Public Enterprise Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson advised Members that the Committee Secretary would give a detailed summary of the entire report, whereafter they could make their inputs.

Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises: BRRR

Mr Disang Mocumi, Committee Secretary, together with Ms Lee Bramwell (Researcher) and Mr R Mmisi (Content Advisor), outlined key areas in the draft Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR). Members where encouraged to give input on the report and the recommendations.

Ms N Mazzone (DA) advised that as per her party practices, she would be unable to make an input on the report as it would first need to be discussed by their caucus. Thereafter she would bring forward any suggestions or recommendations to the Committee.

Ms J Tshabalala (ANC) suggested that MPs make an input on the items which they had already noted in the report before they also discussed them with their respective caucuses on whether to adopt the report. Everyone agreed to this suggestion.

Ms J Mkhwanazi (ANC) said she was comfortable with the recommendations if they were within the financial year, and that they would have enough time to go over the report with their caucuses. She also sought clarity on the kind of strategies or tools that were used by the Committee should a recommendation not be realised within the financial year in which it was allocated.

The Chairperson suggested that Ms Mkhwanazi make her suggestions with regard to the question which she posed to the Committee. He further highlighted that the Committee did have the power to give inputs on the directions which had to be taken with regard to those respective recommendations.

Mr Mocumi advised that the Department reported every quarter, but the reports were more financial and the Committee required a more substantive report, therefore it must develop a framework on what the Department should report on, based on the recommendations that it had adopted.

Ms Mkhwanazi conceded that it would be advisable for them to receive a more detailed process, with a timeline of where the Department was in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee, as well as what they would do should the Committee not be satisfied with how they implemented a recommendation.

She emphasised a point in the recommendations, which indicated the Committee would receive updates on the communities that Alexkor had a socio-economic impact on. She emphasised the importance of the vetting of board members before they step into the board, as it was resolution that had been made by the Committee. She suggested that the vetting should be included as a recommendation to be taken through all the boards of the state-owned companies (SOCs).

Ms Tshabalala pointed out that there was not much variation from the previous report of 2017/18, and there was also repetition. In addition, she was not comfortable with the Minister of Finance’s involvement in the financial oversight, when the Minister of Public of Enterprises was available. She suggested that there was too much pressure on the Minister of Finance to oversee everything and that the Minister of Enterprise could take on certain aspects.

She referred to the financial stability of Alexkor and the appointment of an administrator. The role of Alexkor was clear, and they needed to engage with the community and deal with the deeds of settlement issues. The Department had to give support and oversight to Alexkor. As a Committee, they could have a public hearing with all the stakeholders -- the municipality, provincial government, Alexkor, the DPE and the Committee -- as part of enriching the programme.

Eskom needed to improve its communication and also educate the public, because there was an outcry that there was very little communication and education from Eskom. She stressed that vetting and lifestyle audits for board members should be part of the recommendations.

The Department should strengthen its communications by writing to the Chairperson on any matter of public information and public discourse that needed to come out, whether or not it was relevant for the Committee, in order to keep the Committee updated on matters that were ongoing.

Mr S Gumede (ANC) asked how often the Committee should do oversight visits, because it seemed to be something that had been emphasised. It would be ideal to do the oversights before the quarterly reports, but because of time constraints this may be impossible. However, the oversights should happen more frequently. Secondly, the recommendations had implications in the form of discipline or punitive measures. Those who would be affected by this report should have access to it so that they could gain an understanding of how it would be done, as opposed to them not knowing on what basis they were being disciplined.  

Mr E Buthelezi (IFP) wanted clarity on whether there should be a timeframe on one of the recommendations.

The Chairperson added that the Committee had been given a glossy image in terms of the oversights. They had done very good exercise in familiarising themselves with the state-owned enterprises (SOEs), but they realised that there were things that they had not been informed about, and therefore needed to call for more transparency from the SOEs when they were presenting to the Committee. The Committee wanted more details of the challenges and problems they could be facing as SOEs. It wanted to be informed and not obtain information from other sources, such as the media. Eskom, as a key stakeholder, needs to inform the Committee about any developments so that they were not surprised through the media. The issue of transparency was important to the Committee so that they could understand what the problem was that they were facing. It could have a negative implication for the Committee as they would not be able to account if they did not know the full context of the situation. As a Committee, there was an expectation that they should be informed about everything that transpired within that Department and its stakeholders.

The Ministry should respond promptly to matters that had been referred to them by the Committee, especially if that issue had come from the public. The response must be given to the Committee as a matter of urgency.

Ms D Dlamini (ANC) wanted clarity on job creation and development figures.

Mr Mocumi said the Committee would engage the entities in a view to conducting oversight, but they would only oversee if a decision by the Minister of Finance had already been taken. They would amend the recommendation to address the oversight issue. With regard to the other issues, they would make the amendments as suggested by the Members. There were other matters that would be put in the minutes, but not in the report.

The suggestion regarding the timeframe within which the Committee wanted certain information, was not a recommendation, but rather an internal Committee resolution as to the kind of strategies they wanted to employ.

Ms Tshabalala suggested that those particular parts could be removed from the report, as they were still considering observations and had not reached a stage of engagement. They want to monitor the recommendations of the annual report (AR), because that was the purpose of the AR. The framework was important because it would assist in focusing until they arrived at the matters that had to be dealt with.

Mr Mmisi said that the Committee had the power to call the Department to account and provide oversight, and it had strong recommendations. Recommendations could also be made in areas where the Department was not performing, but they would be somewhat of an intervention and that would make it difficult. When the Department was dealing with entities such as Eskom, there was an aspect where they were dealing with skills which were part of social investment programmes, to provide internships to learners and bursaries and training programmes. They were part of the training intervention which was coordinated by the sector education and training authorities (SETAs) and government departments.

Mr Mocumi explained that what happened was that the report goes to Parliament and is adopted. The Speaker then writes to the Minister involved and extrapolates all the recommendations that had been made into a letter to the Minister, and requests the Minister to implement that particular report. The Minister must ensure it reports to the Committee quarterly.

The Chairperson moved that the report be adopted with the necessary amendments and recommendations.

Ms Tshabalala moved the adoption of the report with amendments, and Ms Mkhwanazi seconded her.

Consideration of minutes

The Committee considered the minutes of 18 September, and 8 and 9 October.

Mr Gumede asked whether the deadlines that were tabled in the minutes had been met.  

Mr Mosumi said the Department had made a commitment that by the end of September the forensic investigation would be done at Alexkor, and that they would inform the Committee as soon as those investigations were completed. The second commitment the Department had made was that by 8 October 2019 the agreements with Alexkor, and the Northern Cape Department and national government, in terms of handing over the township, would be concluded. The Department had not deliver on those commitments, and neither had it responded to letters sent by the Committee.

The minutes were adopted with additions and recommendations.

The meeting was adjourned.