Tag Archive | B-BBEE Amendment BIll

BEE comes under media scrutiny

New BEE Codes & Bill to fill gaps…

rob daviesMinister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies, says the new BEE Amendment Bill and the revision of the Codes would go a long way in plugging the gaps that, in his view, businesses had taken advantage of with such moves such as fronting. The amendments would also avoid the “tick-box” manner of BEE compliance that seemed to be developing in the country, he said.

When asked about a time limit on BEE, he was clear in his reply.  “The eventual idea is to create a non-racial society in which these kinds of racial categories will no longer be considered. We are nowhere near putting a time limit on this happening”.

Now five code elements

He said that the new legislation and Codes would reduce the exorbitant amounts of money that small enterprises had to pay to consultants to prove BEE compliance. “The current generic scorecard contains seven elements and these have been reduced to five in order to align the elements more closely with the trajectory of the economic growth and development in the country.”

Minister Davies pointed out that in terms of the new Bill, about to be assented to by the President, had a total of 105 points assigned to the five elements.

Social imperatives

“Black economic empowerment is not just a social and political imperative”, he said. “We need to make sure that in the country’s economy, control, ownership and leadership are reflective of the demographics of the society in the same way the political space does. That’s why we are saying Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) remains an economic imperative.”

Minister Davies said the tandem launch of the Codes signalled the opening of a sixty-day period in which business and all other members of the public can submit their comments on the Codes for consideration before all the changes are finalised.

He concluded, when addressing a media conference on the subject, “We cannot expect to grow and develop as a country if the leadership of the economy is still in the hands of only a small minority of the society.”

BMF comes in

At the same meeting, Black Management Form’s Xolani Qhubeka, endorsed the amended Codes on BEE but warned “that whilst they area a step in the right direction, still more has to be done.”

The media asked whether, in stating that the new Bill had lightened the regulatory requirement for small business, whether this was because of the Bill or the new Codes.

Minister Davies indicated that the Codes were still under debate and this is “where reform would take place”. One of the areas being looked at was where bigger companies had to go through a lengthy verification process when dealing with smaller companies, he said.

“ Much of the comments are about the numbers, targets and the time to reach the targets but some of the fundamental principles will continue whilst the parameters and the timeframes are being discussed.”

All about fronting

When asked about the idea of incentivising plans for ownership as he perceived it, Minister Davies said this came back to the fronting question and what the problem with BEE, as it stood, was all about.

There was ownership as a proper and wholesome economic concept and there were also simple formal contract of some sort of shareholding, he said. “What has happened is that most of BEE is some kind of share transaction”.

He said his department was “weary” of empowerment of plans and new companies where  a kind of ownership had been established that was a share transaction deal. He said that BEE in its proper form had to deal with such subjects as procurement and skills training and added, “What we want to see is the entering into real ownership relationships with people who are empowered and can exercise the economic powers of ownership.”

BEE not a failure

On being asked whether, in introducing criminalisation to BEE legislation, he thought BEE had failed, Davies said “ We cannot conclude that BEE is a complete failure. I think that some aspects of it so far have showed some progress. We have seen the emergence of business people from historically disadvantaged communities playing leadership roles in business, state-owned enterprises, and government.”

“ What is lacking is the impact that was desired by the legislation originally. With any kind of legislation there will always be a need to tweak it. The fundamental difference between SA and other emerging economies is that people were subjected to racial categorisation. This had to do with social definitions. People were classified by the apartheid regime as white, black, coloured and Indian.”

“Depending on how one was classified through the Population Registration Act,” he went on, “ this defined your life chances; your education; your skills development and even for small business development. Apartheid neglected black small businesses until about ‘five minutes’ before the democratic transition.”

How long will it last

Questions then arose from the floor on the “sunset clause” issue, with one person saying that all this was 20 years ago, and people entering the economy had come through a new education system. Why could there not be term limits on this and why were there no deadlines, they asked on such legislation.

Minister Davies again referred to the past and brought up the 1913 Land Act and “the history of disempowerment of peasant farmers in the Transkei, who competed with white commercial farmers. One could clearly see how these farmers were disempowered and prevented from being commercial farmers so that they could be available to go work in the mines. Small black shop owners were not allowed to operate in the city centre and compete with the white shop owners.”

He acknowledged that it was twenty years since this had all had completely changed but the life span of disfranchisement effects has continued. “White people still have the best chances that other people do not have and this is the fact of the matter and is what have had to deal with.

Fronting penalties

When asked about the penalties on fronting, Minister Davies said at the moment as the law stood the only remedy was the common law offence of fraud; and, he added, fraud is criminally punished. “The only remedy at this point in time is the criminal one. And a maximum ten year sentence, subject to court process, is the legal process for cheating.”

Get rich quick

When it was pointed out by a questioner “that some people got richer through BEE regulations whilst a number of others stayed far behind”, Minister Davies responded by saying that BEE had to be got onto a “broader base” and this is why a Commission for BEE had been established.

He said, “You put somebody in a certain position so that you could pretend that the enterprise is something other than it is in terms of empowerment.” The Commission would look at this, he said, and in the worst case scenarios it would recommend that such cases go through the criminal justice system.

When asked when the Commission likely to be established the Minister explained the parliamentary process of legislation, the advertising of posts for a Commission and the setting up of procedures, all of which took considerable time.

More background articles on subject
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/rumblings-in-labour-circles-on-bee/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/new-b-bbee-bill-avoids-circumvention-of-the-law/
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//bee/bee-bill-to-stop-fronting-tabled-in-parliament/

Posted in BEE, Cabinet,Presidential, Facebook and Twitter, Finance, economic, Labour, LinkedIn, Trade & Industry0 Comments

Rumblings in labour circles on BEE

The B-BBEE Amendment Bill hearings…..

What is emerging during the current BEE hearings held by the trade and industry portfolio committee on proposed amendments to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Act is that there is a vast difference between how the department of trade and industry (DTI) want to manage black empowerment and what the department of labour (DOL) think of the way things are going under their steerage.

It appears the one is far more radical than the other, as was evidenced by the agreement of DTI’s director general, Lionel October, to take some of the more implausible definitions contained in the B-BBEE Act to his minister to re-visit as far as wording was concerned.

Reality perhaps

Probably, with DTI dealing with business and industry and investment issues on a continual basis they see some of the traps well ahead that are causing South Africa to drop on the investments listings globally and thus are more pragmatic or perhaps even phlegmatic when it comes to running BEE, their daily business.

It is a voluntary, non-racial issue, they maintain; it is up to the individual company wishing to secure business with government to verify their make up and enter the scoreboard game if they want government business, although government does set down its BEE ambitions in legislation.

Criminalisation

At the moment nobody goes to jail or pays heavy fines unless they cheat.   Each industry has been encouraged to have its own special charter to suit its own special circumstances.

But clearly, the Commission of Employment Equity (CEE) do not like sectoral charters, a fact backed by their partners on this issue, the Black Business Council, the latter having expressed this fact a number of times. Both want them scrapped or “trumped” by B-BBEE, more rigidly enforced.

Sectoral charters are voluntary

Whilst Manufacturing Circle, who make sensible input at most hearings, made the point that the very number of sectoral charters sometimes leads to confusion in large conglomerates whose activities stretch over many industrial activities, they were just calling for clarity on some issues.

However, the input of CEE to scrap the voluntary charters and rely totally on legislation to bring about the aims of black empowerment as perceived by them is worrisome.

BEE remains mostly outside the law

The whole point and acceptability of BEE in the past as a principle is that in the light of the country’s history, it is acceptable, and the whole point to date has been that black empowerment has not been legislated for in totality.

DTI have always empahsised this. The nearest the country has got to the criminalization issue is those who wish to defeat the principles of BEE by trickery and by “fronting”, which is deception in any terms, will be dealt with severely according to the law.

Otherwise the law as such is not over skin colour but has been kept mainly on the lines of past disadvantage and the unfairness of what 90% of the community had to put up with for years.

CEE get into the Act

So who are the Commission of Employment Equity or CEE?

It is a commission which was established in terms of section 59 (1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) with members on the whole appointed by the minister of labour whose task it is to advise the minister on any matters relating to sectoral determinations. They are part of DOL and carry the department’s logo on their website.

Basic Conditions of Employment

CEE deals with any matter concerning basic conditions of employment; any matter arising out of the application of the BCEA and generally the effect of government policies on labour matters and conditions of employment in the public service – a massive mandate but specifically within their ambit of labour issues.

It says that BEE for all business and industry should not be voluntary, which seems stepping well outside of their mandate. So what does the minister of labour say, who appoints the CEE members?

Posted in BEE, Labour, Land,Agriculture, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, Trade & Industry0 Comments

New B-BBEE Bill avoids circumvention of the law

lionel octoberB-BBEE legislation needs overhaul…

Director General Lionel October led the department of trade and industry’s (DTI) presentation on the new B-BBEE Amendment Bill  to the portfolio committee on trade and industry, stating that the anchor BEE legislation in place for some ten years badly needed a “proper mechanism to support the actual implementation of black empowerment and methods to deal with non-compliance and circumvention”.

He said the new changes resulted mainly from the work of the President’s Special Advisory Council charged with investigation into the areas where monitoring, evaluation and reporting were clearly ineffective, resulting in a need and to introduce penalties and criminalise those who purposely made false declarations.

Maximum penalty only set by Bill

The Bill, he said, set the maximum penalty but it was up to the courts to set penalties according to circumstances’.

The purposes of the new Bill was to give further effect to the aims and objects of black empowerment legislation, said October, and especially to improve monitoring and evaluation of SA business and industry on the subject; strengthen access to procurement opportunities for black business with focus on opportunities; and funding to improve the technical capacity of the verification industry.

NEDLAC, BUSA, Black Business Council and government departments had been consulted, including all departments in the economic and employment “cluster”, he said.

Most agree changes needed

October said that public hearings had also been conducted. On the whole, these  submissions in broad principle had supported the necessity for amending legislation with a certain number of changes being acknowledged as badly needed, mainly because of misunderstandings particularly in the area of verification and scoring and to clear up a number of unintended consequences of the original Act.

Nomande Mesatywa, chief director of B-BBEE at DTI, told parliamentarians that the objectives of the Bill were to line up other legislation impacting on B-BBEE and also to line up with the Codes of Good Practice.

The Bill established a B-BBEE Commission to monitor and evaluate black empowerment as practised; to deal with non-compliance issues and circumvention and give effect to government policy on the issue of black business empowerment.

Material amendments included a whole number of key definitions and re-definitions and matters regarding the establishment of the B-BBEE commission office.

MPs complain of racial bias

A number of MPs complained that definitions included that of black persons, defining them as black, coloured and Indian, which was simply re-introducing racially based legislation based on skin colour.

October said DG had no option but to follow procurement legislation where the scorecard used such determinations. He said that South Africa was not returning to such levels as had been practiced “in the bad years” but it was now the option or choice of business in terms of a scorecard system whether to do business with government or not.

He said that South Africa was not like Malaysia or Zimbabwe where only nationals of a certain skin colour or nationality could do business with government.

MPs still disagreed with DTI and said not only was the legislation racially based but it disenfranchised white persons from an opportunity that was their constitutional right.

Furthermore, there was a differential between national and foreign business where one’s nationality was prejudicial in dealing with government on tenders and this was bad for investors to see and contributed to the idea that South Africa was unfriendly to foreign investors.

Fronting the main problem

Again, DTI rejected such notions stated by opposition MPs, October defending the proposals in that the B-BBEE legislation before them was mainly aimed at those attempted to defeat the regulations on “fronting” and by supplying false information when submitting scorecard facts. It also remained purely an option for business whether it wished to comply or not with the scorecard system when applying for government business, which he confirmed amounted to some 45% of GDP.

He concluded that it was important for government to have a B-BBEE commissioner as a party to investigate, regulate and impose penalties on those who wished to defeat the purpose of the legislation and who wished to counter government policy on the necessity to empower middle class black development; black small business development and therefore improve the black contribution to GDP.

Posted in BEE, Earlier Stories, Finance, economic, Labour, Mining, beneficiation, Public utilities, 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. MPRDA : Shale gas developers not satisfied
  2. Environmental Bill changes EIAs
  3. Border Mangement Bill grinds through Parliament

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories

  • Anti Corruption Unit overwhelmed

    Focus on top down elements of patronage  ….editorial….As Parliament went into short recess, the Anti-Corruption Unit, the combined team made up of SARS, Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and Justice Department, divulged […]

  • PIC comes under pressure to disclose

    Unlisted investments of PIC queried…. When 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 […]

  • International Arbitration Bill to replace BITs

    Arbitration Bill gets SA in line with UNCTRAL ….. The tabling of the International Arbitration Bill in Parliament will see ‘normalisation’ on a number of issues regarding arbitration between foreign companies […]

  • Parliament rattled by Sizani departure

    Closed ranks on Sizani resignation….. As South Africa struggles with the backlash of having had three finance ministers rotated in four days and news echoes around the parliamentary precinct that […]

  • Protected Disclosures Bill: employer to be involved

    New Protected Disclosures Bill ups protection…. sent to clients 21 January……The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs will shortly be debating the recently tabled Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which proposes a duty […]