Trevor Manuel has made the press recently, I must be the last person to talk about it. The original transcript is here. He was interviewed by the Financial Times (of the FTSE fame). The interview deals mostly with SA's current economic climate and is geared toward a potential international investor.
The press and other commentators really seem to have got our Trev out of context. I think it's a very balanced view. Some of the the BEE-related stuff he spoke about was:
- The delay in the gazetting of the codes. Manuel suggests that in the interregnum (the period between the first permutation of BEE - about 10 years ago, and the present time) a fair amount of BEE activity has happened and much of it falls foul of the gazetted codes. The review that Manuel refers to in this context is likely to mean a comparison of the codes and the practices that precede the gazetting.
- The complexity of reporting and cost of compliance. There is a suggestion here that all this complexity will erode the relationship between business and the government. He states that the procedure of the registration of a business from start to beginning is too costly and that this is being addressed.
The Employment Equity Act also gets a mention. Anyone who has ever submitted an EE report will know that it is a mountain of paperwork to wade through and submit. To quote Manuel "(it's) just a load of reports. You would have to simplify these things. You can’t maintain them. It shouldn’t be too long before this partnership with business says: But Mr President 'Who has read the last report?' You can just compel us to do these things when it isn’t having an impact at all.' I think just by its very nature there will have to be changes."
- Names vs contribution. Many deals are done with names because of their prominence in certain circles (government being the most notable). Manuel is of the opinion that these names are not required to actually contribute to the running and profitability of the business. I blogged about a similar thing a while ago
Manuel is right - there does need to be a review of BEE, but this isn't the only thing that needs reviewing. He mentions that a "regulatory impact unit in the presidency supported by the treasury (will be constituted) so that there would have to be a test on every piece of legislation. Secondary legislation which tends to go unnoticed would receive the same kind of treatment."
It seems that BEE was the most topical example - hence it being isolated.
Comments