if so, why was only one plan approved; if not, how was this conclusion reached;

(3) whether her department has spent any funds promoting the Redisa tyre recycling plan; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what amount;

(4) whether Redisa has secured a loan to start up its business; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what are the details of the lender, (b) what is the loan amount and (c) who is underwriting the loan?

Mrs A Steyn (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

18. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) Firstly, the approval of the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan (REDISA IIWMP) was withdrawn in January 2012. As a result, REDISA cannot take any levy payments from any of its subscribers as yet. Secondly, it must be noted that there is a planning phase at the beginning of the implementation process. This phase comprises of putting together the computer network system that will be used to manage the entire waste tyre management process. Furthermore, it would be necessary to embark on an outreach and marketing campaign to ensure that everyone is aware of the plan and knows what to do. There would also be a need for infrastructure such as collection sites to ensure an effective collection system. Although the actual collection of tyres may not start on the very first day of the approval of a plan, the implementation would have commenced and work would be underway, and all this must be financed from the levies. It would follow that levies on all new tyres are paid as soon as approval of a plan is granted.

(2) The Waste Tyre Regulations (2009) do not prohibit multiple plans. It should be noted that the Waste Tyre Regulations specify the content of such plans [Sub-regulation 9(1)]. The evaluation and approval or rejection of any plan is also guided by these regulations. Should a plan not address any of these requirements satisfactorily, then the Minister can reject such a plan in terms of sub-regulation 11(1)(d). The decision to approve or reject a plan depends on its compliance with the requirements as stipulated in the Regulations.

(3) The department has not spent any money to promote the REDISA plan. As part of the approval process, the department did publish a Notice in the Government Gazette for public comment. Upon its approval the department again published the approval in the Government Gazette. Both processes are a requirement in terms of the Waste Tyre Regulations (2009).

(4) I am not privy to the financial details of REDISA. This response also covers sub questions (a) , (b), and (c) of main question.

Reply received: March 2012

QUESTION NO 4

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 9 FEBRUARY 2012

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 1- 2012)

Date reply submitted: 06 March 2012

4. Mr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Police:

(1) Whether any investigation has taken place into alleged statements made on Facebook (details furnished) by a certain person (name furnished) who is employed in the forensic department of the SA Police Service (SAPS) in Gauteng; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether he will make a statement on the matter?

NW5E

REPLY:

Yes, a departmental investigation was conducted and the member's action / statement was found to be in contravention of the South African Police Service's Disciplinary Regulations and the Code of Conduct. The member's suspension from the service pending the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings is considered.

I do not make statement on every matter and will not be making a statement on this issue.