Archive | Earlier Stories

PIC comes under pressure to disclose

Unlisted investments of PIC queried….

matjilaWhen asked for information on how the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) had invested its funds, Dr  Daniel Matjila, Chief Executive Officer, told parliamentarians that the most he could do, even with ‘listed’ investments, was to give only names. Any terms and condition of any investment agreement could not be made public. On ‘unlisted’ investments, he held back completely.

He was then formally asked by David Maynier (DA) if the PIC had invested, directly or indirectly, any funds in any Gupta-owned enterprise. He was also asked for details of any financial implications upon the Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF) and other pension fund assets resulting from the dismissal by the President of former Finance Minister Nene.

Confidentiality

Dr Matjila responded that the fund “could not cross the line of disclosing private information” and the members ofPIC logo.2 the Standing Committee on Finance, before whom he was appearing “should not read into his statements any insinuation that the PIC was protecting information.” He noted that he was totally aware of the fact that the PIC was under investigation for passing funds to the ANC and any such idea “was totally false”.

As far as funds to any Gupta owned business was concerned, Dr Matjila replied that the organisation stood by its earlier answers to the media that it had not invested directly in any Gupta owned enterprise. Following this remark, ANC MPs stood by Dr Matjila and told Opposition members that the PIC could not become “entangled” in such questions which were veiled with gossip and insinuation. It was the word “directly” used by Dr Matjila that caused the question.

Sub-judice

yunus carrimThis point was emphasised by Yunus Carrim, Chairman of the Committee, that most of the questions that were concerning Mr David Maynier should only be dealt with after the investigation of the possibility of ANC funding by the PIC had completed its course. He said that Dr Matjila was bound by circumstances to say nothing.

Present at the standing committee meeting was Deputy Minister of Finance, Mcebisi Jonas, who said the reporting process of h a pension fund to the committee should not get side-tracked with politically motivated questions. Maynier had asked this time about the possibility of “indirect” investments by PIC of any Gupta businesses.

On the issue of the effect of the ‘9/12 issue’, as referred to by Dr Matjila when Nhlanhla Nene was fired, he reported that the impact of this event had caused “significant losses” to the PIC portfolio. The GEPF lost R95bn, the Unemployment Insurance Fund lost R7bn and the Compensation Fund had lost R3bn – all managed by PIC and the event had been most worrying.

However, he said that the performance of all the funds had been subsequently excellent in the sense that recovery was achieved quite quickly – in fact “the recovery represented more than all the PIC funds lost within those two days of crisis.”

Information withheld

David Maynier (DA) remarked that funding was still shrouded in mystery and that he was “extremelydavid maynier uncomfortable” that the PIC would give no information at all on the “unlisted” investments of PIC.

Reporting generally, Dr Matjila said the fund had benchmarked itself and its operations compared favourably with “top private sector investment companies”. The GEP Fund “had shown over five years a 14.3% interest factor compared, he said, to a global median of 9.9% and a local investor median of 10.1%.” It had invested approximately R33.9bn in numerous portfolios aimed to drive transformation and create jobs, he said.

He told parliamentarians that the PIC “had invested approximately R33.9bn in numerous portfolios aimed to drive transformation and create jobs.” He said any risk taking was carefully managed and remained on the conservative side. Furthermore, he assured MPs that PIC did not take any risk that could not be “managed”.

Listed investments growing

Dr Matjila said that for all investments, the total allocation was now R400bn and “partners were always sought that would make positive returns”. ‘Listed’ investments in the last five years had grown from R495bn to R892bn recording a growth factor of 12.5% per annum.

vodacom logoThe PIC always held to principle, he said, that there was always a need for BEE compliant businesses to be considered so that it attracted a portion of government expenditure. ‘Unlisted’ investments, nevertheless, had large share of the market holdings, he said, with roughly R55 billion allocated to this form of investment. The total allocation for PIC investments, including GEPF and UIF, was approximately R400bn.

On investment policy, Dr Matjila said that his team liked to look at partnering with other stakeholders that added value and knowledge to make sure that maximum benefits and input from any arrangement were received.

Downstream SMME outlets

On SMME development, Dr Matjila said that PIC was “in discussion with groups such as Spar and Woolworths to ensure that small business was represented in their current growth patterns.” He said it would seem important for PIC to participate further in the Barclays Africa “sell down”. PIC, he noted, had invested in many international and local companies with assets within South Africa “in order to drive economic growth and increase job creation.”

Dr Matjila turned finally to ‘unlisted’ investments and said PIC had a slate of roughly R55bn to work from. Such investments were usually international, he said, and were not necessarily BEE compliant. David Maynier (DA) asked whether the GEP Fund management was “comfortable with the fact that a confidentiality clause existed on so many investments and the fact that disclosure to Parliament was denied.” Some ANC members also mentioned disquiet on this issue. Maynier said he intended to pursue the issue of non-disclosure of “unlisted” investments further.

Previous articles on category subject
Retirement savings subject of treasury probe – ParlyReport
Treasury calls for “Twin Peak System” with two financial bills – ParlyReportSA

 

Posted in Earlier Stories, Finance, economic, LinkedIn, Public utilities, Special Recent Posts, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Expropriation Bill has now to be faced

Much of the sting goes out of Expropriation Bill…..

landseizuresThe subject of expropriation, not necessarily of land but any property, has now reached the stage of a considerably watered down third Bill which has now been tabled and whilst there are grumbles from many quarters, it appears that the new Bill has not caused the same furore as its predecessors.

The long awaited Expropriation Bill (B4-2015) came before Parliament in the form for a briefing to the portfolio committee of public works attended by the minister of public works, Thulas Nxesi, the briefing itself remaining very much in the hands of the deputy minister, Jeremy Cronin.

Great emphasis was laid by both ministers on the difference between expropriation as a “public purpose” and expropriation “in the public interest”, a difference they said that was clearly laid out in South Africa’s Constitution.

Public purpose, public interest

nxesiMinister Nxesi in his introduction said if there was a need to put up electricity lines or build a road, it was then for a “public purpose” and he saw that there could be no argument – a statement which was later queried by opposition members.

However, minister Nxesi said, expropriating property for “public interest” had to pass a rigorous rationality test as stipulated in the Constitution but a major problem with all Bills previously tabled was that there was no recourse to the courts and on this issue the cabinet had decided to withdraw them. Jeremy Cronin seemed to come to the rescue with a far more detailed and rational presentation.  

He argued that expropriation was an essential mechanism or tool for any state in any country to acquire property under certain instances but much emphasis had been laid in South Africa on the issue of land and white commercial farmers.

He admitted that whilst “public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform” in the Bill before them, a fact emphasised in the preamble to the Bill, the proposed legislation was very much in the nature of a mechanism to deal with expropriation rather than say who it applied to.

Expropriation just a “tool”

croninMinister Cronin added that this was one of many reforms taking place to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources and reforms to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices. Such a preamble existed in much of South Africa’s legislation since 1984.

He said, “The Constitution requires “just and equitable” compensation to be determined by having regard of all circumstances without placing undue weight on any single or particular factor. National, provincial and local government were empowered to expropriate property to varying degrees through several pieces of legislation, he noted.

Deputy minister Cronin tracked the history of the Bill before them stating that the 1975 Expropriation Act was totally unconstitutional as it gave draconian powers to the state and was “wisely” withdrawn. A further 2007 Bill was also removed on these grounds and the current Bill was unable to be processed for Parliament before the 2014 elections.

In line with Constitution

settlement_law_justice_However, he said, the Expropriation Bill B4-2015 seeks to ensure consistency with the Constitution and to provide uniformity of procedure of all expropriations without interfering with the powers granted to the expropriating authorities.

Opposition members claimed that the Bill enlarged upon the definition of “public interest” contained in the Constitution and the Bill could not do this constitutionally. Nor did the Bill talk to in broad terms to the issue of compensation, whether it be a commercial farm or alternative accommodation for a shack dweller.

They argued that the new Bill did not talk to the issue of the interest of a bank in terms of a mortgage and where the bank might stand on such issues. The Bill now tabled, minister Cronin said, detailed the manner in which the expropriating authority had to follow, as well as setting up the process of evaluation and the authority to do this “in a just and administrative way”.  

On mortgages and loans from a bank, he said it was the bank that will be expropriated and not the individual.

Credibility of Bill challenged

masangoDA member Masango contradicted this and said any agreement or loan was between a person and the bank and not the state and the bank and he asked how the Bill could have possibly got through the NEDLAC process.

He also raised the issue of poor people not be able to afford litigation if the process of expropriation was contested. ANC member Madlopha said “whilst the media had been rubbishing the Bill, saying that it targets white commercial farmers”, the Bill in her mind gave the state power to expropriate with only a simple notice to the property owner, a process which seemed to contradict with common law.

Blaming apartheid and more

Minister Cronin responded along the lines that in expropriation, the property clause in the Bill of Rights guided the process. Indeed, argument, he said, will no doubt occur on “just and equitable compensation matters” but this did not remove “the consideration of colonial injustice”.   

It was the Constitution, he said, that insisted that in determining “justice and equitable” compensation it should include the process of “restitution”. Deputy Minister Cronin commented that expropriation did not just affect white commercial farmers and any compensation would consider the amount of bond outstandings. 

He concluded that the new Bill was attempting to shorten the process of any litigation. He added that the NEDLAC findings on the Bill would be supplied to Parliament and suggested that the committee ask Agric-SA to appear before them to obtain their views.

Other articles in this category or as background

Zuma goes for traditional support with expropriation –

ParlyReportSA New approach to land reform – ParlyReportSA

Posted in cabinet, Cabinet,Presidential, Earlier Stories, Facebook and Twitter, Land,Agriculture, LinkedIn0 Comments

Pravin tackles COGTA intervention at local level

 COGTA getting somewhere with municipalities…..

pravin gordhan MTBSIt is quite apparent why the seemingly impossible task of integrating local, provincial and national government service has been given to minister Pravin Gordhan of cooperative governance and traditional affairs (COGTA). He seems quite determined that all provinces and municipalities have to deliver on their constitutional mandate.

His department of cooperative governance (DCOG) recently updated Parliament on the current situation, led by some opening remarks by the minister himself.   He went straight to the nub of the issue by stating that section 139 of the Constitution provided for intervention by the relevant provincial executive if a municipality could not or did not fulfil an executive obligation.

First steps

Whilst the Local Government Reform Act, passed in 2014, has helped considerably by refining local electoral areas nationally down to 137, whilst 95 municipal districts have been designated in most cases to correspond with electoral areas. Thus, more representative structures have been established although some suspected at the time this was an election ploy.

Stabilisation of local government was the key, said minister Pravin to parliamentarians, and the process of “Back to Basics”, one of the 16 SIP strategic items on the list of the National Development Plan, was the basis of the department’s 2015/6 annual performance plan. This to ensure municipalities performed in their dealings with local government at the coal face.

Minister Pravin said, “Local government plays a key role in determining whether people live with dignity and whether they are able to access economic opportunities, consequently contributing to the overall development of the country”.    Part of COGTA’s mandate, he said, was to understand and support the development of intergovernmental relations in all three tiers of government.

New Bill to make third tier accountable

vusi madonaselaVusi Madonsela, DG of DCOGTA, advised that they were “aiming to build accountability for performance in local government systems by setting and enforcing clear performance standards by March 2019. To this end a new Intergovernmental Monitoring, Support and Intervention (IMSI) Bill would be processed through Parliament.

The performance of municipal public accounts committees (MPAC’s) therefore in all “dysfunctional municipalities as well as municipalities with adverse and disclaimer opinions would be monitored and enforced”, he said.

Changing attitudes to debt

Madonsela also said, “The culture of payment for services would be encouraged nationally with campaigns” and part of DOCG’s task was to improve the ability of at least 60 municipalities to collect outstanding debt. He named other targets such as to strengthen anti-corruption measures by 2019 and to have achieved a full local government anti corruption tribunal systems working.

He also said DCOG would start with 12 districts to develop integrated development plans and eight cities and towns would also be supported and monitored in developing long term strategies and proper spatial development programmes.

Skills always the problem

Opposition members called on COGTA for better performance by local government training SETAs. Many institutions were conducting training programmes for councillors but in the process had found that many councillors literally have no skills or formal education. Madonsela responded by saying there were now regulations being passed to weed out unqualified persons and those with false CVs.

Minister Pravin agreed that some of the factors that led to dysfunctional local government structures included political instability and problems with service delivery and institutional management inability.  Councillors were nominated and appointed by their political parties, he said, and “perhaps it should be a conversation amongst MPs on how councillors should be appointed.”

Back to “Back to Basics”

The net result at the moment, said minister Gordhan, that one in three municipalities, according to a study conducted nationwide, were failing and the success of the “Back to Basics Programme” would now depend on inter-government transfers to bring in skills and changing the employment criteria to economic, tax and financial viability experience.

He concluded that his department was getting tough where municipalities had broken the law and some of the answers may lie in strengthening district municipalities with specialists and merging some municipalities.   Another option was to abolish local municipalities completely and in their stead, start again with district management areas but he did not elaborate on this.
Other articles in this category or as background
Municipal free basic services slow – ParlyReportSA
Local government skills totally lacking – ParlyReport
Electricity connections not making targets – ParlyReportSA

Posted in Earlier Stories, Facebook and Twitter, Finance, economic, Justice, constitutional, LinkedIn, Special Recent Posts, Trade & Industry0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. PIC Bill passage indicates sleight of hand by governing party
  2. Climate legislation Bill links on carbon tax
  3. White Paper sees more Home Affairs meddling

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories