Trade, Industry and Competition Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report; NLC Chairperson process

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson greeted the Committee Members and everyone who was connected on the online platform.

The Secretary confirmed the attendance of members at the meeting and that it was quorate and representative. He presented the agenda, which was adopted without amendment.

The Chairperson requested the secretariat to present the BRRR.

Consideration of the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR)
The Chairperson noted that additional time had been afforded for parties to make submissions regarding the conclusions and recommendations of the BRRR. He knew that one input had previously been received but did not know if there were any further comments or contributions for consideration..

The Committee Secretary stated that he had not received further contributions to the conclusions and recommendations but that Mr W Thring (ACDP) had a very slight amendment that he wished to propose. At the previous meeting, the concluding remarks and recommendations had been presented but not discussed.

The Chairperson requested Mr Thring to present his issue.

Mr Thring stated that he had a proposal in respect of the concluding remark that spoke of localisation. He requested that “and beneficiation” be added to the reference to “localisation”.

The Chairperson asked whether the amendment was acceptable to the ANC.

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) noted that localisation and beneficiation were part of the same concept in that one localised and beneficiated materials to assist the local people. He found the amendment acceptable.

Mr Thring was happy because localisation and beneficiation ran together, as indicated by Mr Mbuyane.

The Chairperson requested that the Committee consider the concluding remarks and the recommendations.

The Committee Secretary stated that there needed to be some discussion on the proposed concluding remarks and recommendations.

He noted that the first recommendation was not strictly a recommendation but rather a concluding remark. The third recommendation was also considered by the secretariat to be a concluding remark and not a recommendation. The secretariat had made some changes to the wording of the points submitted by the ANC. They had captured the essence of the points made but had rewritten them in the most appropriate style.

Mr Mbuyane referred to the first recommendation and pointed out that a similar point regarding support for the SA Bureau of Standards (SABS) and the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) was made in the conclusion where the support for SABS was welcomed, but the intention in the recommendation was to recommend continued support and that the Minister should oversee that support. The two points appeared the same but there were differences.

He added that point 11 under recommendations made a similar statement in a different context.

The Chairperson suggested that the secretariat correct the report .

The Secretary stated that it was for the Committee to indicate what it wanted done but he noted that the dtic was already giving support and the Committee was recommending that additional support be given. In both the first point and the 11th point, reference was made to support that was being given by the dtic at the time. Was the reference intended to refer to additional support?

Ms T Mantashe (ANC) stated that no 11 in the concluding remarks was correct but she proposed that it not be repeated in the recommendations.

Mr Thring agreed with the removal of the recommendation but suggested that item 11 in the concluding remarks include the words “…encouraged dti to continue offering monitoring and support …” That would say what the Committee wanted to say in the concluding remarks, i.e. that the Committee recognised the current support but encouraged that it be an ongoing process.

Mr Mbuyane stated that the two points were different. In the concluding remarks, the point referred to the support in terms of a close relationship but in the recommendations, it was about recommending support for the implementation of the turnaround strategy. He would be happy to combine the two points, but it had to go under recommendations. The two entities were giving the Department nightmares so the Committee was recommending that support should continue.

The Chairperson noted that it was a grammar issue but the question was whether to make the point as a concluding remark or as a recommendation. He suggested that the latter proposal be accepted as Mr Mbuyane believed that the point would be more strongly made if it were a recommendation.

Ms Mantashe stated that she heard Mr Mbuyane’s suggestion but that she pleaded with him that the turn-around strategy be made in point 11 of the concluding remarks.

The Secretary stated that he had added a point about the turnaround strategy as a second conclusion point and read out the reworked points.

The Chairperson asked whether it captured Mr Mbuyane’s point.

Mr Mbuyane was happy that both points were being made – current support and continued support.

The Chairperson noted that the amendment had been accepted. He read the following recommendation about the dtic playing an active role in the investments garnered by the President during his campaign to raise investments in SA.

The Secretary noted that similar points were made in the concluding remarks and in the recommendations.

Ms Mantashe stated that she believed the point should be made in the conclusion only.

The Chairperson requested that the point under concluding remarks be strengthened.

Mr Mbuyane asked how the Presidential Investment Conference affected the point as the President had commented on the role currently being played by the dtic in the investment process.

The Secretary suggested a strengthened point. It was accepted by the Committee and the recommendation was removed.

Resolution
The Chairperson put the 2020 Trade, Industry and Competition Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report to the Committee.

Mr Mbuyane proposed the adoption of the BRRR with the amendments made.

Mr M Cuthbert (DA) stated that his party, the DA, reserved its right to vote until the Report had been taken to the DA caucus and that the party would vote on the Report in the House.

The Chairperson stated that he was technically abstaining.

Mr Cuthbert stated that he was not abstaining but reserving the right to vote.

The Chairperson explained that he had understood what Mr Cuthbert was saying but he had used the procedural term of abstention.

Ms Mantashe seconded the proposal.

The Chairperson noted Mr Cuthbert’s point and that there were no objections. He declared that the Committee had adopted the 2020 Trade, Industry and Competition Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report.
                                                         
Process of the Selection of NLC Chairperson
The Chairperson noted that at the previous meeting, the Members had received the short-list and the long-list of candidates for the position of Chairperson of the Board at the National Lotteries Commission (NLC). Since that meeting, one short-listed candidate had opted to step out of the process. That had initiated a process and he had written to the Minister to request the full list of CVs of applicants which he thought should be presented to the Committee. The Committee would have to go through the CVs of applicants to replace the candidate who had stepped out. He recommended that the Committee consider the CVs so that the interviews could go ahead as scheduled the following week.

The Chairperson added that there had been further communication, i.e. a letter from the Chief Whip of the EFF, and a legal opinion linked to the matter raised, which had been circulated to Members. He repeated that it meant that the Committee would consider the CVs of applicants to shortlist a candidate to replace the one that had stepped out.

He stated that a meeting had been arranged for 16:00 on Friday 20 November 2020 to consider the CVs. He repeated his previous remarks.

Mr Cuthbert found it strange that the parliamentary legal opinion had reached the Committee so quickly in comparison to the last one that the Committee had requested which had taken over two months to arrive. He asked why the EFF was not at the meeting to present the letter and to explain the party’s reasoning. Had the Chairperson received a response from the Minister regarding the legal opinion that the Chief Parliamentary Legal Adviser, Adv Z Adhikarie, had sent to the Committee? He was asking about the Minister’s right to respond to the allegation that he had not followed due process.

He said that the DA reserved its right to consult with its legal advisors to ensure that the meeting going ahead the following day was a legal meeting. He considered it important that the legal opinion was confirmed and that the Committee did not act in haste. He asked for a response from the Chairperson.

Mr Cuthbert asked who the candidate was that had withdrawn. The Committee had the right to know who it was and the Chairperson was obligated to inform the Committee. Had the candidate cited any reasons why he or she did not want to avail him or herself of the opportunity to be interviewed for the position?

Ms Mantashe asked for clarification of the Committee’s responsibility. The legal opinion stated that it was the Committee’s responsibility to shortlist and not that of the Minister. What was going to happen in respect of the shortlisted candidates? She added that it was not possible to consider all the applicants in one day and to come up with a candidate who could be interviewed on the Tuesday.

Mr Thring agreed with Mr Cuthbert that the Members should be informed as to which candidate had withdrawn. That was important. He stated that the legal services should guide processes such as interviews and appointments. It appeared from the legal opinion that the Committee should have determined the short-list and not the Minister. There needed to be a checklist of the guidelines for processes in Parliament such as appointments.

Mr Thring added that the Men’s Parliament was taking place the following day and he was attending. The Men’s Parliament started at 14:00 and would only conclude late in the afternoon or evening. He also did not know at what time he would be speaking as he did not have the programme, but he doubted that he could make the Committee meeting at 16:00 the following day.

Mr F Mulder (FF+) stated that it was quite clear that the correct procedures had not been followed and that the Committee had to ensure that the correct processes were followed. It would not be a fair process to push the whole process through to meet the interview date of 24 November 2020. He suggested that the Committee re-commence the whole process and do it right. If there were something wrong with the remaining candidates, the process would not even be possible. The Committee should start the process again.

Mr Mbuyane stated in terms of section 3(3) of the Lotteries Act and the legal opinion, the entire process had to be nullified. If there were only two candidates proposed by the Minister and the Chairperson was suggesting that the Committee add a third candidate to the short-list, the whole process was wrong. He requested that the Committee acquire the information/CVs and then start the process afresh. There was no need to rush as the Committee would be making a further mistake.

He added that the process had taken a month to come from the Department to the Committee. It could not take the Committee seven days to conclude the process. If need be, someone should act in the position until the appointment was finalised.

The Chairperson reiterated the process since the last meeting. Firstly, he had received information that candidate Prof Thuli Madonsela had withdrawn from the process, leaving two candidates recommended by the Minister. It might be necessary to confirm that the Committee was permitted to confirm a replacement candidate and proceed with the process. It was important to confirm that process at the proposed meeting of Friday 20 November 2020. The legal team confirmed that the process could be combined. He conceded that the process followed by the Minister was wrong. He thought that it should be possible simply to replace the candidate who had stepped down.

He added that at the meeting scheduled for the following day, Members could raise their questions about continuing the process, but if it had to be re-started, that should be confirmed by the legal team. Thereafter, the Committee could take a decision.

The Chairperson requested that two hours be found the following day to hold the meeting, thereby accommodating Mr Thring, if 16:00 was a challenge for him. He suggested meeting at 11:00 or 12:00. He understood that the Committee was within its right to manage the process further, having received the shortlist from the Minister. At that meeting, the procedure to be followed could be confirmed.

Mr Cuthbert was confused by the Chairperson’s remarks as, according to Parliament’s Legal Advisor, the Committee should re-commence the process and do its own short-listing. The Chairperson was saying that the Committee should replace Prof Madonsela.

He added that his party, the DA, was happy to attend a meeting the following day to listen to legal counsel but he wanted the Minister and the Department also to address the Committee as he was sure that they would have acquired their own legal opinion.

However, Mr Cuthbert noted that there would be a problem as there was a three-line whip for the DORA (Division of Revenue Amendment) in the morning, so Members would be conflicted if they were required to attend a Committee meeting, and in the afternoon was the sitting of the Men’s Parliament, which needed to be taken into consideration. He suggested that the meeting be pushed out to the following week.

Ms Mantashe was concerned that the secretariat had been instructed to obtain a legal opinion and the Committee had been given an opinion. The opinion stated that the Committee had flouted an Act. That flouting of the Act meant that the Committee had to go back again and shortlist and then provide the names to the Minister. Adding to the two names currently on the shortlist would not do any good. Why did the legal services have to come back to the Committee when it had already given an opinion?

Mr Mbuyane stated that the process was clear. There was no need to rush for meetings the following day while Parliament was in session. A meeting should be constituted for Tuesday 24 November 2020. All documentation should be sent to Members before that meeting. If there was a three-line whip, it would be incorrect in terms of parliamentary procedure to call a Committee meeting.

The Chairperson noted that there was a proposal on the table that the Committee re-convene on Tuesday 24 November 2020.

Mr Mulder stated that he agreed with Mr Mbuyane, as that was exactly what he had suggested, i.e. that the process be started over and that there was no need to rush.

The Chairperson noted that the decision was to convene a meeting on Tuesday 24 November and the matter on hand would be whether to continue or re-start the process. He noted that Members had a differing interpretation of the document from his interpretation, so it would be necessary for the legal team to attend the meeting to assist the Committee to determine the way forward.

The Secretary stated that he would ensure that the legal team was available for the meeting. He would alert candidates that the process was on hold until further notice.

Mr Mbuyane could not understand why the Committee had to consider whether to continue or re-start the process. That would mean that the Committee did not agree that, in terms of the Act, the processes had been flouted. He suggested that the Committee should start the process afresh at the meeting on Tuesday.

The Chairperson was adamant that understandings of the legal opinion varied and therefore the Members’ understanding of the opinion had to be confirmed. The Committee would also look at the process moving forward at that meeting.

Concluding remarks
There being no further matters, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting. The following meeting would be on 24 November 2020.

The meeting was adjourned.
​