Department of Public Enterprises Strategic and Annual Performance Plan 2015/16, in presence of Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Public Enterprises

25 March 2015
Chairperson: Ms D Letsatsi-Duba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Minister and Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) met with the Committee to present the Department's Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan (APP) for 2015/16. The Minister gave an overview of the six State Owned Companies (SOCs) - Transnet, Eskom, SA Express, Denel, South African Forestry Company (SAFCOL) and Alexkor - and outlined their challenges, with a focus on the challenges of Transnet and Eskom, which had recently been the subject of media reports. The Minister stressed that South Africa had not yet fully recovered from the 2008 global recession, which meant that the country had a significant dependence on the SOCs to lead and drive the implementation of the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) for the period 2014 to 2019. SOCs were key instruments of a developmental state for the effective provision of services. This in turn presented the DPE with the opportunity to play a leading role in the development of the South African economy, and its new strategy recognised the challenges faced by the SOCs and provided a clear path for their improvement.

The Minister particularly described her "war room" meeting on Eskom issues over the last few weeks, when credibility of information around financial liquidity, issues around Medupi and Kusile and load-shedding were under discussion. She asserted that South Africa was certain to experience load shedding for the next two years, in order to avoid a total blackout, and that it would be unavoidable because of the neglect to upgrade infrastructure and operations until 2009, but that the load-shedding was being planned to cause minimal disruption to industry. Eskom was a strategic asset on which the economy was heavily dependent. The Companies Act limited the power of the Minister to intervene but the Minister was seeking legal advice on how far she could go to ensure effective running of the Board.

Questions posed to the Minister included asking her for a progress report on testing at Medupi, the switch on date at Kusile and her view on privatising Eskom, and, if this was done, how the public would be protected against high tariffs. Members were concerned at media reports that irregular tenders and procurement were behind the suspension of the three Board executives, and asked for clarity on this point the composition of the Board, what could be done to promote more professionalism, whether there were factions in the Board and whether the Board Chair would remain. They asked what Eskom and DPE were doing to ensure that municipalities paid Eskom what was due, and pointed out that it would be unfair to deprive individuals of electricity when they had paid the municipality who had used that money for other purposes. They asked whether DPE was working with provincial MECs to try to get funding ring-fenced to pay Eskom. Other questions were raised about the problems at SA Express which were also linked to its relationship with the SA Airways, why its financial statements were submitted late, and what had been done about that. Members asked if the DPE was in discussion with the Department of Energy to get the ISMO Bill returned to Parliament.

In presenting its strategic and annual performance plans, DPE reiterated the importance of the SOCs as an economic growth-driver, because they implemented national policy, raised the technology base of the economic industrial sectors, drove competitiveness and set a good example in sound employment and social responsibility. However, as a result of major under-investment in the past, all had a funding gap, and this meant that they were heavily debt-dependent, which cost them more to run and made it difficult for them to attract investment. In order to drive economic recovery, the DPE would need, by 2019,  to significantly increase the electricity generation reserve, move more tonnage to rail, improve the operational performance of sea ports and inland terminals, and raise investment to 25% of GDP. There was a strong focus on infrastructure development  in the country and it would in turn be heavily reliant on Transnet and Eskom. The SOCs were worth over R770 billion, and 96% of this was made up by the assets of these two companies. Overall, DPE needed to improve performance over the whole portfolio, and wanted to build on progress already made to turnaround all portfolios, as well as focusing on its own turn-around. Success would be measured by financial sustainability, commercially viable operations, delivery of capital projects, the strength of the shareholder compact and alignment that led to efficiency across the institutional model. DPE would be creating a supporting regulatory framework, developing appropriate capacity internally, including partnerships with the private sector and higher education institutions, clarifying the interface between the functions of government and using current infrastructure such as rail to help the economy to recover and grow.

Members asked at what stage the Shareholder Management Bill was, what DPE planned to move SOCs away from heavy reliance on debt, and whether there were plans to move towards privatisation. They expressed alarm that DPE had a budget of only R249 million to try to oversee assets worth R777 billion and asked how it would address the constraints that this must pose. Members wanted to know what consequences would follow on from non-performance of and between the SOCs. The Chairperson wanted more detail on the DP’s approach to National Treasury that it be given leeway to depart from some Treasury regulations. These questions stood over for reply at the first meeting of the Committee after recess. 

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

Chairperson Letsatsi-Duba welcomed Members and the Minister of Public Enterprises, who would be leading the presentation. The Minister had other commitments to Cabinet and would be leaving early, so questions must be posed to her early in the meeting.

Discussions between the Minister and Chairperson as to the preferred format ensued, and it was decided that the Minister should deal with the State Owned Companies (SOC) issues.

Challenges facing State Owned Companies: Minister of Public Enterprises briefing
Ms Lynne Brown, Minister of Public Enterprises, said that the economic outlook showed that the South African economy had not fully recovered from the 2008 recession. There was an overwhelming consensus that the first five years would be characterised by weak global demand, which would in turn erode domestic price sector demand. This translated to a significance dependence on the State Owned Companies (SOCs) to lead and drive the implementation of the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) for the period 2014 to 2019. The repositioning of these companies was fundamental for the realisation of the objectives outlined in the MTSF. SOCs were key instruments of a developmental state for the effective provision of services. There was therefore a wide opportunity for the DPE to play a leading role in the development of the South African economy, whilst recognising that the country still needed to overcome several hurdles. The new strategy recognised the challenges faced by the SOCs and provided for a clear path to improve the performance of the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE or the Department).

The Strategic Plan resulted from the comprehensive research which had been undertaken on each one of the SOCs. The six SOCs under the DPEs portfolio were then described
a) Alexkor, which was based in Alexander Bay and mined diamonds. The problem with Alexkor was that it was town-specific and it was not taking out enough carats per month; meaning that it either had to diversify or to move to the wider mining sector and diversify there. However, this was merely at discussion point and no decision had been taken.
b) SAFCOL was based in the Mpumalanga area, and into Mozambique. 20 000 rural families relied on SAFCOL, and there were ongoing discussions on what would need to be done to strengthen it whilst recognising that reliance.
c) and d) Transnet and Denel were two SOCs which had turned themselves around in the last five years; partially by getting rid of non-core assets and allowing for greater private sector intervention, especially in the case of Denel. Transnet was doing really well; the movement of manganese was very high; the Northern Cape/ Saldanha line was doing exceptionally well. The country was also in the process of building from scratch its own locomotives
e) SA Express would do very well if had worked collectively with South African Airways (SAA). SA Express was regional and its airplanes could only fly on up to four-hour journeys
f) Eskom. The Minister said that she had been engaged in "war room meetings"  on Eskom over the past weeks, where the credibility of information around financial liquidity and issues around Medupi and Kusile were discussed, together with some issues around load shedding. She said the country was bound to experience load shedding for the next two years in order to avoid a total blackout. There had never been a blackout or a complete power outage in the country. Load shedding was used as a means to balance the grid, because it would take about two weeks to get the country lit up again after a blackout, so obviously this had to be avoided.

The Minister indicated that she had appointed a new Board to Eskom but had not been invited to attend the "war room" meetings; executives were expected to report back to the Board. She had called off a meeting which was supposed to take place on 26 March 2015 because she was not going to be in the country at the time. In addition, nowhere in the draft corporate plan, which was supposed to have been approved at that meeting, had there been any mention of the challenges currently being experienced around electricity, and she noted that it was necessary to draft a plan that reflected the realities.

She said there were a number of issues with the credibility of information raised during the war room sessions. She indicated to the Board that what was happening within Eskom needed to be communicated clearly and openly to the public. Hours after the meeting, the Minister was informed that the Board had decided to have an investigation and to suspend executives, because the Board wanted undiluted information on Eskom. Since then, she had been called to a meeting by the Board. The Board was committed to fixing the problems within Eskom, and the first point in doing this was to get to know what those problems were. The Chairperson was still in place and the Minister had not been formally informed of any alternative decision.

The Minister expressed that she was very worried about Eskom; Eskom was a strategic asset and the economy was heavily dependent on it being functional. She said she was hamstrung in what she could do by the Companies Act and the Memorandum of Incorporation, both of which said there should be no political interference with the running of the Board. However, she has spoken to the Acting Director General of DPE to provide a legal opinion about how far the Minister could go. The DPE had also had incredible support from big business.

Discussion

Mr E Marais (DA) asked whether the Minister thought that private-public partnerships (PPPs) were a possible way to go in the procurement of electricity. The previous Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer at Eskom had apparently “jumped ship” because of the problems at Eskom. What was the DPE doing to prevent such instances from taking place in the future?

Ms N Mazoli (Micheal) said Medupi had started with its testing phase, and asked for a progress report from the Minister. She also wanted to know the turn on date for Kusile. She indicated that a report in the Business Day indicated that irregular tenders and procurement were behind the suspension of the three Board executives and asked for further clarity from the Minister in this regard. She noted that some municipalities had been cut off because of the monies they owed Eskom, but pointed out that residents of these municipalities paid their rates to municipalities, therefore the fact that residents' electricity was cut off because of municipal fault was unfair and asked what was Eskom considering to alleviate this. She noted the Minister's remark that the country would be experiencing load shedding for the next two years, and asked how close it was to having a complete national blackout, and what it might do in such an event?

Dr Z Luyenge (ANC) asked what the DPE would do to assist Eskom to deal with load shedding in the future. Adding to the point raised by Ms Mazoli, he said that the monies which were owed to Eskom by municipalities had to be dealt with as part of the financial challenges of Eskom and he asked if DPE could not intervene to ensure that municipalities paid Eskom what was due. He wondered what methods would be employed to ensure that a more professional relationship between Board members at Eskom would be encouraged. He asked whether the current financial instability at Eskom would not further hamper the completion of the projects at Medupi and Kusile.

Mr K Morapela (EFF) said the "war room" discussion was intended to ensure that Eskom was given proper direction by government, and enquired what progress had been made in dealing with some of the challenges at Eskom so far. He agreed that there were worrying matters raised, especially to do with the Board since it appeared that there had been power struggles among the Board members. He asked for the Minister's view on privatising Eskom, and asked how, if that option was to be explored, the public would be protected from paying high tariffs for electricity.

Ms D Rantho (ANC) said the Act did not give the Minister much power if the Board decided to take a decision which was not popular, but asked if this implied that the Minister would not do anything to guide the Board on the direction to take, if she did not agree with the decision. She wanted to know the impact of power stations and what contribution they were making to ease up the pressure on the grid? Furthermore, since government was building new power stations using imported materials, were they quality assured, for different geographic and climate conditions needed to be considered, to avoid machines breaking down mid-way through installation. She asked if Eskom had reasonable cooperative governance and if the Board would be retained?

Ms P van Damme (DA) said that he had heard that SA Express had not yet tabled its annual report, after it had received a qualified audit opinion for the last two years. He wondered what the Minister was doing to fix the problems at SA Express, seeing that the entity’s strength lay in its "mother body", South African Airways?

Mr Tseli asked what mechanisms the DPE had in place to ensure that the SOCs were financially stable, and wondered also if it had enough strategies to deal with entities which were not performing in terms of shareholder compact. He said the situation at Eskom was very worrisome, and asked if the proper procedures were followed in the suspension of the executives, and whether DPE was convinced that the suspension of the executives was the solution to the challenges at Eskom?

Minister Brown, dealing with the SA Express question, said she was delighted to report that the DPE would be attending the Annual General Meeting of SA Express on 27 March 2015, which meant that SA Express had adhered to all its corporate financial governance responsibilities, even though it had taken a while to do so. One of the issues around the entity’s financial statements was that SA Express had to get a guarantee. All of the SOCs operated on guarantees, and until they received them, they would not be able to submit their annual financial statements. SA Express had complied with all the other legal issues. DPE did have a plan for SA Express for the short term, to increase the routes within the region. However the challenge was that SA Express aircraft were also very old.

The Minister spoke to her responsibilities, saying that as Minister, she had a responsibility as shareholder representative but the point was that the Minister could not interfere, from a political level, in the management and operations of the SOCs. However, if matters went wrong, she would have oversight responsibility.

The Minister confirmed that load shedding was bound to take place for the next two years. There had been wide engagement with big businesses so that load shedding could be kept at a minimum, and at prescribed times; for instance, only on weekends and only for two hours maximum. If this did not take place a blackout was "guaranteed" but she hastened to add that the country was not close to a national blackout. There was a national disaster management team in place, which simulated what would happen should a national blackout occur, on an annual basis. She had been informed by Eskom that this was an important part of dealing with the challenges. She indicated that a Cabinet Lekgotla had asked the DPE to create overarching legislation for SOCs so that the relationship between SOCs could be strengthened.

In relation to public-private partnerships, she had no ideological opposition to these partnerships. The role of the private sector was very important also to the operations of the SOCs, not just around renewable Independent Power Producers, but also in the purchasing of coal, diesel and other huge procurement areas. The five-point plan in the war room also spoke to co-generation, which was a public-private partnership.

Speaking to Eskom issues, the Minister noted that the Board was made up of people who had been chairpersons of various institutions, or who had run large institutions and overseen large departments, like Absa Bank. There were a number of skilled people within the Board. However the relationship between Board members still needed to be built because the Board was relatively new. She had been quite impressed with the Board so far. The Board had not yet taken a decision whether to retain the Chairperson of the Board. There was no struggle of power within the Board, the Board was largely united, and it was also too young to be split by factions.

She reported that the 800MW from Medupi would come on board around June/July 2015. All materials being imported must be quality-assured and no plan would allow for material to be used that was not so assured. DPE had asked the Board to give it a list of the big procurement and tender issues for the next couple of months, since the DPE had been told that these contributed to some of the problems at Eskom. Again this was not a matter on which the DPE had full information as yet.

The Minister agreed that municipalities were a huge problem, and part of it was systemic. Some of the municipalities were not economically viable and consequently could not function, and used the money collected from clients to deal with operational matters instead of paying it where due.  A committee had been established to look into this, for the R4 billion owed to Eskom by municipalities was needed for Eskom's own operations. The South African Local Government Association (SALGA) was busy with a conference in Gauteng at the moment. The tariff hikes were not a decision of Eskom, but rather a decision of the South African National Energy Regulator (Nersa), and the Minister stressed that the country had to get to cost reflective tariffs, which would help Eskom in its liquidity and in keeping the country in power, although it was also recognised that it could not do so at the expense of an unequal society with such high numbers of unemployed people. The indigent policy and the sliding scale of electricity payments did not really help, and the DPE was not yet close to resolving these issues. She cited one example: if the lights were switched off at Ladysmith, which was not paying Eskom, this would affect the large company Nestle and would result in large job losses. She had put much pressure on Eskom to resolve the Ladysmith issue, to avoid Nestle re-locating to Gauteng. . For example, switching the lights off at Lady Smith meant switching the lights off at a huge company called Nestle, resulting in a number of job losses. She indicated that she put a lot of pressure on Eskom around the Lady Smith issue because she did not want Nestle to be moved to Gauteng.

The Minister confirmed that the "war room" had managed to pull together various ministers into one space to share information and to work together, to try and resolve some of the challenges at Eskom. Eskom was built in 1922 and nothing had changed in its structure. The way it operated needed to be changed, but this could not be done overnight. The entity employed around 42 000 people. Some of the problems at Eskom had long been in existence, and now they had to be properly captured and resolved to ensure the sustainability of electricity in the future. One response was to introduce new forms of energy such as the renewable IPPs, gas, wind and solar energy. It was also important that the country understood what the end state of electricity was, and what role Eskom would play in this. Eskom produced 95% of the country’s electricity, so the private sector needed to be included more strongly. The main problem with renewables was that they did not have base-loads, and this was why coal was still a dominant player in the sector. Diesel was exceptionally expensive and the Western Cape was one of only two provinces which had gas. She said the question on how much the small power stations contributed to the grid must be directed to Eskom. She reiterated that there would be load shedding about twice a day for about two hours, but that load shedding had not yet reached stage 3, and it would probably not be as regular as it was during December 2014 and January 2015.

Ms Mazoli (Micheal) asked about the Independent Small Market Operator (ISMO) Bill which had offered the potential to add Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to the grid, and wondered why that Bill had not been returned to Parliament, and whether the DPE and Department of Energy were discussing its return.

Mr Morapela said the Minister needed to take more responsibility for the problems faced by Eskom, rather than to say the problems were inherited. He also felt that the Minister must acknowledge that there were serious problems within the Board, with which the Chief Executive Officer had been involved for only six months. The Minister had to be bold enough to give direction, and where things were going wrong, these needed to be acknowledged. 

Mr K Mileham (DA) indicated that the SALGA conference to which the Minister made reference was not dealing specifically with Eskom issues; it was actually the SALGA National Conference. He asked if the DPE was working with provincial MECs to ring-fence the collection and payment of tariffs to Eskom.

Minister Brown said the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) dealt with issues pertaining to municipalities, and if any municipality were to be put under administration, this was a decision and responsibility of COGTA, not DPE. The decision to switch off people’s electricity was a very complex matter, and one on which Eskom had taken a very firm decision. She commented that the removal of the ISMO Bill was the right short-term decision. The country needed to first know what the end state of energy was, before the form of Eskom could be changed; it was at a very vulnerable state right now and it could not afford to break up.

The Chairperson asked the Minister to ensure that there was stability within Eskom and within the Board of Eskom; Members were very worried about it. The Chairperson of Eskom was long-standing whilst the Chief Executive Officer was relatively new and the issues had to be addressed.

Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan for 2015/16 – Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) briefing
Ms Matsietsi Mokholo, Acting Director-General, DPE, noted that South Africa was a developmental state and as such, industrialisation and economic nationalisation were the key drivers. Industrialisation was about growing the manufacturing sector and promoting foreign direct investment, whilst economic nationalisation was about stimulating export-led growth and increasing beneficiation. Reversing past trends across key economic focus areas would be pivotal to influencing the country’s economic agenda. South Africa had experienced weak economic growth, in the recovery from the 2008 recession. South Africa was ranked third in the world in terms of high youth unemployment, sub standard education, poorly located and inadequate infrastructure, an ailing public system and uneven public services.

The developmental state;s role must therefore support a number of economic and development goals including: delivering of strategic infrastructure that would unlock growth potential, supporting of the wider economy and marginal business sectors and supporting economic recovery where needed. State Owned Companies (SOCs) were therefore central to the South African economy as they enabled economic growth through their key activities of :

• Implementation of national policy to drive infrastructure expansion
• Raising the technology base of the economic industrial sectors, driving competitiveness of the country on a local and global scale
• SOCs were also required to be good employers and to exhibit a sense of social responsibility.

A period of major under investment in South African infrastructure (1985 – 2009) had left some SOCs in a compromised situation. A funding gap existed currently within South African SOCs, and this needed to be addressed in order to secure future revenue. The shareholder (government), as owner of SOCs, should be the essential link between stakeholders at various levels. The primary tasks of the stakeholders were; alignment, collaboration and conducting oversight. The state’s strategic shareholder, the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), played a critical role in driving national policy. The DPE would translate national level policies such as the National Development Plan and the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF), into SOC-specific and operational policy, while ensuring alignment and collaboration with other government departments and the executive.

She summarised that the DPE conducted oversight over the following SOCs:
- Transnet
- Eskom
- SA Express
- Denel
- SAFCOL
- Alexkor

The MTSF identified four critical areas that the DPE needed to contribute to, in order to drive economic recovery and adjust to investment driven growth. These were:
- increasing the electricity generation reserve margin from 1% to 19% in 2019
- increasing tonnage moved on rail from 207 to 330 Mt in 2019
- improving operational performance of sea ports and inland terminals from 28 to 35 average GCM/H by 2019
- raising the country’s investment rate to 25% GDP.

The 2014 – 2019 MTSF focused on infrastructure development as the enabler of future economic growth. This infrastructure expansion relied heavily on two SOCs in particular - Transnet and Eskom. The collective asset value of the DPE's SOCs was over R770 billion, with Eskom and Transnet accounting for R740 billion, 96% of this value. She indicated that none of the six SOCs provided sufficient returns on investment and in fact the returns generated by the SOCs did not cover the cost of the capital invested. Current expansions by SOCs were heavily reliant on raising debt, resulting in higher cost of debt funding, reduced flexibility in servicing capital (because debt caused an obligation to pay interest) and they were unable to hedge exposures properly, with the result that they were struggling to execute their mandates.

Eskom had insufficient power producing capacity, and was thus unable to meet current demands of the South African economy. Transnet’s main challenge was its inability to meet the demands of the market, resulting in reduced accessibility to certain industries. Infrastructure-related challenges within these organisations needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency, as these provided a platform for the economy to grow. Given the current situation, Eskom required attention more urgently, to resolve its current sustainability issues. The challenges posed a significant risk to the economy at large and to the fiscus. Eskom’s key risks were a country-wide blackout, continued load-shedding, further credit downgrading and call-up on government guarantees. At Transnet, the key risks were continued heavy reliance on road transportation and constrained overall volumes. The weak financial position of SOCs resulted in limited ability to fund commercial and expansion activities and thus they were not delivering on NDP and MTSF strategies. These challenges were mostly focused on revenue collection, SOCs' cost base and their financial planning.

The DPE's new strategy was focused on improving the performance of the portfolio and on ensuring that the SOCs could efficiently and effectively carry out their mandates. The strategy recognised the role that SOCs needed to play in the current economic context to support the aspirations of the developmental state, and it would build on the progress already made in the DPE to promote good governance, would turn around the portfolios, therefore building the capacity of the shareholder through internal re-organisation that would use existing resources. The DPE was committed to incorporating an internal turnaround for the DPE itself, as well as for its SOCS. It would ensure that capacity was created within these SOCs to deliver on the demands of the economy.

The success of the strategy could be realised by the achievement of five critical outcomes:

  1. Financial sustainability
  2. Commercial viable operations
  3. Capital projects delivery
  4. Strong shareholder
  5. Alignment and efficiency across institutional model

Effective execution of the five-year strategy would result in SOC financial sustainability and the realisation of the MTSF targets.

The resourcing of the oversight function remained a challenge that required a comprehensive response. There was a major imbalance between the budget allocated to the DPE and the assets it oversaw, since in the 2015/16 financial year, DPE had received an allocation of R267.5 million, to oversee R772.2 billion. The resourcing and the overall structure of the Department were not optimal. The review of the institutional model would present options that could be pursued to strengthen the oversight function.

The successful implementation of the Department’s strategy was dependent on the following:

• Creation of a supportive regulatory framework that will support the operational effectiveness of our SOC
• Developing appropriate capacity within the Department, including forming strategic partnerships with the private sector, and higher education institutions
• Taking a clear decision on the interface between the three critical functions performed by the government - policy, shareholder and regulator
• Recovery of the economy to ensure that the current infrastructure projects in the rail sector, in particular, could be fully utilised

Discussion
Mr Morapela asked how far the Shareholder Management Bill was from being finalised. What would DPE be contributing towards its social responsibility during the financial year? He said that, according to its Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) rating, Transnet was not doing very well, and particularly was low in performance in regard to companies owned by black women and the youth. According to Outcome 7 of the APP, only two companies had clear achievements towards rural development, SAFCOL and Alexkor, and he wondered thus what Transnet was doing.

Mr Morapela asked what the plan was of the DPE to move SOCs away from their current heavy reliance on debt, and if this included any plan to move towards privatisation? He noted the figures given that DPE was attempting to conduct oversight, with a budget of R249 million, over assets worth R777 billion, and said that surely this would put constraints on the DPE in performing its oversight functions, thus wanted to know what plans it had to address this.

Dr Luyenge said it was a fact that there were serious challenges within Eskom and Transnet. The Chairpersons of the SOCs did not appear to be assisting the National Development Plan, so he wondered what the DPE was doing over and above that, to implement strategies which would address these challenges? The DPE strategies outlined during the presentation were not in line with the challenges faced by these SOCs. Eskom and Transnet were vital in growing the economy and they needed to rise to the occasion. The DPE also needed to achieve NDP objectives.

Mr Tseli asked what some of the consequences were, to deal with non-performance between the SOCs. He said the targets presented were not measurable and wanted, for instance, to know how the DPE would measure the establishment of partnerships with various stakeholders.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee was stretched for time and proposed that the DPE should not answer the questions now, but instead prepare answers and deliver them during the first meeting of the Committee after the recess. There were a host of issues which Members needed to understand before the Committee could support the strategic plan. She noted that another of the points that needed to be expanded upon was the assertion that the DPE requested National Treasury to give the Department a leeway to go outside of Treasury Regulations. Several of the points in the Strategic Plan needed further engagement.

The meeting was adjourned.  

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: