Pension Funds Amendment Bill: Consideration of Motion of Desirability

This premium content has been made freely available

Finance Standing Committee

01 December 2021
Chairperson: Mr J Maswanganyi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Portfolio Committee on Finance met to consider a motion of desirability on the Pension Funds Amendment Bill [B30 – 2020]. This was a Private Member’s Bill which was introduced in Parliament in November 2020 by Dr Dion George MP. The Committee had held public hearings on 19 May 2021 and had discussed the Bill in two previous meetings.

Dr George stated that he wished to amend his Bill to take account of inputs made in the public hearings. Specifically, the upper limit of a pension fund loan would be 30% [of the member’s share in the value of the fund] and not 75%, and only one current loan should be provided for.

The Parliamentary Legal Adviser said that the first step was for the Committee to decide on the motion of desirability. If it were passed, this would open the way for the inclusion of the changes noted by Dr George in the letter he had addressed to the Committee to previous day.

While the Committee did not deliberate on the Bill itself, it considered the draft report prepared by the support staff. There was extensive discussion about the process surrounding the Bill. Members wanted to check that the Committee was following the correct procedures in terms of the rules of the National Assembly.

Members asked about the tax implications of the Bill, which did not appear to have been covered. They also questioned whether there were adequate mechanisms to manage the loan scheme and whether a socio-economic or financial impact study had been done that accompanied the Amendment Bill. Was the Bill a Money Bill that needed to be introduced as such? What effect would the Bill have on members of the provincial legislatures?

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary if Dr George had submitted formal written submissions on the comments recorded in the comments spreadsheet/matrix compiled after the public hearings.

Three Members voted that the Bill was desirable; four Members voted that the Bill was not desirable.

The Chairperson asked the Secretariat and the legal team to find out from the Programming Committee what the next step was. He was worried, because the Rules said that if the motion on the desirability of the Bill was rejected, the Committee must immediately table the Bill and its report on the Bill. 

Meeting report

The Chairperson said he hoped that Members had studied the draft report on the Pensions Funds Amendment Bill [B30 – 2020]. When the Committee processed reports, it did not go to back into the introduction and the background. Members would go straight to the observations and recommendations. The observations started at subheading four of the report. Part three was about key issues raised during the public hearings. The Committee’s observations went from 4.1 to 4.7.

Dr D George (DA) said that he had submitted a letter to the Committee the previous day regarding the discussion at the previous Committee meeting. At the previous Committee meeting, he had indicated that he was going to present a second version of the Bill, with minor amendments that came from the public participation process. The purpose of Parliament was to have the participation process, to receive inputs and then to apply its mind and carry on with the process. What he submitted the previous day was the letter that he said he was going to be issuing, detailing the changes he wanted to make to the Bill. It was a short Bill, as Members knew. There were two issues:

Firstly, he detailed in the letter that the upper limit of the loan would be 30% [of the member’s share in the value of the pension fund] and not 75%.

Secondly, the Bill would be changed to make provision for only one current loan.

This was part of the process that he understood the Committee must follow. He asked Members to bear in mind that his Bill had come before the Committee a year before. Since then, the problems that South Africa had in the economy had not gotten better. As Members knew, there was also a new variant of COVID-19 that was “apparently so dangerous that it shuts us out from the rest of the world unfairly”. He wanted the Committee to consider that input, because as he had said before, time had moved on. He got inputs from the public participation, so the Bill that was originally before the Committee had evolved in response to the inputs that he received. He got a schedule from the Committee support staff that detailed all the comments that were made by some of the stakeholders, such as the public, National Treasury (NT) and the industry lobby, etc. In each item he responded to stakeholders, and he thought that they were “very sensible” responses. In terms of process he wanted to be clear that after he tabled his private member’s Bill, it went through a process of public participation. He received inputs from the public, from the Treasury etc. This Committee sat down and considered the inputs from various places, and then he said that on the basis of that, he wanted to make a change to his Bill. The Committee was listening. That was why one made a change; one had a brain and so one could change one’s mind on various things. He thus amended his Bill to cater for the concerns raised. Then he commented on all of the inputs as well, according to the schedule. He also sent that to the Committee. He was concerned that if the Committee was looking at the Bill that was there originally, then the Committee was looking at the wrong thing. He was not an expert on process; he was a representative of the people. That was where he understood the process to be. He was not quite sure whether the Committee was considering the Bill that he had originally put, or whether the Committee was considering the amendment to that Bill, which was a different version. Members knew that the Committee had considered changes, as it did recently with Treasury. He wanted to be clear on process.

Additionally, he wanted to know whether the Committee was going to go through the comments that he had made on the various inputs. There was a Committee meeting, and people came – the people from the NT came, the people from the lobby group came, and they gave very valuable inputs, including the trade unions. He then responded to that in that meeting, almost straightaway. He was being told that he was going to get a schedule of those comments, like the Committee did with the tax laws for example, and then he would be able to comment on those, which he had done. He wanted to clarify process. The whole thing was that that Bill had been on the table for a year. There were going to be some other changes in the retirement industry, etc., but the Committee saw nothing. He asked the Chairperson to clarify where the Committee was with the process, given the inputs that he had provided [in the letter and in the comments matrix compiled after the public hearings].

The Chairperson said that section 73 of the Constitution provided for the legislative process, and stated that any bill may be introduced in National Assembly (NA). Only a Cabinet Member or a Deputy Minister, or a Member of a Committee of the NA, may introduce a bill in the Assembly. But only the Cabinet Member responsible for national financial matters may introduce the following bills in the Assembly: A Money Bill, or a bill which provides for legislation envisaged in section 214, and so it went on. He believed that, subject to the advice of the legal team, the Bill fell under section 75 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court had made a ruling on Private Members’ Bills that a bill introduced by a private Member or a Committee should be treated like any other bill that is introduced by the Minister or the Deputy Minister. Regarding processes: The Committee had processed the Bill like any other bill. It was introduced by Dr George, and referred to the Committee. Unlike the bills that come through ministers, which go through a socio-economic impact assessment, this Bill had not. Be that as it may, the Committee processed the Bill, and invited the public to make inputs. From there, the Committee research team compiled a report. That was the report which the Committee was supposed to look at in the meeting. Dr George had written a letter to the Committee to suggest that he wanted to bring two issues: One was with regard to the ceiling on the loan of 30%, and the other issue was that a member [of a pension fund] would not be permitted to borrow twice, unless he or she had paid back the first loan. He did not see any problem with Dr George introducing those two issues. He would put them to the Committee to decide, so it there would not be a situation where Dr George would be prejudiced. As Dr George had said, with the passage of time, other challenges arose in the process. He did not see any problem with the two issues that Dr George had brought to the fore. However, he would subject those issues to the Committee to discuss and decide.

Dr George said that was fine. The previous time that the Committee met, he had indicated at that meeting that he was going to make a change. He had done what he said he would do. There were elections in-between, so that was also a reason why the Bill had taken so long in the Committee. There was a schedule that had comments on it. Mr Allan Wicomb, the Committee Secretary, knew that, because he had that document. In that schedule, there were comments made by stakeholders, the Treasury, etc. The comment made that he had not responded was untrue. The legal department, or whoever did it in the Committee, put together comments. Those support staff members then compiled a schedule. On each of the comments, the support staff made a spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet was the input and then there was a space for comment. He had commented on each one of those. Specifically, he commented that the NT had “fundamentally misunderstood” the Bill, because it thought that it meant [a pension] fund was going to give the loan directly, and there would be an immediate withdrawal from the fund. That was not so. He did not know if some of the comments that were made were based on the misunderstanding of his Bill. Either it was misread or the NT was misinformed, possibly by a lobby group. He had gone through each one of those comments, and he had in fact commented. He was not sure if the Committee Members had received the document containing his responses. It had been submitted to the Committee. The Committee only received the [draft] report late the previous night or that morning. He wanted the Committee to have received all the information that it needed. The Committee did not report to Treasury or anybody else. The Committee reported to the people of the country, who elected the Members. That was the most important thing. Treasury reported to the Committee, and not the Committee to Treasury. The lobbyists, industry and the other people who came in gave vitally important feedback, which was appreciated. Those stakeholders were also coming from a specific perspective. The Committee’s job as public representatives is to represent the people of the country. That was the key point that he wanted to make. He said that he and the Chairperson were on the same page. He wanted to get clarity on the points under discussion.

Ms Noluthando Mpikashe, Parliamentary Legal Services, said that in terms of process, the Committee needed to pass or reject a motion of desirability on the Bill that was currently before the Committee. The Committee could consider the proposed amendments made by Dr George in the Bill. Her concern was that the Bill that was before the Committee did not have the proposed changes. There was a process for amending a Bill when the Bill had already been introduced. The Committee must compile an A-list, and there must be a B-Bill. The Committee could not do that until the Committee decided if the Bill was desirable or not desirable.

The Chairperson said that the Committee’s legal standing was provided for in the Rules of the National Assembly, part 11, on the Standing Committee on Finance. Rule 230 outlined the establishment, rule 231 the composition, rule 232 the functions and powers of this Committee, then also the sub-committees (rule 234) and consultations. Rule 235 also outlined the public involvement. The Committee needed to make sure that the public was involved, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act 9 of 2009. It was the Committee’s understanding that this Bill was processed like any other bill introduced by the Minister or Deputy Minister, and it ensured that the public was involved. The public was adequately involved; it had made submissions. What was contained in the report, in the Chairperson’s understanding, was part of what came from the public involvement, in written and oral submissions. The NT was one of those that made submissions. There should be no insinuation that whatever decision that the Committee was going to take, it was influenced by the inputs of Treasury. The Committee did not report to Treasury; Treasury reported to the Committee. In processing the Bill, the Committee needed to make sure that it was as objective as possible in the eyes of the public. The Committee should be seen to be objective, and not having been influenced by Treasury, but instead be influenced by the public comments in general. Public participation was provided for in the Constitution, because it was “the cornerstone of participatory democracy”. He clarified what Ms Mpikashe was saying: Now that the Committee had gone through the process of public participation, and the public had made inputs, the Committee had a report before it informed by public participation. There was no room immediately for making amendments to the Bill. The Committee had to consider the report as it was. Be that as it may, the two issues that Dr George raised could be considered, but not as an amendment of the Bill. It was one thing to amend the Bill, but it was another thing to consider the report. The issues that Dr George was raising fell into the scope of what the Committee would consider in the meeting, namely the report. The Committee would not necessarily be going into the core of the Bill, which was an amendment. The Chairperson asked Ms Mpikashe what it needed to do at that moment.

Ms Mpikashe said that was correct. The Committee needed to consider the Bill that was before it. Rule 286(4)(i) of the NA provided for the process in a Committee, and said that after due deliberation, the Committee must consider a motion of desirability on the subject matter of the bill. If rejected, the Committee must immediately table the Bill and its report on the Bill. If the motion of desirability is adopted, the Committee must proceed to deliberate on the details of the legislation. What was proposed by Dr George in his letter should be considered by the Committee after the Committee had decided on the motion of desirability.

The Chairperson asked if everyone “was together”, so that the Committee proceeded from the same wavelength.

Dr George said he had clarity, and that everyone was on the same page. He thanked the Chairperson for clarifying.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to do all of [the steps in the process] so that there would not be a scenario where a Private Member’s Bill would not be treated like any other bill. Constitutionally, a private Member had a right to table a bill; the Committee needed to make sure that such a bill complied with the rules of the NA and the Constitution, so that the NA would not be found wanting. It would not be the case the Committee had taken a short route in processing a Private Member’s Bill.

Discussion of the Draft Report of Standing Committee on Finance on the Pensions Funds Amendment Bill [B30 – 2020]

4. Committee Observations

Paragraph 4.1

Dr George said that stakeholders apparently sympathised with the objectives of the Bill. Some people had other views. It was mentioned that possibly, there were “a lot of crocodile tears being cried about people who are suffering under the pandemic, etc.” Some thought that the pandemic would be over by now, but now there was another wave and it was not known what would happen. The situation that some stakeholders thought was getting better actually did not get better, because of the prejudiced response of the world to South Africa for identifying a virus that was “everywhere in the world”. Some stakeholders said that this matter was not addressed in a comprehensive way. That was not so. Dr George did not say that the Bill would be a comprehensive solution to the two-decade-old retirement reform conundrum. The Bill was a “laser-sharp intervention” at a particular point in time. Those circumstances had not changed. Apparently, there was a lot of conversation going on at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), and more broadly in the Executive, regarding pension fund reform. It was true that the former Minister of Finance, Mr Tito Mboweni and the current Minister Mr Enoch Godongwana, said that there was going to be progress on retirement reform. A year ago, Dr George had put forward the Bill, and a year ago there had been comment that something was happening. That was what the lobby group, the industry group and various people said, but not a single thing had happened. It may not be a solution to the retirement reform “fiasco”. That was not Dr George’s function. The Bill was an intervention, which was what he had said all along. That criticism was “a little bit rich”, given that there were processes in Nedlac which were “gummed up”, and there was a strong lobby group for various outcomes, etc. There was also Treasury with a particular view. That was what the various parties said; that was the context. But Dr George rejected that context, because the Bill had never been for that. It was never intended to resolve comprehensively SA’s retirement fund problems. The Bill was a proposal to provide for loans beyond home loans. It was not a “silver bullet” to solve SA’s economic crisis either.

Ms M Mabiletsa (ANC) said the Bill did not address specific issues in a comprehensive manner. When she read the Bill, she saw that there was no detail on the tax implications of the Amendment Bill. Obtaining a loan by seeking a guarantee against a pension fund would have tax implications in certain instances where the loan guarantees were called and a member defaulted. The Amendment Bill provided no detail on that. That could be damaging to the financially distressed person who was seeking the loan. Tax implications for using a guarantee for up to 75% of the member’s fund assets would result in an adjustment to the tax regime which would require a separate Money Bill. The current tax regime required that any pay outs from a pension fund [which, in the case of the Amendment Bill, would be triggered by a default], are taxed according to the withdrawal tax table. Such payouts from retirement funds were taxable since the contributions were made before tax was paid. Any retirement fund assets that were withdrawn to honour the loan guarantee would be subject to tax. These were matters where a Money Bill was required; it fell outside the ambit of the Private Member’s Bill. When commentators were talking about how the Bill did not address issues in a comprehensive manner, the Committee should consider that as well.

Mr I Morolong (ANC) said he thought the Committee was at the point of making observations. Committee observations would vary from the submission made by Dr George. The Committee needed to be able to draw a distinction between the suggested Bill presented by Dr George, his views on the Bill, and the general observations of the Committee. Was the Committee deliberating generally on those issues, or was it making observations as a consequence of the deliberations which may have ensued in the past?

The Chairperson said that the Committee was deliberating on the basis of what was contained in subheading four. Mr Morolong was correct; it was in regard to the Committee observations. As Ms Mpikashe had advised, if one looked at rule 286 in the rules of the National Assembly, the Committee had to make sure that it complied with rule 286, which said that after due deliberation, the Committee must consider a motion of desirability on the subject matter of the Bill. If it was rejected, the Committee must immediately table the Bill and the Committee’s report on the Bill. In the end, the Committee would still have a consider a motion of desirability. He felt that the Committee needed to discuss what was under observation, and then put the question before the Committee whether it was desirable to proceed with the Bill, or the Bill got rejected. The Committee still had to compile a report, because the rules said that if the motion of desirability was adopted, the Committee must proceed to deliberate the details of the legislation. But now the Committee was just dealing with the report on the Bill. He thought the Committee would quickly go through that, and put the question before the Committee.

Mr Morolong said that he understood the sequence of the discussions. He agreed that the stakeholders would have regarded the Bill as inadequate, because it did not address a variety of aspects. Chief amongst those aspects, in his view, was that there were no stated mechanisms to operate the loan scheme, and provide protection. On the loan provision, the Amendment Bill does not provide mechanisms for the operation of the loan scheme. The Bill was devoid of evidence that competitive interest rates would automatically be granted by lenders, if the loans were pension fund-backed. More importantly, the Committee was acutely aware of the fact that any loan [repayment] default could result in guarantees for the loans being called. The risk of longer term financial consequences of the proposed loan guarantees outweighed any short-term benefits.

Dr George said that he appreciated the inputs of his colleagues. It did, however, “sound like a script”. The point he made was that he had a schedule. On that schedule, it indicated the comments made by various stakeholders, as the Committee did with the taxation laws, and every other law. He then commented on those items. He did not know if the Committee had seen [his comments] or not. He knew that the Committee did not want to have a long deliberation, because it was looking at the Committee’s observations. If the Committee’s observations were informed by misinformation, or incorrect technical information, he had to correct it. It would be negligent of him not to do that. The two issues that were raised about the taxation and there being no mechanism in the Bill to operate the loan scheme. He was sure that everybody knew that the law already provided for pension-backed loans for home loans. The mechanism was there – the taxation laws did not need to be amended. There were a few technical issues that were raised by the Treasury, etc. and by the stakeholders. What such parties were not informing the Committee about was the fact that the mechanism was there. Tax laws did not need to be amended. Wherever the “script” came from, or who was informing that technically, he did not know. But certainly, he had every right to be heard on the technical correctness. The stakeholders said the Bill was not comprehensive, but that point had been covered. The Bill was not supposed to solve the entire retirement conundrum. But if they were claiming that there was no mechanism for these loans, it was untrue. It was untrue that the tax laws needed to be changed. That there would be problems with the loan was untrue, because there was the National Credit Act, etc. Regarding his inputs on those technical items, he did not know if those had been seen or considered. He thought that that was a material issue, because he would hate for the Committee to be making a decision on a misinformed basis.

The Committee knew Treasury’s position already. Treasury misunderstood his Bill fundamentally, either because it misread it, or because it was misled by the lobby group. If the Committee was then getting information that was incorrect, and making decisions based on that, it was letting down the people, and that would be terrible. It was his obligation to raise that issue: That the tax issue raised was not an issue. A whole lot of issues were raised. The only point of that “was to kill the Bill”, because there was a strong lobby who was very worried that would be leakage from the pension system, and that there would be [a reduction in funds] under management, and that it would impact on fees, etc. He did not know. But that was the problem. As it had been said before by the Treasury, there was a need to be cautious in the liquor and the tobacco industry of a very strong lobby towards a certain outcome. The Committee needed to be even more careful there, because it knew the strength of that lobby in that particular instance. He wanted it recorded that the tax issue was not an issue. It became an issue because “somebody decided to make it an issue”. There was in fact a mechanism. There were members who could go to a pension fund, get a surety for a home loan; members could pay it back or default on it. If members defaulted, there was a mechanism. What was being read into the record was incorrect, and he would be negligent if he did not tell his colleagues that the information that they had may well not be correct, and that whoever had informed them was “clearly not getting it right”.

The Chairperson’ said that the Committee was meeting to consider the Bill as it was provided for in the rules of the NA. If ever there were other interests from somewhere else, the Committee could not stop people or corporates from having an interest. He asked if the Committee could stick to the process. He had heard Dr George mentioning Treasury “time and again”. The Committee was not a sub-committee of Treasury; it was a full Committee of the NA, provided for in the rules of the NA. He asked the Committee to engage in the spirit of being colleagues. It should have been clear – that was the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. He was from time to time guided by the legal team, which was looking at what was provided for in terms of bills. He had the rules of the NA in front of him. He had to make sure that whatever he did, he was guided by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and also the rules of the NA. If ever there were other interests from somewhere, that was something else. What the Committee was doing was in terms of rule 286, subsections (i) and (j). That was what the Committee was trying to do, so that it made sure that at the end, whatever the decision of the Committee, it complied with the Constitution and the rules of the NA. With other interested parties, whatever they said during public hearings, and what they continued to say out there, the Committee could not stop them, because SA was in a democratic dispensation. He pleaded that the Committee engaged in terms of what was contained in the report, allow Members to express themselves, and then the Committee would come to the section where it had to deal with the motion of desirability. He could not just put forth a motion to vote on the report. The motion should be voted based on the discussions that the Committee was going through in the meeting, so that there would not be a situation where the Committee had been subjective in processing the report.

Dr Zakhele Hlophe, Committee Content Advisor, said he wanted to clarify a point on the response document that Dr George was talking about. The matrix of comments was shared with Members on 23 August before the Committee held a meeting on 24 August. The responses from Dr George were only sent that morning. That was why his responses were not accommodated in the report. It was said in the meeting on 24 August that Dr George needed to submit his responses. Since 24 August, the responses had only been received that morning. The Committee received the letter that he wrote the previous day when the report was being compiled. There was a paragraph included in the report under paragraph 2 which stated the new amendments that Dr George wanted to be effected.

Dr George raised a point of order. He wanted to clarify the issue regarding the responses. When the Committee had its previous engagement, he was informed that he was going to get a matrix. He asked for that matrix several times. He was also not given a deadline for a response to that matrix. He was not told when the Committee was going to next deliberate on his Bill. He only saw the agenda of the Committee very recently; it might have been a week ago. He had to ask for the matrix several times so that he could respond to it, which he did. He submitted his letter the previous day (Tuesday, 30 November), and he submitted his comments the previous day. It was a lot of work that needed to be done. He was not the person that held up the process. The Committee met, and went through many things, and a lot of people raised many things. He was told that there was going to be a schedule, which he waited for, “for a long time”. There was an election in between as well, but that did not stop the process. When he became aware that the Committee was going to be discussing the Bill on 1 December, with very short notice, he made sure that he had his inputs in, and that he had commented. Recently, the Committee got a report on the very complex taxation laws in the morning, probably about 07:00, when the Committee was meeting at 09:00. The Committee had to read through everything so that it could participate effectively. He took exception to that; he wanted to make it clear that he got the matrix, worked on it, responded to it, and it got to the Committee on time. The fact that it was not included in the report – it could have been done the previous day. He was sorry, but he was not accepting that.

Paragraph 4.2

Dr George said he would not start a deliberation. He wanted to say that there had been an explanation of that; the National Credit Act would actually apply.

Paragraph 4.3

Ms Z Nkomo (ANC) commented on issues of socio-economic or financial impacts on matters to do with personal finances of those who hold pension funds. There should be a socio-economic or financial impact study done that accompanied the Amendment Bill. No such study had been submitted to Parliament to support the Amendment Bill. Parliament had been asked to make a decision without necessarily having the evidence placed before it.

Paragraph 4.4

Dr George said the paragraph mentioned that, because of the interplay of tax issues, the Bill may be required to be introduced as a Money Bill. That was not so; it did not require a Money Bill and did not require an amendment to the Income Tax Act.

The Chairperson wanted to clarify which section of the Constitution the Bill fell under. He asked Ms Mpikashe if it was a section 75 Bill, or a Money Bill as described under section 73.

Ms Mpikashe replied that section 77 of the Constitution stated what a Money Bill was, and said that a bill is a Money Bill if: The bill appropriates money, imposes national taxes, levies, duties or surcharges; abolishes, or reduces, or grants exemptions from any national taxes, levies duties or surcharges; or authorises direct charges against the National Revenue Fund, except a bill as envisaged in section 214 authorising direct charges. Based on what the Constitution said, the Bill in front of the Committee was not a Money Bill. If Members could check in the Bill, just below the Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill, it said that the Bill should be classified as a section 75 bill, as it was not a Money Bill, or a bill envisaged in terms of section 76 of the Constitution. The Bill was a section 75 bill.

The Chairperson said that paragraph 4.4. should be removed from the report. If the Bill was a section 75 bill, the Constitution defined what that bill was. When the NA passes a bill, other than a bill to which the procedures set out in [inaudible], the bill must be referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), and dealt with in accordance with the procedure in section 75 - pass the bill, make amendments, reject the bill, etc. Section 75 was a long section, and the Bill under discussion was a section 75 bill. It was not a section 77 bill.

Mr Morolong asked if section 75 bill were those that did not have an effect on provinces.

Ms Mpikashe said that was correct.

Mr Morolong said that given the fact that members of the provincial legislature belonged to the same pension fund as Members of the NA, what effect would the Bill have on members of the provincial legislatures?

Ms Mpikashe said that the way to tag a bill, or to decide if a bill is a section 75 or section 76 bill, was provided for in the Constitution. Section 75 bills were bills that did not affect provinces, and that meant that those were the bills that were not provided for in schedule 4 of the Constitution. In the Constitution, there were two schedules. There were functional areas of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence. The Constitution gave a list of those areas. If a bill falls in one of those areas, then the bill should be tagged as a section 75 or section 76 bill. If the bill did not fall into those areas, then it was a section 75 bill. “We do not determine that by whether the bill is going to affect people living in that province. It is determined by functional areas that are found in schedule 4 of the Constitution”. That was how one determined if a bill was a section 75 or section 76 bill.

Mr Morolong asked if the way the Bill worked meant it would not affect members of the provincial legislature who belonged to the same pension fund. There would be a disjuncture with respect to how members of the provincial legislature compared to NCOP members and Members of Parliament (MPs), or MPs in general terms, related with the pension fund.

Ms Mpikashe said the Constitution gives a way to tag bills. The process is called tagging. That is the process of deciding whether the bill should be processed by Parliament in terms of section 75 or section 76. A section 75 bill does not mean it does not affect everyone in SA. It means that the subject matter the bill is dealing with is not an area of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence. Those areas are stated in schedule 4. E.g. if the bill was dealing with the administration of indigenous forests, agriculture or airport control and all the other things are listed in schedule 4 of the Constitution, then that bill would have been dealt with in terms of section 76 of the Constitution. But because pension funds were not in schedule 4 of the Constitution, they were a matter of national competence, meaning that they should be dealt with in terms of section 75 of the Constitution. It did not mean that members of provincial legislatures would not be affected; everyone would be affected, and the people living in different provinces would be affected by this Bill. But that was not how the Committee decided in terms of how Parliament should proceed or deal with a bill that was before Parliament.

The Chairperson pointed to rule 286, sub-rule 5 of the NA, which said that the Committee may propose an amendment that changes the classification of section 75 bill to a section 76 bill only if the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) was of the view that the bill as amended is unlikely to lead to unmanageable procedural complications. For now, the JTM had tagged the Bill under discussion as a section 75 bill. If the Committee had to change the Bill to be a section 76 bill, it had to go through the procedure as outlined in sub-rule 5. As of that moment, the Bill was a section 75 bill, as tagged by the JTM.

Mr Morolong said that he was covered.

Paragraph 4.5

Dr George said that when the Committee had previous deliberations on the Bill, many stakeholders gave inputs. He had responded immediately as best he could at that meeting to the comments made, especially the comment that that 75% could have been too high. The point of legislation in South Africa, that so many people fought for a democracy for, was that when one had legislation, one actually engaged with stakeholders and got feedback. That was exactly what the Committee did. When one got feedback, one might change one’s view or proposal based on the feedback, as it meant that one had actually been listening. That was what participatory democracy was about. It was not about saying, “Give me inputs, and then I will throw it in the rubbish bin”. It was about giving inputs so one could think about it, and process it. One could acknowledge that one had received it, and then one could make up one’s mind as to whether it had impact or not. That was the process that was followed. At that meeting (it was reported in the newspaper as well), he said that he would reduce and amend that percentage, and he had done that. He was led to believe it was possible to do that simply and easily. At the time the question was asked, the Bill was a version B “or something like that”. He submitted his letter, and it was received in time. It was on Tuesday, and perhaps on many previous occasions, that the Committee had been requested by the NT for the taxation laws to make a change; either to correct something, or to change a date. That was done on Tuesday. A year was changed on a particular part of the Bill. That was his understanding, and he did not think he was wrong on that. He thought that it was possible and it should be so, that his request to make the adjustment should be considered favourably. There was precedent for that in the Committee, and it was perfectly legal. He had made his request and it was a very small one. That amendment, which he was led to believe would be fine to include, should be considered.

Mr G Skosana (ANC) said that at the beginning of the meeting, there was a discussion on whether the Committee would consider the Bill in its current form or take into consideration the issues that Dr George sent the previous day. At the moment, those things were not part of the Bill. After getting advice in the meeting, which Dr George also considered, the Committee was considering the Bill in its current form. He was concerned, because Dr George kept on coming in and referring to those issues which were not part of the Bill in its current form. Mr Skosana was confused as to whether the Committee would still, as per the decision of the meeting, consider the Bill in its current form, or whether it should take into consideration those issues Dr George was referring to. Those were things that were not in the Bill that was before the Committee. The other option could be for Dr George to withdraw the Bill, work on those new things, and make amendments, obviously being influenced by the inputs of the stakeholders. It did not help that the Committee was considering the Bill in its current form, but Dr George kept on referring to things that were not in the Bill. It was going to be very difficult at the end of the day for the Committee to take a decision. The Committee was going to take a decision based on what was in the Bill, whereas Dr George kept on referring to things that were not in the Bill.

Mr Morolong said his concern was similar to what had been raised by Mr Skosana. There had been a wide range of consultation on those matters. In the first instance, the Bill was sponsored by Dr George. The Committee, following consultations, needed to deliberate on the motion of desirability. His discomfort was with the same issues that Mr Skosana raised. He had no qualms that were amendments that may have been effected before the meeting. However, the Committee must be at liberty to engage with the Bill as it was, notwithstanding the fact that there may have been amendments. Therefore, his suggestion was that Dr George could not, in the course of a discussion that was ensuing, propose himself changes to what the Committee was discussing on his own Bill. The Committee was discussing Dr George’s own Bill, with the amendments that he had effected, bearing in mind the consultations which had ensued and the comments made by the general public. If the Committee were to insert new amendments at this stage, or if the sponsor were to do that at this stage, it would seem quite cumbersome to him.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mpikashe for advice. He referred to the following parts of rule 286.
“(4) the committee —
(g) may consult the JTM on whether any amendments to the Bill proposed in the Committee —
(i) may affect the classification of the Bill, or
(ii) may render the Bill constitutionally or procedurally out
of order;
(h) may not propose an amendment that —
(i) affects the classification of the Bill, except as provided
in Subrule (5) and Joint Rule 163, or
(ii) renders the Bill constitutionally or procedurally out of
order within the meaning of Joint Rule 161[.]”

When the Committee called for public hearings, it was a different provision in regard to the cap as to how much money the fund member could borrow from the pension scheme, and regarding the other clause. What did it mean that the Committee was in the process of looking at the Bill, going through the report that the Member proposes amendments, taking into consideration what is provided for in (g) and (h)?

Ms Mpikashe said that the first step was to decide on the motion of desirability. Unfortunately, the letter that was sent by Dr George was not an amendment to the Bill; it was just a letter. In terms of process, the letter may influence the Committee on how the Committee decides on the motion of desirability. After that, the Committee could formally change the Bill to a B-Bill with proposed amendments. Currently, the Committee had to consider the Bill that was introduced in the House, and that was referred to the Committee. That was where the Committee was at. Even if the Committee passed the motion of desirability on the Bill, and the Committee decided to incorporate the amendments that were proposed by Dr George, those amendments would not influence the tagging of the Bill. The reason was because those amendments were ones that reduced the amount that fund members could use as a guarantee to the pension fund. It did not change the subject matter of the Bill, or the provisions of the Bill would not substantially affect provinces. Thus, amendments would not influence the tagging of the Bill.

Mr W Wessels (FF+) said he was largely covered. When the Committee considered in the process of a motion of desirability, the Committee considered whether a Bill was in its form, but not in its detail, desirable. [If found desirable,] the Committee could go ahead clause-by-clause, and effect any amendments by the Committee that came from the public participation and inputs that it had received. He did not think the amendments proposed by Dr George were currently important. What was important was the intent of the Bill and the memorandum of the objects of the Bill. Then the actual details, such as the limit with regards to the guarantee, and those types of specifics, could be amended by the Committee if it then adopted the motion of desirability. It should not be a stumbling block if there were now certain specifics that Members did not agree with. It was currently about the objects of the Bill, and then the Committee would proceed to say if it could amend, or did it take into consideration certain inputs from the public participation. That was how he understood the process.

Dr George said that Ms Mpikashe and Mr Wessels covered what he wanted to say. His legal advice was that the motion of desirability was about the Bill in principle, and the Bill could be amended, either on the floor or in the Committee. The passing of a motion of desirability did not mean that Bill could not be amended. That had clarified everything for the Committee and for him in particular. The point was that the issue that the Committee was looking at was not in the minutiae of the detail. It was whether the Committee should proceed down that road in terms of his proposal to alleviate the plight of the most desperate in the country.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would come to the proposed amendments when it dealt with the clauses in the Bill. For now, the Committee was looking at the motion of desirability. Hence it was going through the observations so that when it came to that, it would have given the report serious attention.

Paragraph 4.6

Dr George asked who had not been responded to? Subsequent to his Bill, he got thousands of comments on his Bill. He got thousands of inputs to his office, and those were responded to. He also responded in the Committee when various industry bodies and lobbyists asked questions. He had meetings that were requested from him by various interested stakeholders. The report said that there were “no formal written responses by the sponsor to any public comments”, etc. He thought that that the Committee needed to know the detail of that. Who was not responded to?

The Chairperson asked Dr George to assist the Committee Secretariat with that information.

Mr Morolong said the Committee could not ignore the fact that there was a comment that there were no formal written responses given by the sponsor of the Bill. He asked if the Committee could get the origin of that comment. If Dr George had responded to a number of public comments, and there were notes that the public comments were not responded to, it meant that there must have been individual stakeholders who felt that they may not have been responded to. At some point, the Committee needed to be given clarity. It might not be in the meeting, but the Committee needed to get a sense of what transpired; whether all comments and/or questions were responded to adequately. He did not think it was a matter that the Committee could just brush off, especially since it was part of the observations.

The Chairperson asked if the Secretariat and research team wanted to clarify before he took Members’ comments and questions.

Dr Hlophe, the Content Advisor, said that on 23 August 2021, the support staff had produced a comments matrix which did not yet have responses. On 23 August, it was sent to all the Members of the Committee. It was discussed on 24 August in the Committee. That document had a space for responses, where Dr George was asked to comment on those. Dr Hlophe had asked the Committee Secretary, who said that Dr George only responded late in the evening the previous day (Tuesday). At the time the report was written, there was no formal written response to the comments that were discussed on 24 August 2021, more than three months ago.

The Chairperson asked if Dr George had complied as stated by Dr Hlophe.

Dr George said that Dr Hlophe was correct. There was a matrix, and it was put together. He had responded to that matrix. Dr Hlophe was correct that that response was received the previous day. The reason why it was received the previous day was as he had explained. The process was not simple. He put his Private Member’s Bill into the process. It then got a lot of comments. Those comments were not the same comments that Dr Hlophe was talking about. Those were different comments, because people wrote directly to Dr George, for example. People wrote to the Speaker and to others. There was some engagement at that point. Then the Bill came to the Committee. It took time to get to the Committee, as these things did. The Committee then had a discussion, deliberation, etc., and stakeholders (e.g. the Treasury, industry, individuals etc.) raised issues. At that Committee meeting, Dr George responded as best he could immediately in that meeting. Then there was the matrix that was put together. That matrix needed quite a lot of thought, because it was not a simple matter when people said that one needed to amend the tax laws, etc. when the tax laws did not have to be amended, etc. That was in the hands of the Committee. The matrix only came the previous day. He did not know when the Committee was going to meet again. When he saw that it was going to meet again, he ensured [his letter] was there in time. He knew that a lot of things happened. The Committee had been processing the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS). It was true that the document containing comments was issued in August. He had responded to the document, and he had responded in time. He understood the fact that the report may have been written the previous afternoon. However, he did not think that that was an issue. He never had a deadline to submit by a particular date. His understanding of the process was that the information the Committee needed should be with the Committee when it needed it. That was why he wrote the letter the previous day. Dr Hlophe was correct that everybody who had made a comment was placed into particular categories. If one looked at the matrix, there were a number of stakeholders, the comment that they made, and then a space for his comment. That had been done. The comments that needed to be made were made. “There may well be a timing issue because it was received yesterday”. Hopefully, that would not prejudice the people of South Africa, whom he represented. It should not prejudice them because as the Committee knew, it was very busy and there had been many times, including that week, where the Committee had received reports on the morning of a meeting, or late the night before. The Members had to read those reports and prepare for a meeting at 09:00 the next day, and be coherent. He could understand why there was a slight mismatch in the meeting. There may have been a view that the comment was not there, but the comment was there. He had in fact commented.

Mr Skosana said that he remembered the day of the meeting, when the Committee was supposed to consider the responses from Dr George. The matrix captured all the comments from the stakeholders. On the side where the document was supposed to have responses from the sponsor of the Bill, that side was blank. There were no responses from Dr George in that meeting. Dr George kept responding verbally to some of the issues (but not all of them). Members advised that he should respond to all the issues that were raised by the stakeholders. Mr Skosana’s understanding was that Dr George was supposed to give those responses, and bring back that report to the meeting. Unless Dr George was saying that he responded to stakeholders individually. That would not assist the Committee if that was the case, because that Bill was of the public interest and if stakeholders had raised a certain issue, the public and the Committee wanted to know what the response to that particular issue was. If Dr George decided to write directly to that stakeholder, the Committee or the public would not know the response to that particular issue. These were issues that the Committee and the public in general had an interest in. The Committee’s understanding was that the responses would still come back to the Committee. The responses were supposed to be in that meeting, as it was normally the practice when a bill was considered, especially with public hearings. One would meet with stakeholders, who would then raise the issues, and the Committee would then schedule another day for the responses. On the day of the responses, the Committee would get the document where the issues raised by stakeholders were captured. The responses to those issues would already be written before one arrived at the meeting. The sponsor of the bill would then take the Committee through the responses to the comments that were made by the stakeholders. And if the stakeholders wanted to make follow-ups, they would make follow-ups. If the Committee Members also wanted to comment based on those responses versus the concerns raised by stakeholders, the Members would be able to comment. That process did not happen, because in the meeting of considering the responses, there were no written responses. Dr George only responded to two or three issues while the Members were raising them in the meeting, but there were no responses to many comments that were there. The Members advised Dr George that he must go and sit down and work on the written responses. That did not happen as far as he knew.

Dr George raised a point of order, saying that was not correct.

Ms Mabiletsa said that the Committee’s job was to represent the people of South Africa. While it was busy deliberating and discussing, people should be aware that those seeking to access a portion of their pension fund were overwhelmingly those who were in financial distress. “Our people should really look at this matter, and know that the problem of the Amendment Bill was that it prescribed a loan facility which would place the applicant in further distress because of the interest rates”. Specifically, the interest that applicants would acquire in time, that would be levied upon them by the lender. That therefore favoured the lender. The public needed to know that. In future, that loan would allow the lender, often a bank or other financial institution, to accumulate returns while the financially distressed individual was pushed further into debt. That was undesirable, especially in the context of South Africa. It would generate further inequality, which was in itself undesirable. The public needs to know that when one borrows, or when one got a loan, one must pay. If one did not pay on time, one needed to remember the interest rates that one was going to acquire in time. By the time a borrower went out for their pension, after those years, they would be left with nothing. “All of their money would be swallowed by the interest rates that they would have acquired”. Whatever the Committee was discussing, where the comments were brought back the previous day or the day of the meeting, the public needed to know that the bottom line was “you would get this money, but if you don’t pay it [back], remember the interest rate; take note of that”.

Mr Morolong said that the sponsor of the Bill knew quite well that they carried the burden of responding to the comments. “We see this matter as material because it borders on prejudice”. Most of the arguments that Dr George advanced, he said that they were based on public comments, and that was why Dr George used the expression that he was “persuaded”. The argument that he should have responded, and Members should have been exposed to his responses. As the Committee engaged with those issues on this platform, it was mindful of what the public comments were, and what Dr George’s responses were. Mr Morolong knew that Dr George said he did not have time limitations in which to work, because it was not prescribed to him. As the sponsor of the Bill, he knew that he carried the burden of responding, and of responding timeously to comments, and making sure that those responses were exposed to the Committee.

Dr George said he had responded. It was very important for him to say that he had responded. There was a process in the Committee. He did not schedule the meetings. The Committee had a meeting, and he responded. There was then a matrix done, to which he had responded. He addressed the comment made by Ms Mabiletsa. She was correct that a loan facility was not for everybody. The National Credit Act must also kick into place, and the Board of Trustees [of each pension fund] must decide whether it would make loans available, as it did with home loans. He wanted to clarify the “huge misunderstanding” that the National Treasury seemed to have had. If the Bill passed, the pension fund trustees would decide whether they would make a facility available or not. Some funds would not make that facility available, and some would. If a fund made a facility available where members could use a portion (limited to 30% of their pension fund) for surety for a loan, the money did not get disinvested from the pension fund. It remained in the fund. There was a loan from a lender. The person would then pay the loan back. The National Credit Act was written to make sure that people did not get over-indebted. It was one of the comments made in the matrix, which Dr George had responded to. On the one hand, there was an argument to say that this would bring the whole financial system down because everybody would take money out of the pension fund, and the system would collapse, nobody would make a profit, etc. That was not so. On the other hand, there was another comment in the matrix which said that only a few people would benefit from that, therefore it was not a good idea. That provision in the Bill did not make everybody go and take a loan. The pension fund was not forced to make a loan, and the member may not be eligible for a loan. That was the principle behind the Bill.

The Chairperson said that the Committee must get paragraph 4.6. correct, so that it was properly recorded. Had Dr George made formal, written responses, and had he submitted them to the Committee Secretariat?

Dr George replied that he had done so.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary, if Dr George had submitted the formal written submissions.

The Committee Secretary replied that he said he had received the responses the previous night (Tuesday night), and he had only sent it to the Committee that morning.

The Chairperson said that it was on record that Dr George submitted the formal written responses the previous night. Was that so?

Dr George said that was correct.

The Chairperson asked the Secretariat to correct paragraph 4.6.; Dr George had made formal written submissions, and had mentioned the date.

The Committee Secretary noted the correction.

Mr Ismail Momoniat, Deputy Director-General: Tax and Financial Sector Policy, National Treasury, said the Treasury recognised that the motion of desirability was for the Members to decide, and certainly not the Treasury. It respected the process. Mr Momoniat wanted to appeal to Dr George. When he had made comments to the Treasury, he had been “pretty insulting”. Mr Momoniat thought that “we can have this discussion without raising these issues, in the sense that there was lobbying, or we [the Treasury] had yielded to lobbying, or we have not understood the points you have made”. While there had technically been a response to the issues raised, he did not think that Dr George had answered the questions sufficiently, and dealt with all the risks. Those were the issues of concerns to the Treasury, which it could raise with the Chairperson’s permission. Mr Momoniat just wanted to make that point, because the Treasury could come in on those issues should the Committee want further information.

[Dr George wrote in the chat box: I have not insulted the National Treasury.]

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee would “restrict” Mr Momoniat to that, so it would not be like the Treasury came to the Committee and influenced Members to take the decision in a particular way. That was for clarity purposes; it was not part of the debate. The Committee was not in caucus; it was in a full session. If the Committee needed clarity from the parliamentary support team, it would make the request. Parliament was not only Members, it also included the parliamentary officials, such as Ms Mpikashe. It should be understood that the Committee could, when it needed clarity, request an official to provide that clarity. Officials needed to be very careful that they drew a line, and made sure that they did not get into a debate with Members.

Dr George said he regretted that the Treasury felt that he insulted it. He did not believe that he had.
He pointed out that there was a material misunderstanding of what he was proposing. It was common knowledge that he held the in Treasury in very high regard. He did not want there to be any misunderstanding. He valued the Treasury’s technical expertise, and he always listened to everything that it had to say with great interest. He “had no beef” with the Treasury, and he certainly did not wish to insult the Treasury.

Mr Morolong asked if the Committee was fully au fait of the fact that responses had been received, albeit late. The fact that the Committee had not seen them, did not border on prejudice. These were not material issues, so he could leave the meeting satisfied that the Committee had gone to great lengths to satisfy itself that the process had been observed to the letter.

The Chairperson asked if the written responses were forwarded to Members. He had seen the letter where Dr George was proposing amendments.

The Committee Secretary said he sent the matrix to Members; it was the same matrix that the Committee discussed sometime in August. The one he sent that morning included the comments from Dr George. Dr George responded to the submissions in the last column of the matrix.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee stick to what it was doing in the meeting, and process the report. The process required that the Committee had to embark on due deliberation. The Committee did not have to take shortcuts. The rules were very clear, namely that when the Committee came to considering the motion of desirability, it should have gone through a due deliberation of the report. Hence, the Chairperson was trying to be very careful that whatever paragraph of the report the Committee discussed, all Members were on the same wavelength. As long as the comments had been sent to Members, he thought that that sufficed. The paragraph was giving the impression that Dr George had not submitted the formal written responses. He asked for paragraph 4.6 to be corrected.

Paragraph 4.7

There were no comments on the paragraph.

5. Committee Recommendations

Paragraph 5.1

The Chairperson said that the Committee had sufficiently processed the report, as it was provided for in the rules of the National Assembly.

Ms Nkomo said that Dr George mentioned something about how the pension fund would not be affected should the loan be provided to fund members. Dr George mentioned that not everyone would qualify Hypothetically, if everybody who applied for those loans was qualified, based on the National Credit Act, what were the contingency measures in case everybody who qualified was unable to pay back the money? Would it not affect the pension fund’s payout of members? She thought that the Bill had unintended consequences. [Inaudible], bank loans, indebtedness and long-term savings had not been made by the Amendment Bill. The very indebtedness that Parliament would seek to alleviate, could because of the nature of the mechanism advanced in the Amendment Bill, be a loan scheme that “ended up manufacturing further indebtedness”. To her, the Amendment Bill was really undesirable.

Dr George said that as he had explained in terms of the mechanism and how it would work, not every pension fund would make the facility available. That would be the first hurdle. As Members knew with the current home loan situation, not every fund permitted home loans. Trustees would say if they wanted to make a loan facility available to their members or not. The trustees would make the decision based on the profile of the members, the industry that they were in, etc. That would be for the trustees to decide. The Bill made available the possibility of a loan facility. It did not mean it would happen. One would have a situation where one had money in one’s pension fund, and wanted to use that money as surety. One would go to a lender and say that one is a member of a pension fund, and wanted a loan of, e.g. R1 000. One has one’s pension fund as surety. That automatically meant that because the loan was fully guaranteed, the lender knew that if the person defaulted, the lender would get the money back. What would likely happen was that the lender would say that they were getting their money back; it was not an unsecured loan. The person had something behind it (i.e. the pension fund). A person would come better equipped to get a loan. Because the lender was not taking a big risk, the lender could offer a better interest rate, as it did on home loans. Lots of people in South Africa ended up going to loan sharks, and would get high interest rates each month to pay back. That was not right. The person wanting to take the loan guaranteed by a pension fund was in a much stronger position in the “negotiation”. The money did not get disinvested from the fund, and the member paid back the loan. The member would not have to leave the fund, their money remained invested, and they got the benefit of getting a loan which they could pay back. It was true that if all people who were members of a pension fund took a loan for 30% of the value of the fund, and all defaulted (and all that money needed to be paid out), it would have an impact. That was the argument against the Bill in the beginning. The COVID-19 virus came in 2020. All knew what it had done. The question was what Members could do to alleviate part of the problem? What was possible? One solution was that pension funds could make a loan facility available. For people who could get the facility and benefit from it, it could add value. This would not benefit everybody, but as public representatives the Committee could do something to alleviate a small part of the problem. Some commentators said that the Bill was no longer needed because the problem was gone. It was not gone; because of the new virus, the whole world was “unfairly shutting us out”. He understood the concerns of others who said that the Bill could be “calamitous”, etc.

His view was that he wanted to proceed with the Bill.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was moving to agenda item 3.

Motion of Desirability

The Chairperson referred to the relevant rules of the National Assembly, namely rule 286(4).

(4) The committee —
(i) after due deliberation, must consider a motion of desirability on the subject matter of the Bill and, if rejected, must immediately table the Bill and its report on the Bill;
(j) if the motion of the desirability is adopted, must proceed to deliberate on the details of the legislation;
(k) may recommend approval or rejection of the Bill or present with its report an amended Bill or a redraft of the Bill, provided that in the case of a redraft the subject of the Bill has not been extended without the permission of the Assembly as contemplated in Paragraphs (b) and (c);
(l) must report to the Assembly in accordance with Rule 288;
(m) may report to the Assembly on a Bill introduced in the Assembly and classified as being subject to Section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003, only after 30 days have passed since the referral to the National House of Traditional Leaders in terms of Rule 278; and
(n) if an amended Bill or a redraft of the Bill is to be presented to the Assembly, must formally adopt the final version of the Bill as it is to be presented.

288. Committee’s report
(1) The Assembly committee to which a Bill is referred must table in the Assembly —
(a) its report;
(b) the Bill that has been agreed on by it, in its final amended or redrafted form as adopted by the committee where applicable, or, if it has not agreed on a Bill, the Bill as referred to it;
(c) the supporting memorandum which was introduced with the Bill or, if the memorandum has been amended by the committee, the amended memorandum; and
(d) if the Bill was introduced by a member in his or her individual capacity, the views, if any, expressed on the Bill by the relevant department in the national executive authority or executive organ of state in the national sphere of government.

(2) The committee may report to the Assembly only after the JTM has classified the Bill and has made its findings on the Bill.

The Chairperson asked if Ms Mpikashe had any comments before the Committee proceeded.

Ms Mpikashe said that she had no comments.

Dr George said that the Bill was desirable.

Mr Wessels seconded.

The Chairperson said that the Bill was seconded.

Mr Skosana said he objected to the Bill based on a lack of comprehensiveness in the Bill. Any pension fund amendment bill required that feasibility studies needed to be done, with options to take into consideration tax implications, especially where guarantees were applicable against a pension fund. None of these accompanied the Amendment Bill. The Amendment Bill sought to bring about fundamental change through the insertion of a single clause. Parliament could not be expected to consider drafting legislation that lacked the comprehensiveness that was required on such a serious matter. There was no socio-economic or financial impact study in the Bill. On matters to do with personal finances of this nature for those with pension funds, there should be a financial impact study accompanying the Amendment Bill. No such study was submitted to Parliament to support the Amendment Bill. Parliament was therefore asked to make a decision without the necessary evidence before it.

The Chairperson said Mr Skosana objected to the Bill.

Mr Morolong seconded the objection.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to assist with numbers.

Those who supported the Bill: Dr George, Mr A Sarupen (DA) and Mr Wessels (three people).

Those who did not support the Bill: Mr Skosana, Ms Mabiletsa, Mr Morolong, and Ms Nkomo (four people).

Ms Mpikashe said that the next process was that if the Committee decided that the Bill was not desirable, then the Committee must report to the House.

The Chairperson said that that was provided for in rule 286(4)(i).

Mr Mpikashe said that was correct.

The Chairperson asked why the rules qualified it as immediately tabling the Bill and the report.

Mr Mpikashe said that she did not know.

The Chairperson asked when the Committee was presenting the report on the Bill to the National Assembly, so that the Committee complied with rules 286(4)(i) and 288.

The Committee Secretary said that it was not on the NA programme, and he was not sure if the NA would schedule it based on the outcome of the meeting. He would confirm that.

The Chairperson asked the Secretariat and the legal team to find out from the Programming Committee what the next step was. He was worried, because the rules said if the Bill was rejected, the Committee must immediately table the Bill and its report on the Bill.

The Chairperson said consideration and adoption of minutes of the Committee would take place on the following Tuesday.

He thanked the Members, the support staff and all other meeting participants.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: