Minister on impact of SONA and Budget on DTI mandate; Beijing & WIPO Treaties; Sugar Industry decision

This premium content has been made freely available

Trade, Industry and Competition

26 February 2019
Chairperson: Ms J Fubbs (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Trade and Industry Committee Notes Concern from Sugar Industry Regarding ‘Sugar Tax’ ; Trade and Industry Committee Continously Engages with Sugar Sector 

The agenda of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry packed three distinct items into the meeting as the Committee had found that it was running out of time to deal with all the issues that should be addressed before the end of its term of office.

The Minister for Trade and Industry made an extensive presentation on the implications of the State of the Nation Address and the budget for the Department of Trade and Industry. A significant part of the Address was about economic recovery and moving through the episode of state capture and corruption and moving forward with a view to ensuring that public institutions did the job that they needed to be doing, which was critical for the Department. There was a lot of talk about the need for export to Africa, localisation and capturing a large part of the domestic market for locally produced goods and, finally, the investment story was a good one.

Looking at the global context, the Minister stated that all international agencies had been telling South Africa that economic growth would be down. One of the downside risks of the global economy was the trade war between the USA and China as many countries, including South Africa, could become collateral damage. He believed that behind the trade wars was a battle for mastery of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The Minister was adamant that DTI programmes had had a positive impact. Manufacturers had to increase localisation which would ensure more component manufacturers which, in turn, employed more people. The export-led growth policy depended on South Africa actively identifying opportunities for export of goods.

Members asked the Minister what the discussions were around Cabinet table when other departments continually flouted the regulations that his Department had set in place and that he had gazetted. What was the scenario planning outside full Brexit? What were the other issues on the agenda for post-Brexit? When would there be a second round of support for Industrial Parks and Special Economic Zones as promised?

Members asked whether the 149 000 jobs created in the fourth quarter were permanent and sustainable or whether the jobs were on short term contracts only as it had been the holiday season? Had the Department been affected by any of the state capture processes, and, if so, what measures had it put in place to deal with those things? What measures were in place to force other departments and entities to comply with localisation? What was the Department doing to recover any monies lost?

The Committee was briefed on a number of treaties that South Africa wished to accede to in order to support the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Protection Bill. The Department of Trade and Industry sought the approval of the Portfolio Committee to recommend to Parliament that South Africa should accede to three World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaties: the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (Beijing Treaty); the WIPO Performances and Phonographs Treaty (WPPT); and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).

The Department provided a detailed account of the implications of the treaties and the processes that the Department had followed to ensure that it was in the best interest of the country to sign the treaties. The treaties were consistent with domestic and international law and were strategically aligned with the priorities outlined in the National Development Plan. The Committee approved all three treaties.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was of the view that the Marrakesh Treaty, which protected the rights of people with disabilities, should only be acceded to once the Copyright Amendment Bill had been passed into law and provided that it was passed with those provisions giving effect to the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty. A decision was not taken on the Marrakesh Treaty as the Chairperson found it necessary to consult the senior parliamentary legal advisors.

The crisis in the sugar industry was deliberated, following a letter written by Mr Macpherson to the Chairperson requesting a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Rural Development and Land Reform. The concern was that the sugar industry was in a state of crisis following the international glut in sugar, the dumping of sugar, the sugar tax and the extended drought. He feared that that 350 000 people could lose their jobs in the industry and that 1 000 people had already lost their jobs because of the sugar tax

KwaZulu-Natal had been suffering from a three-year drought that had cost the industry R 2 billion. There had been very little support for the industry and there might have been a disappearance of drought relief funds in the provincial government. The sugar tax had raised over R 2.5 billion that was now in the revenue fund. Because of the Southern African Customs Union, South Africa was obliged to take sugar from eSwatini, and excess sugar had to be exported, but at a lower price because of the global glut. A tariff had been applied on sugar imports, but it was lower than requested by the sugar industry as downstream producers, retailers and consumers had wanted a lower tariff and the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa had had to find the balance.

The Department asked the Committee to support the industry with regards to bio-fuels and bio-ethanol. If there was support from the Department of Energy and National Treasury, sugar could also be used for electricity generation. The Department had met with the National Energy Regulator of South Africa that would re-visit the proposals regarding electricity generation from sugar. The National Economic Development and Labour Council, NEDLAC, was undertaking a socio-economic impact assessment of the sugar tax. The majority of members turned down Mr Macpherson’s request for a joint meeting, highlighting that there was no time to fit this into the programme and that it should be deferred to the Sixth Parliament instead.

The Committee determined, unanimously, to call on the Minister to take whatever intervention he could in the sugar industry.

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson waited for four Committee Members to be in attendance before she could begin the meeting. An additional three Members were on their way which would allow the Committee to make decisions on the treaties. The Chairperson added that the Committee would be briefed on the Marrakesh Treaty but would not be taking a decision on that treaty.
 
The agenda was adopted by Ms L Theko (ANC), and Mr B Radebe (ANC) but Mr D Macpherson (DA) pointed out that there were only four Members in attendance, which meant that there were insufficient Members to adopt the agenda.
 
The Chairperson concurred and agreed to adopt it when the other Members arrived.
 
The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies, the Director-General (DG) of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Mr Lionel October, and the DTI delegation: Mr Shabeer Khan CFO, Ms Thandi Phele Acting DDG: Industrial Development Division, Mr Stephen Hanival Chief Economist, Ms Nontombi Matamola Acting Group COO, Ms Meshendri Padaychee DD Intellectual Property, Susan Mangole, COO Industrial Development Division, Mr Sipho Zikode DDG: Special Economic Zones and Economic Transformation, Ms Tshililo Mabirimisa Director for Legal Support, Shareen Osman, Chief Director Product Development, Incentive Development and Administration Division, Ms Saroj Naidoo, DTI Parliamentary Liaison Officer.
 
The Chairperson also welcomed Mr Moosa Ebrahim, Chief of Staff in the Minister’s Office and Mr Kadi Petje, Senior Manager of Creative Industries at the Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission.
 
Minister of Trade and Industry on SONA and the implications for DTI
Minister Davies indicated that he had an extensive presentation, but he would not go into detail in the meeting as the information was in the slides which Committee Members could peruse in their own time.
 
The Minister stated that an enormous amount of the State of the Nation Address (SONA) had spoken to work that had to be done by DTI. A significant part of SONA was about economic recovery and moving through the episode of state capture and corruption and moving forward with a view to ensuring that public institutions did the job that they needed to be doing, which was critical for DTI. There was a lot of talk about the need for export to Africa, localisation and capturing a large part of the domestic market for locally produced goods and, finally, the investment story. In the debate, the themes were taken up. It was the last of the responses to SONA for that term of Parliament and the Minister wanted to reflect on where the Department was at the end of the term and what had to be picked up in the following term.
 
Starting with the global context, the Minister stated that all international agencies had been telling SA that economic growth would be down. One of the downside risks was the trade war between USA and China as many countries, including South Africa, could become collateral damage. He believed that behind the trade wars was a battle for mastery of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
 
Concerns about a China slowdown might be overdone, but the United States growth might have peaked and could be in for a ‘hard-landing’ with a mild recession. while, at the same time, the diverging growth in the European Union added to the uncertainty in the global economy, especially as Germany was not performing as well as it should, particularly in the automobile industry.
 
In the domestic economic context, SA had exited a technical recession in the third quarter of the financial year, but the situation remained quite volatile. Manufacturing had been resilient in the face of serious headwinds, but, as a percentage of GDP, it had fallen marginally. Manufactured exports had grown substantially but manufacturing investment was growing too slowly. Non-tradeables was the fastest growing sector. The manufacturing industrial policy action plan had not achieved its value-added goals. Production was flat but the end of de-manufacturing had been reached. Challenges in electricity pricing were a major headwind but employment had stabilised with a small employment growth achieved in the fourth quarter. The point was that manufacturing was becoming more technological and less employment-oriented. DTI would need to look at secondary industry for employment opportunities.
 
The Minister was adamant that DTI programmes had had a positive impact. Manufacturers had to increase localisation which would ensure more component manufacturers which employed more people. He was pleased that the clothing and textiles industry had retained 95 000 jobs. The steel value chain had stabilised after a real possibility of not manufacturing steel in SA at all, which would have had serious consequences as SA did not have the port capacity to import all the steel that would be needed to keep manufacturing going if there were no steel industry. He reminded the Committee that agriculture was a key aspect of manufacturing.
 
Localisation was where the policy had had the least success. There had been too much leakage, fraud and corruption. Imports had been supported over local production. The systems were now in place and, in future, companies would have to answer to not using local services and products. He was particularly pleased that localisation had succeeded in world class shipbuilding in Cape Town mostly, but also in Durban.
 
Support to the Auto industry had seen exports doubling and over R 47.5 bn in investment leveraged or attracted. The development of a 2025 Master Plan in collaboration with the private sector had been a great achievement. DTI was trying to turn around the Black industrialists programme and to target and support black industrialist in 131 projects. The major requirement there was not so much money as market share.
 
DTI was preparing for the Fourth Revolution through transformation and industrialisation. Local black IT companies were doing exceptionally well. A Cape Town IT company was making products for large telescope arrays and for CERN in Switzerland. Liquid petroleum gas would see increased usage in factories, households and chemical factories.
 
The story of investments achieved was something quite remarkable. Worldwide investment was down but SA had a 4.5 times increase. SA and the government could offer all sorts of things that made SA very attractive for investors. There had been $ 20 billion plus in domestic investment. Investments were being followed through, e.g. zinc in Northern Cape, and Proctor and Gamble investing in sanitary towels and making large donations of sanitary towels. Hisense was increasing its investment in Atlantis and Amazon had made a $ 1 billion investment.
 
The Industrial Park (IP) revitalisation was doing exceptionally well. 10 000 people worked in Botshabelo Industrial Park in small and medium businesses, many black-owned. DTI had spent R 511 million to modernise IPs and local contractors had been used throughout. The 10 Special Economic Zones were all attracting investments. The Minister noted that the export-led growth policy depended on South Africa actively identifying opportunities.
 
The Minister praised the Department for its work and for the clean audits in DTI and many of its entities. It was important to show the public where the money was going where it should.
 
The Chairperson called for the adoption of the agenda for the meeting before discussion. Mr Radebe proposed the adoption of the agenda, and was seconded by Ms P Mantashe (ANC).
 
Discussion
The Chairperson invited Members to engage, to ask questions or to make comments. She asked Members to restrict their input to four minutes so that there would be time for a second round of engagement.
 
Mr Macpherson was pleased that there was some time to interact with the Minister before the elections after which either one or both of them might not return to Parliament.
 
Mr Macpherson told the Minister that for four years, even 10 years, SA had missed the boat of opportunity. For the four years that he, Mr Macpherson, had been in Parliament, ‘headwinds’ had been used to explain why SA could not grow economically. Although ‘headwinds’ had re-appeared in the presentation, it had generally been replaced by ‘downward risk’. At the last SONA, the President had promised 3% growth, but SA was unlikely to get anywhere near that until 2021/22. SA’s African partners continued to grow and SA was only the third largest economy in Africa. The situation existed, not because of headwinds or downward risks. The reasons were, as SA’s partners had continually being saying, policy uncertainty and Eskom’s blackouts. He believed that DTI did a lot of work, but real opportunity for growth had been papered over with words such as headwinds and downward risk.
 
Mr Macpherson stated that there seemed to be a disconnect between what the DTI wanted and what the government did. That continued to take place in localisation and local procurement. The best example was the Transnet procurement. DTI had continuously said what it expected in terms of localisation, but Transnet and the Department of Public Enterprise had simply done their own thing, and the hands of DTI were tied behind its back. But it did not come as a surprise because the matter had been brought up in the media and in the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry. He had raised the matter sharply with the Minister.
 
He had previously asked the Minister what the discussions were around the Cabinet table when other departments continually flouted the regulations that his Department had set in place and he had gazetted. What banging on the table went on?
 
Mr Macpherson added that his concerns extended further. Another example was the disconnect between the Saldanha and Atlantis Industrial Development Zones (IDZs) and some other IDZs, specifically the way Coega and Richard’s Bay were treated. The former Minister of Energy had granted Coega gas, but not Saldanha. Saldanha and Atlantis IDZs had asked to be designated for oil, gas and steel manufacturing and yet it did not happen. He found it disingenuous when the President said that gas was coming to Saldanha as Saldanha had been asking for it for ten years and had long since been ready. Other IDZs were designated for gas while Saldanha and Atlantis were ready for gas. Where was the banging on the Cabinet table asking his colleagues to do what they were paid to do?
 
Lastly, Mr Macpherson addressed the issue of Brexit. The big concern was not SA’s ability to negotiate a roll-over of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) but the politics in the United Kingdom (UK). The UK might be looking to have a second referendum which would leave SA in no-man’s land between a roll-over of the EPA or a full EPA. What was the scenario planning outside full Brexit? What were the other issues on the agenda for post-Brexit?
 
Mr G Cachalia (DA) thanked the Minister for the presentation. The issues were, globally and locally, deficit, debt and trade wars. Those were the global and local headwinds, but some of the tornadoes were of SA’s own making. It was not just about policy uncertainty but also about the robustness of policy. The Minister had spoken about more robust measures for localisation but that was about the State leading economic development and self-sufficiency and predicated on the creation of an internal market. As the Minister himself had said, SA’s internal market was not sizable enough. But more than that, subsidisation of vital industries was a segue to nationalisation.
 
Mr Cachalia asked about sugar and chicken which were vital industries. There had been significant failures in that area. SA had 50 tons of chicken arriving per week from Brazil which the ports could not cope with. Sugar tariffs had been slow in implementation with a serious impact on the industry. Even in critical areas, SA had not got traction. That led to increased taxation and to highly protectionist policies that had been practiced by various fascist countries in Latin America, Italy and even the Soviet Union. Over a long period of time, there had been no measure of success, but SA proceeded headlong down that path. There had been some short-term gains as the Minister had pointed out, but long term that approach contributed to the headwinds. SA was contributing, locally and internationally, to its own demise.
 
In addition, Mr Cachalia stated that one had to be mindful of B-BBEE in localisation and the warnings came from SA’s investment partners, both in the infamous letter, and also from visits to the Committee over time which had warned of what they viewed as impediments. That would lead to tit-for-tat as it had internationally, and SA would be sorrier for it.
 
Mr Cachalia agreed that the Industrial Parks initiative was good, but the jury was out on SEZ’s in terms of spread and costs, and the role of China needed watching there. The Minister touted regional integration as a good thing, but government had been very tardy in trying to fix that.
 
Ms Mantashe apologised for arriving late. She applauded the work done by DTI and acknowledged the challenges that it had encountered. The challenges had been facilitated by the silo approach of other departments that did not wish to be a seamless government that considered legislation enacted by other departments. If other departments had come to the party, localisation would not be where it was currently. One just had to look at what Transnet had done in not buying local products but buying from outside the country.
 
Ms Mantashe also applauded the clean audits of DTI and almost all of its entities. Her concern was the B-BBEE, which the DA was an enemy of. Everyone should see what a hypocrite the DA was. The DA says that it cares about black people and wants to build one South Africa. But how could one build one South Africa if people were unequal? If one fought B-BBEE, one was saying that blacks had to stay where they were. That was hypocritical.
 
Her passion was Industrial Parks, and everyone had seen the number of jobs created in the Industrial parks, and SEZs, but some of them needed more support. More investments were needed. She thought that the Minister had promised a second round of support, but when was that second round coming?
 
Ms E Ntlangwini (EFF) agreed with Ms Mantashe about entities being B-BBEE compliant. It was not optional. It was a policy that should be enforceable. Entities should not be given an opportunity to find leverage. It was a policy to give each and everyone opportunities so it should not be “played like that”.
 
Ms Ntlangwini did not want to be a prophet of doom, but was hopeful that after May, some of the policies would be scrapped when the EFF came back as the ‘government of the day’. She was concerned that South Africa was still importing too many things, such as the chicken that was served in Parliament, toilet paper and everything, so SA needed to diversity and to implement policies and not leave policies on paper. Ms Mantashe was correct in saying that some departments worked in silos and did not work together on the policies.
 
She stated that the EFF would hold Minister to account for the nice plans that he had presented that day.
She wanted the Minister to know that the EFF would come for his colleagues that had their hands in the cookie jar. They would be held to account because government was looking to invest large amounts of money in the industries and the EFF would not allow people to be corrupt in those industries. Those people had to be warned that the EFF would come for them. Parliament would have to pass legislation that there would be a jail sentence. The EFF would watch the plans that he had fed the Committee that day. The EFF would watch it in the next Parliament where the EFF would have more seats as the DA was declining.
 
Ms L Theko (ANC) noted that the Minister had begun his presentation talking about the 149 000 jobs created in the fourth quarter. Were they permanent and sustainable or were the jobs available on short term contract only? She noted that the President was busy with interventions into corruption through Commissions, as they saw on television every day. Did the DTI know if there were any other corrupt practices or contracts that would come up in the Commission? The DTI could not wait until something was revealed in a Commission and then behave as if it wanted to arrest people. Was the DTI affected by any of the state capture processes, and, if so, what measures had DTI put in place to deal with those things?
 
Ms Theko added that everyone had the same concerns about localisation. If there were policies in place, what measures were there for people who decided to do their own thing despite the policies? She was concerned about imports. She added that the Fourth Industrial Revolution was happening. The Committee had taken it into account when dealing with the Copyright Amendment Bill, but had it been taken into account in the treaties that had not yet been concluded and the treaties were a backlog as far as the Committee was concerned
 
Mr Radebe appreciated the input from the Minister because it spoke directly to the State of the Nation Address and the budget. When the Minister had delivered the budget, he had been very explicit. He had said that the SA economy was small, but it was open, which meant that it was affected by all the vagaries that were happening in the entire world. So, it was a fact that there were certain headwinds that affected SA. For example, the uncertainty of Brexit was the cause of certain manufacturing plants closing down in the UK, because the UK market was open. So, SA was not an exception in being vulnerable to headwinds. The EU and China took products from SA, so, if there were problems, SA was bound to be affected.
 
Mr Radebe suggested that the Committee should not forget what the President had said in SONA. Each and every penny taken from the cookie jar had to be recovered and the people jailed. If SA could recover the monies that had been stolen, SA would not need the President to go on the investment drive and SA could stand on its own. DTI was responsible for policy on localisation. What measures were in place to force other departments and entities to comply. The amount of money lost owing to people not adhering to policy was huge, so what was DTI doing to recover that money? Ms Theko had said that it was not necessary to wait for the Commission of Inquiry. As the President had said, there were certain acts which were wrong, and the money had to be recovered. What was the Minister putting in place with colleagues in the Cabinet?
 
Mr Radebe addressed the issue of B-BBEE. According to the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, there were set-asides so that if there was a tender from government for R 30 million, 30% of that money had to benefit the local entrepreneurs, but he did not see that happening. The previous year, he had asked the President, in the House, what his attitude was towards the policy. The President had confirmed that he was part of the policy but, when the Minister interacted with his counterparts, how did the President ensure that the policy framework was complied with? If the set-aside was adhered to, it would help the local economy a lot.
 
Mr Radebe added that another issue was that of the Special Economic Zones. The first SEZ in China was in Shenzhen as part of former President Deng Xiaoping’s drive to open up China to the rest of the world. When celebrations were held for Shenzhen’s 40 years as an SEZ, it was noted that the city had more than 12 million people, and its GDP was $653 billion, a far bigger economy than that of SA. What was being done to make SA’s SEZs grow like that? He had gone to an SEZ in Mamelodi, but he had not felt the same enthusiasm for the SEZ that he had felt in China.
 
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Macpherson’s point that it would have been good to engage earlier, but time was limited. She stated that she would not speak because the Committee had run out of time. Members could not take a second bite that day as the treaties and the sugar industry matter were still on the agenda. Some Members had went beond their allocated four minutes.
 
Mr Macpherson objected to the Chairperson’s ruling that there be no second round. Members had asked questions in the first round believing that there would be a second round as indicated by her. It was the last time in that term of office that the Committee would be meeting with the Minister and he still had some critical issues that he wished to raise and bring to the Minister’s attention so that they could be handed over to the Sixth Administration. He was sure that there were other colleagues who had issues. If the Committee meeting had to extend into the House sitting, so be it. It was a critical discussion.
 
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Macpherson but people, and that included Mr Macpherson, had spoken for far too long. She had tried to restrict Members to three minutes. There was no time at the moment, but asked every Member to put forward their questions in writing. The questions would be sent to the Minister for written responses.
 
Response by the Minister of Trade and Industry
The Minister responded to Mr Macpherson and others about the lack of coherence in government and actions that had taken place elsewhere in government, which was what he had been saying for quite a long time. What was different, was that the man who was now banging the table was the man at the top. The environment had changed in the Minister’s neck of the woods. People were being asked for proposals about putting things right. That was the difference. At the next Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) meeting, that was what the DTI would be doing. They would not be complaining about electricity prices, they would determine what could be done, and that was the way to go.

The SA economy could buck the trend as it had with the investment. Some of the things that Mr Macpherson had raised did work, but the DTI had to get consequential follow-through. Once DTI had created the policy, it was not its job to follow up and see that people did as required. DTI gave the policy to National Treasury which then had to write a Practice Note. The Practice Note made the policy an obligation. DTI had been engaging with the Auditor-General for some years. The new Auditor-General Act (Pubic Audit Amendment Act ) would make non-implementation much more difficult. That was something that DTI had said in the job summit.
 
The Minister noted that whilst there might not be cohesion in government, he was not so sure that the shadow DTI team was saying the same things on some of the issues. The Minister did not understand what Mr Cachalia was saying. On the one hand, Mr Cachalia had said that government was too slow to implement the substantial tariff increase in sugar and on the other hand he was saying that SA should not increase tariffs because tariffs took SA into the same state as countries in Latin America. He really did not understand Mr Cachalia.
 
The Minister explained that the way that tariff decisions occurred in SA was that an industry player approached the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC). ITAC evaluated all the evidence and allowed for people to make due representation before making a decision. When the sugar tariff came to him as the Minister, he had not taken very long to sign it. He had not held it up because he had recognised the importance of responding to the threats to jobs in the industry. He had told the sugar industry team about the pushbacks that SA had endured from SACU on the matter and SA’s right to intervene.
 
The Minister stated that the world trade in poultry was not according to the textbook for free market trade. There was a surplus of brown meat in the chicken industry in the developed world. It could be turned into dog food or they could sell it to countries like SA, and the countries got more by doing the latter. The Minister had sat in a meeting with the European Union on the EPA where the pressure on him to open up the market to chicken was enormous from everybody. It was exactly the same with the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The only way to stay in AGOA was to make a concession to the US. SA had made decisions, firstly, by exploring the evidence and, secondly, by asking if it was compatible with WTO rules. If the evidence came up, decisions would be taken in favour of local industries. There was no preconceived presumption about whether tariffs should go up or down. DTI did not apologise for that as those were not the only tools that it had in its toolbox. It had to use others as well. The Minister could assure Mr Cachalia that he and DTI were trying to take the best decisions that they could to save jobs. What was needed was a greater understanding of the environment out there. International trade was about sitting around a table and worrying about other people’s economy. It was dog eat dog and people had to understand that.
 
The Minister made no apology for localisation. He agreed with Mr Macpherson that there were too many gaps because, where rail localisation had been applied, it had been a success. He gave the example of General Electric that told him that the company had never made a locomotive outside of the States and the first time that they had done it was to qualify for the SA local manufacturing programme. That then became the model for India for General Electric. It was not just that the government had to be given the money back. It was not just about the money, but the localisation policy had been intended to create jobs. He was of the opinion that the contracts had to be cancelled and they had to be re-issued according to the policy of localisation. That was the view of DTI. The Commissions of Inquiry were all very well but where things had been done wrong, government had to put them right again. The biggest barrier to localisation was the hypocrisy in the international field. One could go and look: If it was not at national level, it was at sub-national levels. The current US localisation requirements were 100% manufactured and mined rail road production in the US.
 
The Minister stated that Brexit was another matter. There were too many unknowns. Was there going to be a deal or a change in the deal? Was there going to be another referendum? Every single option, except the crash-out at the end of March, meant that the EPA would apply. It would apply even if there was an extension too Brexit or a customs union. South Africa’s interlocuters in Britain had told SA not to count on any of the possibilities. The EPA treaty with the UK was a backstop and should there be an extension of Brexit, the treaty would come into force after that extension. He noted that the repercussions of Brexit might affect the European auto industry. The SA auto industry was small change compared to the European auto industry so one did not know what waves and ripples could flow from that. SA ought to be aware and concerned about those issues. DTI was also aware and concerned about Eskom, but there was a directive to get it right. The man in the ring had a responsibility to get it right and the President was banging on the table to get things done. The Minister thought that government would come back with action plans. Government would not just say that there were headwinds. Government would say how the headwinds were going to be dealt with.
 
As far as B-BBEE was concerned, the Minister explained that B-BBEE was not a law, but if one wanted to do business with government, government departments had to require a level of B-BBEE compliancy. Government wanted businesses to become more compliant. In 2013, fronting legislation had come into existence and a lot of cases of fronting were going to the B-BBEE Commission. Fronting was becoming more complex. People went to companies saying that they would go maximalist, i.e. 51% of a company. Allowing a company to make money by simply being a partner was not acceptable. That was against the law and was sometimes outright corruption. Government was going to crack down on that. DTI could not just call in the black industrialists and offer them more money. It did not work like that.
 
The Minister noted that the total of 149 000 jobs created in SA in the fourth quarter of 2018 was the number as per StatsSA. Regarding the Industrial Parks, some were still in phase 1 but would go on to phase 2. He was pleased that Mr Cachalia was supporting Industrial Parks because his colleagues had accused DTI of resurrecting apartheid dinosaurs but “agteros kom ook in die kraal” (no matter how slow or far behind one is, one will also get there). He asked the DG to supply some details on IPs.
 
Mr October informed Ms Mantashe that there was positive news on Industrial Parks. DTI had applied for a second round and had managed to get the IPs to submitt concrete plans for the second phase. He had information that funds had been allocated in the new budget and that over R 300 million had been set aside for the second phase. The new IPs would also be covered.
 
The Chairperson thanked Minister and DG for responding to questions, but the Committee Members would send additional questions and would appreciate a response. She thanked the Minister and his team and apologised to Members for not having enough time.
 
Accession to World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaties - DTI
Ms Mabirimisa briefed the Committee on the treaties. She was accompanied by Ms Padayachy.
 
Ms Mabirimisa explained the purpose of her presentation was to seek approval of the Portfolio Committee to request Parliament to accede to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Treaties in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
- Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (Beijing Treaty);
-WIPO Performances and Phonographs Treaty (WPPT); and
-WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).
 
Ms Mabirimisa would also brief the Committee on the progress made on the Marrakesh Treaty.
 
She explained that the Beijing Treaty dealt with the intellectual property rights of performers in audio-visual performances and was administered by WIPO, of which South Africa was not a member. The WPPT dealt with the rights of two kinds of beneficiaries, particularly in the digital environment: (i) performers (actors, singers, musicians, etc.); and (ii) producers of phonograms (persons or legal entities that take the initiative and have the responsibility for the fixation of sounds). South Africa was not a member of WPPT. The WCT dealt with protection for authors of literary and artistic works, such as writings and computer programs; original databases; musical works; audiovisual works; works of fine art and photographs. South Africa was not a member of WCT.
 
Ms Mabirimisa provided a detailed account of the implications of the treaties and the processes that DTI had followed to ensure that it was in the best interest of SA to sign the treaties. The treaties were consistent with domestic and international law and were strategically aligned with the priorities outlined in the National Development Plan.
 
Ms Mabirimisa presented an update on the Marrakesh Treaty. The Marrakesh Treaty was signed in June 2013, and came into force on 30 September 2016. The intention of the Treaty was to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. The Treaty had a clear humanitarian focus and its main goal was to create a set of mandatory limitations and exceptions for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print disabled beneficiaries.
 
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ & CD) was of the view that the Marrakesh Treaty should only be acceded to once the Copyright Amendment Bill had been passed into law and provided that it was passed with the provisions giving effect to the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty. DOJ & CD was concerned that if there is resistance to the Copyright Amendment Bill with regard to provisions relating to the Marrakesh Treaty, South Africa would be bound by its international commitments to the disadvantage of domestic obligations.
 
Ms Mabirimisa concluded by requesting the Committee to approve accession to the:
1. Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (Beijing Treaty);
2. WIPO Performances and Phonographs Treaty (WPPT); and
3. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).
 
Discussion
The Chairperson asked Members to clarify any issues that concerned them as the Committee was being asked to approve accession to the three treaties.
 
Ms Theko thanked Ms Mabirimisa for the presentation. She had heard the Chairperson say that Members should not worry about the Marrakesh Treaty as DTI was looking for approval only for the Beijing, WPPT and WCT treaties, but how could the Committee adopt the three treaties and leave the Marrakesh Treaty out? The Bill was with the NCOP. She did not want the disabled to be left out.
 
The Chairperson interjected, saying that she had not said Members could not engage on the Marrakesh Treaty but she wished to deal with the others first, as they were presented for approval by the Committee.
The measures to which Ms Theko had referred were very, very important and DTI would, later, be able to respond. Did any of the Members need any clarification on the first three?
 
There were no comments.
 
Returning to the Marrakesh Treaty, Ms Theko stated that Ms Mabirimisa had spoken about a misalignment that needed to be rectified. She had to explain what she meant more fully.
 
The Chairperson noted that certain documentation could not be found and so the DTI was seeking accession and not ratification. Could Ms Mabirimisa explain that?
 
Mr October said that he took it that there was no objection by the Committee to the three treaties moving ahead. On the question of the accession, it was just to be on the safe side. SA had already signed the treaty in 1997 so the country could go for ratification. However, the Presidential Minute could not be found, so the Department of International Relations and Cooperation had suggested that legally it was preferable to go for accession. The point raised by Ms Theko was about the last-minute concern about the Marrakesh Treaty by DoJ&CD, but he believed that there was a solution which he could present later.
 
Resolutions
The Chairperson presented the report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances dated 26 February 2019.
 
The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry having considered the request for approval by Parliament on the accession to Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances recommends that the House in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa approve the said agreement.
 
Mr Radebe proposed the approval of the accession of the agreement. Ms Mantashe seconded the proposal. No objections were noted. The Chairperson noted that the Beijing Treaty could proceed.
 
The Chairperson presented the report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonographs Treaty (WPPT) dated 26 February 2019.
 
The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry having considered the request for approval by Parliament on the accession to World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonographs Treaty (WPPT) recommends that the House in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa approve the said agreement.
 
Ms Theko proposed the approval of the accession of the agreement. Mr Radebe seconded the proposal. No objections were noted. The Chairperson noted that the Beijing Treaty could proceed.
 
The Chairperson presented the report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT) dated 26 February 2019.
 
The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry having considered the request for approval by Parliament on the accession to World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT) recommends that the House in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa approve the said agreement.
 
Ms Theko proposed the approval of the accession of the agreement. Ms Ntlangwini seconded the proposal. No objections were noted. The Chairperson noted that the Beijing Treaty could proceed.
 
Mr Radebe asked when the Agreements would be in the House and could they be debated as a single item as they all dealt with Intellectual Property.
 
The Chairperson agreed that the three treaties should be presented as a group to the House. She asked the Secretary when he would publish the notice in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports (ATC).
 
The Secretary stated that he would place it in the ATC that evening so it should appear the following morning, but the Programming Committee would decide when the matter was debated in the House.
 
Mr Radebe asked that the Committee take an in-principle decision on the matter.
 
The Chairperson suggested that the Committee make a proposal that the agreements be discussed as a single item in the House.
 
Mr Radebe proposed that the Committee’s proposal be put forward. Ms Theko seconded his proposal. There were no objections.
 
Marrakesh Treaty
The Chairperson noted that DoJ and DIRCO had said that the Bills had to be passed by Parliament before the Marrakesh Treaty be approved. For that reason, it was important to know where the Bills were in Parliament. She stated that the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Protection Bill were way ahead of other Bills in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The Bills were 85% to 90% of the way through the NCOP so should go through to the NCOP Chamber in the first week of March. She would ask the Secretary to monitor the process and to alert Committee as soon as the Bills went through. She asked Mr Radebe to alert the Programming Committee and the Chief Whip that the Committee might need to take the treaty to the House in the last week before the House rose.
 
Mr October explained the alignment issue. DoJ and DIRCO had said that the Marrakesh Treaty should be ratified after the Copyright Amendment Bill had been passed into law so that there would be no misalignment between domestic law and international law. He suggested that the decision to ratify the Treaty be made subject to the Copyright Amendment Bill coming into effect as there was no objection to the Treaty itself. The exact wording could be worked out with Legal Advisor, but there was no need to come back a second time.
 
The Chairperson thought that it was a very wise proposal, but she was not a legal person and would like the opportunity to consult with the parliamentary Senior Legal Advisor, Frank Jenkins. There were no objections to that approach.
 
The Chairperson noted that that completed the engagement on WIPO treaties and thanked the DG for his assistance. She also thanked Ms Padayachy, specifically, as she had been working with the Committee on the Bills for a long time.
 
Committee Decision on the Sugar Industry
The Chairperson welcomed the Chief Director for Agro-Processing at DTI, Ms Ncumisa Mcata-Mhlauli who joined Acting DDG Thandi Phele and the DG.
 
The Chairperson explained that the Committee was extremely busy but a process relating to the sugar industry had been ongoing since 11 February 2019 when Mr Macpherson had written a letter to the Chairperson requesting a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Rural Development and Land Reform.
 
The Chairperson had received the letter on 12 February 2019. Mr Macpherson raised the matter in the Committee meeting of 12 February 2019, but the Chairperson had not yet seen the letter. The letter was submitted to the Committee on 13 February 2019. DTI had been requested to provide certain information. DTI had indicated that it was meeting with the sugar industry on 8 February 2019 to address certain issues specifically relating to the DTI’s last oversight visit in December 2018.
The request for information from the Committee was to ensure that the Committee could take an informed decision. As she had said, the information had been requested in December 2018, but the Committee had not yet received the response as the DTI meeting had only taken place on 8 February 2019. The information had been received on 19 February 2019 and she had asked the Committee Secretary to distribute it to the Committee Members. The Secretary had done so.
 
The Chairperson added that subsequently, a letter was submitted to the MEC in KwaZulu-Natal dealing with that portfolio, requesting information on its support for the drought that had been going on for three years and which had come up during the first oversight visit.
 
In the interim, the Committee had received letters of appreciation from SA Farmers Development Association and SA Sugar Millers and the SA Sugar Association. The immediate challenge facing the sugar industry was the impact of the Health Promotion tax, i.e. the sugar tax, and the failure of NEDLAC to implement mitigating measures to ameliorate the impact of the tax. The Committee requested DTI, together with the relevant departments to address the challenges, which should include a socio-economic impact assessment of the sugar tax.
 
The Committee was in a position to hear from DTI so that it could decide whether to have a joint meeting or whether the matter should be captured in the legacy report for consideration by the next Committee.
or have meeting with the sugar industry.
 
The Chairperson informed Mr Macpherson that he could have the first opportunity to speak.
 
The Chairperson suggested that people might be wondering why everyone was in the meeting. She reminded the Committee that it had said, in 2018, that it would welcome the industry attending any meeting where the sugar industry was under discussion by the Committee. The sugar industry had been informed of the meeting and had decided to attend, even though it was a long way to come for a one-hour engagement, to see for themselves what transpired.
 
Discussion
Mr Macpherson began going through a timeline, beginning with 11 February 2019.
 
The Chairperson interject, asking Mr Macpherson only to raise issues related to the timeline where it differed from the timeline that she had given.
 
Mr Macpherson felt that it was important that he should be given the space to speak to the letter that he had written to the Chairperson. He said that three days after he had given the Chairperson the letter, she had issued a press statement through the parliamentary Press Office, where she had said some unfortunate things but in the last paragraph, she had said “The Committee would be dealing with the issues relating to sugar industry in its legacy report.” He felt that the Chairperson had pre-empted the response to his letter without engaging with him. He noted that 14 days later, he had had no response to his letter, except for the media statement. As she had already pre-empted the matter by stating that the matter would be included in the legacy report, he did not know what the Committee was supposed to consider.
 
Mr Macpherson asked the Chairperson to clarify her position regarding the matter and whether the Committee was intended to consider the facts before it, or whether the Committee was simply endorsing a position that she had taken, as the Chairperson of the Committee, and as articulated in her statement of 14 February 2019.
 
The Chairperson responded that Mr Macpherson had already issued a press statement prior to her statement. That statement had been brought to her attention and she had had to make it very, very clear that the Committee would be addressing the matter. As she had said at the meeting, the Committee was awaiting the response of the DTI on those matters. As Chairperson, and delegated by the Speaker, she had an obligation to put the matter straight, which she had done. She was not going to go back and forth with Mr Macpherson on the issue.
 
The Chairperson explained that the intention was to discuss the matter with DTI as it had provided a response, and secondly, the Committee would need to take a decision on what it could ask the Minister to take forward as the matter was urgent. Decisions regarding tax were not within the mandate of the Committee. The tax issue would have to be addressed by the Minister. She was sure that Mr Macpherson was only too well aware that there were other provincial departments that had assisted with the drought, as had the national Department of Agriculture. There was not sufficient time for the Committee to engage with someone else on the sugar tax.
 
The Chairperson assured herself that all Members had a copy of the DTI’s response. The Committee had asked the DTI to do certain things, which it had done. Were the DTI’s responses adequate? That was the first issue.
 
Mr Radebe agreed with the Chairperson’s approach that the Department had to give its response and after that, the Committee could engage. He also said that the Chairperson could not be said to be solely responsible for certain things as she had discussed things with the ANC and because she had spoken to the ANC beforehand, she had responded on behalf of the ANC. She could not be held solely responsible as a person. If anyone wanted to discuss that matter, it should be discussed around the table and the ANC would respond in kind.
 
The Chairperson stated it was a pity that people had not brought the DTI response with them as it had been sent electronically to everyone. She asked for copies to be made.
 
Mr Macpherson was even more confused after Mr Radebe’s response. If what Mr Radebe was saying was correct, then that last line in the statement was a predisposed decision of the majority of Members of the Committee. That rendered the question before the Committee redundant as it had already been answered. However, the majority of Members had articulated their position before any information was provided by the DTI. He was trying to understand what process the Committee was engaging in. If it was a mere formality to respond to the question that he had asked, then the entire meeting was a waste of time and the meeting was simply a formality to reach a pre-arranged decision. The Committee was not starting the discussion on an honest foot, and had no desire to hear from anyone else. He asked again: Whose decision was it that was contained in the statement of 14 February 2019? Had it been decided that the matter would be discussed but there was no real desire to answer the question?
 
The Chairperson said that the letter had been drafted at her request according to what she had wanted to see in the statement in response to Mr Macpherson’s statement. She had said that the Committee would not engage on the matter without the response of the DTI. That was within her discretion as the Chairperson. She had said that she had no intention of going ahead when the Committee was waiting for information requested from the Department. It would have been unfair to DTI and the stakeholders. The response had been expected within the week.
 
The Chairperson did not want to have an engagement about whose decision it was, etc. Her duty was to see that what happened in the Committee was not misinterpreted or wrongly perceived by the public and she had done that. The drought had not come out of thin air. It had been a three-year drought. The water had become an urgent matter, consequent to the drought conditions.
 
As the Committee had learned, someone, possibly SARS, had made a mistake and allowed sugar to flood the SA market. It could be referred to as sugar dumping as the sugar had been below market price.
 
The Chairperson refreshed everyone’s memory. On 4 December 2018, the Committee had asked DTI to update the Committee with regard to the Sugar Act and the SA Sugar Association (and there had been a small response), to engage the relevant Ministers with regards to structural requirements, i.e. roads and water and to increase support for emerging black farmers. What the Department had indicated was that a meeting had been planned for 8 February 2019.
 
The Chairperson stated that she could not keep going over what had been done. She had given the Committee a timeline, drawn up by the staff. The important matter did not fall under the mandate of the Portfolio Committee but, because it was related to the sugar industry, the Committee did have an obligation to call upon the Minister to engage with Cabinet, the Minister of Finance and the Department of Health. The DG could speak to the Committee on that one. The other issue was the failure to implement the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) mitigating measures. The Minister should enquire about that.
 
The Chairperson asked the DG to explain the sugar tax that had had a negative impact on the industry, notwithstanding the three-year drought.
 
Briefing on the sugar industry by DTI
Mr October responded that the letter from Mr Macpherson had been sent to him and DTI had responded comprehensively to the very substantial issues as the DTI agreed with Mr Macpherson about the crisis in the sugar industry and the need to give active support to the sector.
 
Mr October stated that the first matter was the drought conditions. KwaZulu-Natal had been suffering from a three-year drought that had cost the industry R 2 billion. There had been very little support to the industry and there might have been a disappearance of drought relief funds in the provincial government. Those issues fell under the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal and a direct response on the use of the funds had to be obtained from them.
 
On the depressed sugar price, the DG agreed that there had been a surge of imports into the local market and the written response had provided detailed input into that. The support for the industry was across political lines. One could not adopt a laissez-faire approach. DTI had adopted a policy of active intervention in industry, which meant supporting all the sectors. State intervention could support the market. However, the market was working perfectly but supply exceeded demand and there was a global over-supply of sugar. There had been dumping in the SA market but also, because of SACU, SA had to take sugar from eSwatini, and excess had to be exported, but at the lower export parity price. DTI concurred with Mr Macpherson about the glut in sugar.
 
Mr October stated that DTI had to explain the role of the Minister with regards to ITAC. As everyone knew, SA was a nation of laws and ITAC had an independent board. DTI had told ITAC, and had made it publicly known, that it supported the application by the sugar industry. The board had considered the application. The sugar industry had wanted the maximum amount of tariff protection, but downstream producers, retailers and consumers had wanted a lower tariff. ITAC had to find a balance. The Minister could not change the amount when ITAC had decided on the sugar tariff. He could only agree or disagree. He agreed because it did enhance the tariff and gave the sugar industry added protection and a higher level of profitability, even if not as much as requested.
 
DTI had supported the sugar industry when it had taken government to court about quick turnaround times and quick implementation of tariffs. DTI had committed to making a decision within three days. When the application had been received, it had been immediately accepted. If DTI had rejected it, the sugar industry would have had to wait a year or two for a decision. The DG noted that tariff duties had actively supported industries in a number of sectors. Before that, the country had been subject to the laissez-faire approach which did not protect the industries. SA was like France in actively supporting industry, especially agricultural industries. The DTI had done what could be done within the powers of the Minister.
 
The DG noted that on 8 February 2019, DTI had had a meeting with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). DTI had been working with DAFF for a number of years because DAFF had wanted an agricultural programme similar to the black industrialists programme. The programme had created 50 large black commercial farmers and had supported the agricultural industry in general. On 8 February 2019, DAFF had committed to supporting the sugar sector, and agreed to engage the Land Bank. The President had also promised a clear stimulus package to farmers.
 
The sugar tax had raised over R 2.5 billion that was now in the revenue fund. DTI had always told other departments that if the costs of production were raised by taxes, etc., profitability was reduced and the ability to ensure job creation was diminished. However, the reason for the sugar tax was not for revenue generation but the fact that sugar was a cause of lifestyle diseases. Taxes were the sole ambit of the Minister of Finance.
 
Mr October made a final point on the industry. The Minister had asked the industry to look at the implications of the tax but also to look at diversification. DTI asked the Committee to support the industry with regards to bio-fuels and bio-ethanol. If there was support from the Department of Energy and National Treasury, the sugar industry could provide bio-ethanol. Sugar could also be used for electricity generation. The industry was under stress as could be seen in the Tongaat results and so DTI had met with the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) that would re-visit the proposals regarding electricity generation from sugar. DTI had also asked the Department of Energy and Eskom to look procuring electricity from the sugar industry. That would create an additional income stream for the industry. The DG stated that the Acting DDG and the Chief Director could add details, if required.
 
Discussion
The Chairperson noted that DTI had indicated which sectors had been approached but she wondered who would undertake the socio-economic impact assessment of the sugar tax. Was it DTI or the Finance Department in conjunction with the DTI?
 
Ms Ncumisa Mcata-Mhlauli stated that the study was being undertaken at a NEDLAC level, so DTI was awaiting the results. It was a long process that would probably not be completed until the following financial year.
 
Ms Mantashe was disturbed by the sudden interest of Mr Macpherson in the sugar industry. He had never attended the oversight visits with the rest of the Committee. It was unwarranted that he attacked the Chairperson for making a statement on the sugar industry as if he, as the DA shadow Minister, was the only person who could make statements to the press. That was out of order. She was happy with the facts presented by the DTI, which the Committee had heard more than once. The DTI was engaging with other departments. The Committee shared the pain of the industry but why was the Committee there again?
 
Mr Radebe appreciated the DTI response, as well as the press statement made by the Chairperson. He thanked the sugar industry for their correspondence which showed that they appreciated the work of everyone on the Committee. However, everyone knew that it was the silly season and people tried to score points. All Members of the Committee, across party lines, had been in support of the sugar industry but as Ms Mantashe had said, some Members had gone the extra mile and done oversight visits. He supported the sugar tax study and was especially happy that it was coming from NEDLAC as it would then go straight to Cabinet. It should be brought to the Committee as soon as possible. The issue had to be raised in the legacy report so that the matter had to be dealt with by the Sixth Parliament.
 
Mr Macpherson told Ms Mantashe if she was not disturbed that 350 000 people could lose their jobs in the industry and that 1 000 people had already lost their jobs because of the sugar tax, then he was disturbed. Even the DG had said that there was a crisis. Perhaps Ms Mantashe should do some reading.
 
Mr Macpherson agreed that as Mr Radebe had said, it was the silly season because politicians would rather sacrifice thousands of workers and abrogate their jobs to the Sixth Parliament and use words like ‘no time’. It was the workers and the people affected by the crisis who did not have time at the moment. The workers did not have the time to wait until after the elections. That was why it had disturbed him that it had taken so long for the discussion to take place. He read the newspapers and heard from the organisations in the industry that they were thankful for the support but more needed to be done, and immediately, but then he heard that there was no time and it could wait. He had done the responsible thing and that was why the electorate had voted him to Parliament: to take action when he saw any industry facing distress. He asked that every Member of the Committee consider whether he or she was happy to watch other people lose their jobs.
 
Mr Macpherson stated that if the Committee was going to debate the issue, he had to be given the opportunity to respond.
 
Ms Ntlangwini thought that the guests had been invited to the wrong meeting. She had thought that it should have been a meeting that the Committee should have had without the guests because letters were flying about and there were all sort of allegations. She thought that everyone had been very serious about the challenges to the industry and had even gone on oversight visits. The Chairperson had an obligation to take responsibility and decisions and did not need to consult with each Member. If she did run to all Members about a press statement, she would not take her very seriously as that would mean that she was unable to lead. A leader took responsibility and decisions. Some had to go back to school or come to EFF and get political induction as the EFF knew and understood those things.
 
Nevertheless, Ms Ntlangwini admitted that there was a problem and the Committee had to intervene even as it had intervened in the other issue. The Committee had never neglected the sugar industry, so it was disingenuous to say that the Committee had neglected the industry.
 
The Chairperson said that the letters from all the industry players had appreciated the Committee’s interventions and were calling on the Committee to intervene again. As she understood the letters, the sugar industry had seen how well Trade and Industry had assisted in the past and believed that Trade and Industry could assist them again. There was a time when industry and country had to be put first, and parochial issues set aside. That was how the Committee generally worked. The sugar issue was bigger than the Committee had thought. Issues of diversification had been discussed but the Committee needed to work together to make the best impact. There were too many jobs and lives at stake. Every Member knew that.
She asked for a proposal from Members requesting the Minister to do certain things. There was no space on the programme for another meeting. Although she liked to be a slave driver and to push for additional meetings, she really could not fit in another one.
 
The Chairperson recalled that last year, the Committee had made a decision to include the issues relating to the sugar industry in the legacy report as Members had known that they would not be able to conclude matters before Parliament rose. She was now looking for responses to her question: What intervention would the Committee like to request the Minister to engage in?
 
Mr Macpherson said there had to be a formal decision on his request to the Chairperson and that needed to be addressed first.
 
The Chairperson said that he had asked for a formal meeting with the Committees of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Rural Development and Land Reform. What about the Departments of Health and Finance?
 
Mr Macpherson agreed that was his request and that he was happy for the other Departments to be included.
 
The Chairperson had already said that the programme would not allow the Committee to do that. She asked ANC and EFF to comment.
 
Mr Radebe said that there was no time for a combined meeting because the Committee still had to deal with the treaties issue. He highlighted that some Members had taken a keen interest in the sugar industry and even, on a Saturday in December, Members of the Committee had attended a function of more than 10 000 farmers in KwaZulu-Natal while some Members were not there. The Committee could not pre-empt the NEDLAC socio-economic impact assessment, but the legacy report should state that as soon as that report came out, the Committee should address it.
 
Ms Ntlangwini supported Mr Radebe’s proposal.
 
Mr Macpherson’s proposal was seconded by Mr Cachalia.
 
Mr Radebe proposed that the Committee wait for the NEDLAC socio-economic impact assessment report but called on the Minister to take whatever intervention he could take.
 
The proposal was seconded by Mantashe.
 
Ms Ntlangwini asked for a date of completion of the socio-economic impact assessment report.
 
Resolutions
The Chairperson called for a vote on Mr Macpherson’s proposal for a meeting with other departments.
Support – 2 Members
Against – 3 Members
Abstentions – 1 Member
The proposal was not successful.
 
The Chairperson called for a vote on Mr Radebe’s proposal to ask the Minister to intervene.
Support – 6 Members
Against – 0 Members
Abstentions – 0 Members
The proposal was unanimously supported.
 
Mr Hermans would write a letter on behalf of the Committee to the Minister.
 
Closing remarks
The Chairperson informed the sugar industry, who had flown in for this meeting, that unfortunately, nothing could be done, but that the Committee would ask the Minister to intervene in whatever way he could.
 
She thanked Members for their attendance.
 
The meeting was adjourned.

 

Share this page: