Also reported by News24, Please sign the petition. The old chop is recommended to be chopped for Nkandla - that would be getting off lightly. I know the arrogANCe will ignore it but it all will help in chipping pieces of Zuma away - eventually we'll be left with an overactive member and a showerhead. What am I saying - that is all the substance that is Jacob Zuma.
Costs escalated from an initial R27-million to R215-million, with a further R31-million in works outstanding;
There was "uncontrolled creep" of the project's scope after Zuma's private architect, at Zuma's behest, assumed a second hat as the public works department's "principal agent". This meant he was conflicted, serving two masters with divergent needs;
Another four firms that Zuma had privately engaged for his own work were taken on by the department without following tender procedures.
AmaBhungane estimates that the Zuma appointees were paid more than R90-million by the state;
There were unsuccessful attempts by the department to apportion non-security costs to Zuma. Madonsela could not determine whether a document apportioning the costs reached Zuma;
The Nkandla upgrade was "acutely" more expensive than public works expenditure at previous presidents' private homes, by far the most expensive of which was Nelson Mandela's at R32-million (see graphic); and
Even genuine security measures, such as 20 houses for police protectors, a clinic and two helipads were excessive and could have been placed at the nearby town to benefit the broader community.
Two and everything's "mine". Not only is everything his but everyone else's possessions are also "mine". And for the record, his opinions are also "mine". Not that mine is a bad thing, if you want James to eat his dinner then all you need to do is take his food away and say "mine". He reclaims it very quickly.
Here we are approaching the terrible twos with much vigour – so much vigour in fact that he decided to start a little earlier, like six months' earlier. I'm only writing this now because I'm scared I might forget these strange tantrums, most of which end with him face down on the floor oblivious to who might be ignoring him at that moment. This is all normal and James is a very normal little boy. He's been mobile for the last year and at times can disappear very quickly. His affinity for his scooter makes this departure even faster.
Other than that he is a very affectionate younger brother who is closely watched by his older brother. He loves books and all that silly TV that we used to watch with Oliver that I hoped would disappear. Barney's back but might be playing second fiddle to Noddy and Thomas (the tank engine). Right now Thomas is HUGE!!!!!!!!!! And fortunately for us we have a Thomas book which goes to bed with him every night. The nightly routine involves reading the same(!) books, well not reading more like discussing the pictures. His favourites the RaaRaa book, pig book, bear book, and potty book. This would go on all night if I didn't find some excuse to put him in his cot.
Then there's the language, he's a complete mimic and is incorporating these words into his daily conversation. He knew Mama and Dada a long time ago but wouldn't say his brother's name. One morning whilst on holiday we were woken up by James' "Ahva, Ahva". He now knew his brother's name. We often hear him say "Ahva bath, or Ahva cry". And then there's Thuli and Shona. Shona is very important in his life and has taken a brotherly role which is very appreciated by James.
For me, James is the younger son every father could wish for. He is loving, affectionate, warm and has the most infectious laugh I have ever heard. He is a happy little boy who is loved by everyone around him. The terrible twos are upon us but there's probably more humour in them than anything else. He is a vital part of our lives and I look forward to everyday.
Happy birthday dearest JimJam and for the record you are MINE!!!!
The picture above is his aunt Frances and him reading the Raa Raa book. As I mentioned, still a firm favourite.
James' nominated musician is James Phillips. Did I mention that Mr Phillips babysat James' mother in the 80s? I only ever saw him once on the Voelvry Toer and I didn't know what I was seeing at the time. If you did the see the tour then perhaps you'll remember this.
The very first CD I ever bought (I'd bought vinyl up to that point) was Elmore James' greatest hits. I got into Elmore James via Jeremy Spencer and Fleetwood Mac. Jeremy was and still is a huge god of mine. Elmore is incredible and I recently attempted a performance of this song. My attempt to match Elmore's perfection is still a little lacking.
Minister of state security Siyabonga Cwele today warned that the publication of pictures of Nkandla is unlawful. This is rubbish. There is absolutely nothing in the (unconstitutional) National Key Points Act that prohibits the publication of pictures of a building declared a National Key Point. Otherwise the publication of all pictures of the SABC building would also be unlawful. So here it is again.
In October 2013, the DTI gazetted their latest BEE codes (gazette number 36928). These codes have courted controversy ever since they were published in draft format a year ago. The SED code ruffled a great number of feathers in its draft format, so much so that the DTI was forced to withdraw it and reverted back to the original code that was published in 2007. Those who now think the battle has been won should not lay down their arms just yet.
The issues with the draft SED code centred around two provisions. The first related to the fact that contributions had to be given to charities where the beneficiaries were 100% black (black being African, Coloured and Indians who were born in South Africa), the second related to the fact that contributions had to be made with the specific objective of "facilitating income generating activities", this is opposed to the 2007 code that spoke of "facilitating access to the economy". The first issue was the most problematic because proving blackness amongst the needy is difficult, if not impossible. The implication was the beneficiaries could be turned away because they did not satisfy the test for blackness. If you consider that the possession of an ID book is regarded as sufficient evidence then you'd be turning away millions of South African who either don't have ID books or might just have been born.
When the non-profit sector started raising the concerns the DTI responded with a sense of surprise, claiming that they weren't impinging on those charities' income generating activities. All they were saying is that corporates who have an SED and corporate social investment (CSI) policy need to follow the rules under the codes for SED points – they could continue doing whatever they liked doing under CSI. This statement exposed the DTI's fundamental lack of understanding when it came to corporate charitable contributions (and black economic empowerment in general). In almost every case a corporate has one policy for giving and that falls under socio-economic development – very few corporates have a separate policy that might be called CSI. When the sector pointed out that it receives the majority of its contributions under SED in exchange for BEE points the DTI back tracked and withdrew the code. The SED code under the new codes is very similar to the 2007 code but the feature about "facilitating income generating activities" has not been removed.
The ultimate withdrawal of the SED code is a hollow victory that the non-profit sector seems to be revelling in. The one issue that remains completely beyond their control is that the new codes are ridiculously hard to implement. On top of this the DTI have seen fit to raise the scorecard entry level from 30 to 40 points. In other words to become a level 8 contributor a company needs to reach 40 points. This is hard enough for most companies but when you consider that three of the five elements are priority elements and non-compliance with any one of them will push a company down a level then you see that a level 8 is incredibly difficult to achieve. The reader might be asking why this is of any concern to any cause that might be a recipient under SED. The answer is very simple – companies donate to causes in exchange for BEE points that will make a difference to their ultimate BEE score. If the five points that a charity might provide a corporate in exchange for a donation does not make any difference to their ultimate score or does not get them onto the scorecard the incentive to donate disappears. I predict that if these codes are not blocked by concerned society then we will see a substantial reduction in charitable donations within the next three years, with them drying up almost completely by 2018.
A further issue is that the DTI have still managed to set the requirement for SED as "facilitating income generating activities for beneficiaries". This after withdrawing the SED code in 2012 and stating in their press release that "in practice this means no change to the Socio Economic Developments elements (sic)". There are two problems here. The first involves mala fides where they withdrew the code yet inserted those words into the final codes. It would appear that only those words were changed, the balance of the SED code is the same as the 2007 SED code. This does cast doubt that the words could have been inadvertently inserted. Secondly this small insertion constitutes an amendment. All amendments need to follow the procedure contained in section 9(5) of the BEE Act.
(5) The Minister must before issuing, replacing or amending a code of good practice in terms of subsection (1)
(a) publish the draft code of good practice or amendment in the Gazette for public comment; and
(b) grant interested persons a period of at least 60 days to comment on the draft code of good practice or amendment as the case may be.
We don't have to accept this, what we can do is submit our objections about the codes to the DTI under section 5 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (96 of 2000). An application under section 5 is a formal request to the DTI to explain in writing why they believe that their administrative act (in this case the gazetting of 36928) will not detrimentally affect the non-profit sector. A proforma document can be downloaded here.
-----------------------------------------------
Paul Janisch is a black economic empowerment consultant, analyst and blogger who has taken exception to the new codes and is determined to have them set aside. If you would like assist in this process please phone him on +2783 227 1375 or email him.
If I cannot confess my sins on this public forum then where can I repent. I admit that I bought a new age newspaper (left in lower case to reduce my shame). I bought it at the nearest cafe to the gupta's gaff/kaya. They don't often stock this respectable publication but today they did. What caught my eye were the headlines from all the other newspapers which had Thuli Madonsela on their front page. the new agenda did not think it was necessary to run this story - they'd much rather talk about Wouter Basson. I then delved deeper into the newspaper and found no reference to Thuli either. There was a lot of good news about the AyneSee and a little bit about why McBride is the dog's bollocks.
Dear reader will you forgive me this cardinal sin? I do need the newspaper because we have a new puppy that does make a mess on the kitchen floor and this super absorbent newspaper will no doubt keep her captured too.
The Minister of Trade and Industry published the broad-based black economic empowerment codes of good practice (gazette number 36928) on the 11th of October 2013. The date of gazetting is the 2nd of October, 2013. The codes come into operation within twelve months of this date. The press release that accompanied the gazetting explained that
the revised Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Codes of Good Practice symbolise a new beginning in the re-orientation of the transformation policy to focus more on productive B-BBEE and the growth of black entrepreneurs through Enterprise and Supplier Development elements.
Gazette 36928 is a dramatic departure from the 2007 COGP (29617). The standard seven elements have been reduced to five elements of which three are regarded as priority elements that require each entity implementing them to meet a certain subminimum of points. A failure to do so will see that entity dropping a level in their ultimate score.
Revised elements
2007 Codes
2013 Codes
Element
Weighting (excluding bonus points)
Element
Weighting as per statement 000
Actual points as per each code (excluding bonus points)
Ownership
20
Ownership (priority element)
25
25
Management
10
Management control
15
19
Employment Equity
15
Skills development (priority element)
20
20
Skills development
15
Enterprise and Supplier Development (priority element)
40
40
Preferential procurement
20
Socio-economic development
5
5
Enterprise Development
15
Socio-economic development
5
TOTAL
100
105
109
Adjusted points
The points' allocation has also been adjusted, 40 points is now the minimum requirement for a level eight contributor.
Contribution Level
2007 Codes
2013 Codes
Recognition level
Level One
≥ 100 points
≥ 100 points
135%
Level Two
≥ 85 points but < 100 points
≥ 95 points but < 100 points
125%
Level Three
≥ 75 points but < 85 points
≥ 90 points but < 95 points
110%
Level Four
≥ 65 points but < 75 points
≥ 80 points but < 90 points
100%
Level Five
≥ 55 points but < 65 points
≥ 75 points but < 80 points
80%
Level Six
≥ 45 points but < 55 points
≥ 70 points but < 75 points
60%
Level Seven
≥ 40 points but < 45 points
≥ 55 points but < 70 points
50%
Level Eight
≥ 30 points but < 40 points
≥ 40 points but < 55 points
10%
Non-Compliant Contributor
< 30 points
< 40 points
0%
New thresholds
The three types of entities that exist within the 2007 codes have been retained but the turnover thresholds have been adjusted.
Entity
2007 Codes
2013 Codes
Exempt Micro Enterprise (EME)
Turnover less than R5m
Turnover less than R10m
Qualifying Small Enterprise (QSE)
Turnover between R5m and R35m
Turnover between R10m and R50m
Large enterprise (generally known as a generic entity)
Turnover in excess of R35m
Turnover in excess of R50m
Other distinguishing features
Black new entrants
The formal definition of a black new entrant is "black participants who hold rights of ownership in a measured entity and who, before holding the equity instrument in the measurement entity, have not held equity instruments in other entities which has a total value of more than R50,000,000, measured using a standard valuation method"
This threshold has been increased from R20m in the 2007 codes.
Promotion of contribution level based on race
100% black owned companies who turnover less than R50m are automatically promoted to a level one (in excess of 100 points). Those with more than 51% black ownership (who turnover less than R50m) are promoted to a level 2 (95-100) points. It follows that exempt micro enterprises with the same levels of black ownership will be promoted similarly. EME's with less than 50% black ownership are level 4 contributor.
Priority elements
Statement 000 declares that Ownership, Skills Development and Enterprise and Supplier Development are priority elements. Failure to meet a 40% sub-minimum of the points in each element will result in the entity's score being discounted by a level. If one or all of the priority elements falls below the designated thresholds then only a single level will be dropped.
Large entities must comply with all three priority elements. QSEs only have to comply with ownership.
Transitional period
Paragraph 10 of statement 000 permits measured entities to choose either the 2007 codes of good practice or the 2013 codes to measure their BEE compliance within the first year of the gazetting of the 2013 codes. Paragraph 10.3 maintains that statement 000 of the 2007 codes is also repealed.
It is submitted that paragraph 10 itself is ultra vires because the General Notice (the first page of the codes that the Minister signed) declares that "the codes will come into operation within twelve (12) months from the date of this publication". Chris van Wyk, a respected BEE analyst and legal practitioner opined the following
The effective date of the Revised Codes which, on page 1 of the Notice in terms of which it was issued, states that it will come into effect within 12 months from the date of the publication thereof (11 October 2013). Any practitioner of law reading that provision would tell you that that provision means that nothing in the rest of the 107 pages gazetted is operative until 11 October 2014. Clause 10 of Statement 000 of the Revised Codes however tries to introduce an opt in provision for those entities that would wish to be measured in term of the Revised Code for the 12 months from 11 October 2013 until 11 October 2014 when it becomes effective. Because this clause 10 is not effective itself until 11 October 2014, it loses all its meaning
In spite of this legal anomaly we are anticipating that at the very least EME certificates will be issued for companies turning over less than R10m within a very short space of time.
Empowering Suppliers
The inclusion of empowering suppliers in the Enterprise and Supplier Development element warrants special consideration. The Enterprise and Supplier Development scorecard requires that procurement be measured by the amount spent with Empowering Suppliers. This is procurement spend from QSEs, in excess of 51% black owned suppliers and 30% black women owned suppliers. The only entities that are excluded from the Empowering Supplier requirement are EMEs and Designated Group Suppliers that are 51% black owned. Paragraph 3.3.1 of code 400 (Enterprise and Supplier Development) states that EMEs and start-ups are automatically Empowering Suppliers.
Empowering Supplier Defined
The definition is long winded and is best understood in bullet point form
A B-BBEE compliant entity
A good citizen
A South African entity
Comply with all regulatory requirements of the country
A large enterprise needs to meet at least three of the following requirements, a QSE need only meet one of them
At least 25% of sales excluding labour cost and depreciation must be procured from local producers or local suppliers in SA. Service industry entities may include labour costs but these are capped to 15%.
50% of job created must be for black people provided that the number of black employees since the immediate prior verified B-BBEE measurement is maintained.
At least 25% transformation of raw material/beneficiation which includes local manufacturing, production and/or assembly and/or packaging.
Skill transfer to black EMEs and QSEs. This involves spending 12 days per annum of productivity in assisting those beneficiaries to increase their operational or financial capacity.
The requirements are onerous and might not fit within a company's natural business model. Companies who import goods will not meet requirements 1 and 4 and if they are large companies could never be regarded as Empowering Suppliers.
The onerousness aside – the burden of proof to establish Empowering Supplier status is overwhelming and can only be verified at a great cost. This cost would have to be borne by all Empowering Suppliers irrespective of level of black ownership.
Narrow-based measurement for black entities
The Minister is on record as saying that he wanted to reduce the cost of verification specifically to black-owned companies. It appears that only EMEs, 100% black owned EMEs and Black Designated Group Suppliers will be able to escape the cost of verification.
100% black-owned suppliers
If the company is an EME then they need only get obtain a sworn affidavit confirming that their annual turnover is less than R10m and the levels of black ownership. This applies to all EMEs and seems to involve them making a sworn affidavit to a commissioner of oaths. They no longer need an accountant's letter or verification certificate.
100% black-owned QSEs have to prove that they are an Empowering Supplier. This is in spite of what paragraph 5.3.3 of statement 000 says, namely
A QSE is only required to obtain an (sic) sworn affidavit on an annual basis confirming the following:
Annual total revenue of R50million or less; and
Level of black ownership
51% black-owned suppliers
The requirements to measure 51% plus black ownership are more stringent even for EMEs. The definition of a 51% black and black women owned company is contained in the definition section of 36928 (Schedule 1). Proving 51% black ownership requires the following
Black people hold at least 51% of the exercisable voting rights as determined under Code Series 100
Black people hold at least 51% of the economic interest rights as determined under Code Series 100
The entity has earned all the points for Net Value under Statement 100
This requires 51% black or black women owned to prove their level of black ownership under Code 100. This doesn't agree with the affidavit that is the requirement under paragraph 5.3.3 of statement 000.
51% owned QSEs also need to prove their Empowering Supplier status.
If the company is an EME then they need only get obtain a sworn affidavit confirming that their annual turnover is less than R10m and the levels of black ownership. This applies to all EMEs and seems to involve them making a sworn affidavit to a commissioner of oaths. They no longer need an accountant's letter or verification.
BEE Charters and 36928
There was talk that the DTI's generic codes should trump all other codes of good practice issued under section 9(1) of the B-BBEE Act. This has not happened in the new codes and the DTI has at long last cleared up the issue of whether a company may elect to choose any code it wishes when it measures its compliance. Paragraph 3.2.3 of statement 000 says
A measured entity in a sector in respect of which a sector code has been issued in terms of section 9 of the B-BBEE Act as amended, may only be measured for compliance in accordance with that code.
The biggest problem with the current sector codes is that they do not measure Empowering Supplier status and as such cannot be used for procurement purposes under 36928. It is therefore vital that the sector codes become aligned with 36928. However if any amendments are made to the sector codes then they have to follow the procedure prescribed in section 9 of the BEE act, which requires at least 60 days for the public to submit comments.
Unpublished statements under 36928
The following statements that exist under the 2007 codes do not form part of the 2013 codes. Schedule defines a variety of actions and entities that are associated with these missing codes, we must assume that they will be published at some stage. What needs to be confirmed is whether their publishing needs to follow the process contained in section 9 of the B-BBEE Act.
Statement 003 – Guidelines for developing and gazetting transformation charters and sector codes
Statement 004 – Scorecard for Specialised Entities (universities, not for profit entities etc.)
Statement 102 – Recognition in the sale of assets
Statement 103 – The recognition of Equity Equivalents for multinationals
Qualifying Small Enterprise scorecard
It's not clear whether this scorecard has been omitted or not. Schedule 1 defines a QSE as "an entity that qualifies for measurement under the QSE scorecard with a turnover of R10million or more but less than R50million". This implies that there is a specific QSE scorecard. However there is also a suggestion that QSEs will follow the proposed large enterprises scorecard with only ownership as a priority element and only having to prove one requirement to become an Empowering Supplier.
We have heard from the DTI that there is in fact a QSE scorecard which has yet to be published.
Code 100 – Ownership (Priority Element)
Ownership. Total points - 25
Description
Weighting points
Compliance Target
Voting rights
Exercisable voting rights in the enterprise in the hands of black people.
4
25% + 1 Vote
Exercisable voting rights in the enterprise in the hands of black women.
2
10%
Economic interest
Economic interest in the enterprise to which black people are entitled
4
25%
Economic interest in the enterprise to which black women are entitled
2
10%
Economic interest of the following black natural people in the enterprise
black designated groups
black participants in employee ownership schemes
black beneficiaries of broad-based ownership schemes; or
black participants in co-operatives
are entitled
3
3%
Involvement in the ownership of the Enterprise of black new entrants
2
2%
Net value
8
25%
Code 200 – Management Control
Management Control. Total points - 19
Description
Weighting points
Compliance Target
Board participation
Exercisable voting rights of black board members as percentage of all board members
2
50%
Exercisable voting rights of black female board members as percentage of all board members
1
25%
Black Executive directors as a percentage of all executive directors
2
50%
Black female Executive directors as a percentage of all executive directors
1
25%
Other Executive Management
Black Executive Management as a percentage of all executive directors
2
60%
Black female Executive Management as a percentage of all executive directors
1
30%
Senior Management
Black employees in Senior Management as a percentage of all senior management
2
60%
Black female employees in Senior Management as a percentage of all senior management
1
30%
Middle Management
Black employees in Middle Management as a percentage of all middle management
2
75%
Black female employees in Middle Management as a percentage of all middle management
1
38%
Junior Management
Black employees in Junior Management as a percentage of all junior management
1
88%
Black female employees in Junior Management as a percentage of all junior management
1
44%
Employees with disabilities
Black employees with disabilities as a percentage of all employees
2
2%
Code 300 – Skills Development (Priority Element)
Skills Development. Total points - 25 (including 5 bonus points)
Description
Weighting points
Compliance Target
Skills development expenditure on any programme specified in the Learning Programme Matrix for black people as a percentage of the leviable amount
Skills development expenditure on learning programmes specified in the Learning Programmes Matrix for black employees as a percentage of leviable amount
8
6%
Skills development expenditure on learning programmes specified in the Learning Programmes Matrix for black employees with disabilities as a percentage of leviable amount
4
0.3%
Learnerships, Apprenticeships and Internships
Number of black people participating in Learnerships, Apprenticeships and Internships as a percentage of number of employees
4
2.5%
Number of black unemployed people participating in Learnerships, Apprenticeships and Internships as a percentage of number of employees
4
2.5%
Bonus points
Number of black people absorbed by the Measured and Industry Entity and the end of the learnership programme
5
100%
Code 400 – Enterprise and Supplier Development (Priority Element)
Enterprise and Supplier Development. Total points - 44 (including 4 bonus points)
Description
Weighting points
Compliance Target
Preferential Procurement
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Empowering Suppliers based on the B-BBEE procurement recognition levels as a percentage of total measured procurement spend
5
80%
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Empowering Suppliers that are QSEs based on the applicable B-BBEE procurement recognition levels as a percentage of total measured procurement spend
3
15%
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Exempted Micro Enterprises based on the applicable B-BBEE procurement recognition levels
4
15%
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Empowering Suppliers that are at least 51% black owned based on the applicable B-BBEE procurement recognition levels as a percentage of total measured procurement spend
9
40%
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Empowering Suppliers that are at least 30% black women owned based on the applicable B-BBEE procurement recognition levels as a percentage of total measured procurement spend
4
12%
Bonus points
B-BBEE procurement spend from Designated Group Suppliers that are at least 51% black owned
2
2%
Supplier Development
Annual value of all supplier development contributions made by the measured entity as a percentage of the target
10
2% of NPAT
Enterprise Development
Annual value of all Enterprise Development and Sector Specific Programmes made by the measured entity as a percentage of the target
5
1% of NPAT
Bonus points
Bonus points for graduation of one or more Enterprise Development beneficiaries to graduate to the Supplier Development level
1
Bonus points for creating one or more jobs directly as a result of Supplier and Enterprise Development initiatives by the measured entity
1
Sub-minimum requirements
The 40% subminimum needs to be achieved in each of the three subdivisions of this element. The bonus points do not contribute to this subminimum target.
Subdivision
Total Points
Required subminimum
Preferential Procurement
25
10
Supplier Development
10
4
Enterprise Development
5
2
TOTAL
40
16
Code 500 – Socio-Economic Development
The socio-economic development requirement is largely unchanged from the 2007 codes. There are only two requirements to be met to earn the five points.
Contributions must be made with the specific objective of facilitating income generating activities for targeted beneficiaries.
75% of the benefits need to accrue to black people
When the code was presented to the public in October 2012 it was greeted with a great deal of concern. The two main issues were the raising of the percentage of beneficiaries to 100% black which was technically impossible to measure and the insistence that contributions must be made with the specific objective of facilitating income generating activities. After much protest the DTI withdrew the whole code. It is therefore strange that the term "facilitating income generating activities" remains in the new code.
Socio-Economic Development. Total points – 5
Description
Weighting points
Compliance Target
Average annual value of all Socio-Economic Development contributions as a percentage of the target
South Africa already has gender equality legislation including the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment and Employment Equity Acts, all of which seeks to have more women represented on executive structures.
Here's another piece of legislation that you'll need to add to the rather large list of legislation that you'll need to follow in order to become a good citizen and compliant with all regulatory requirements to ensure that you remain an empowering supplier.
Your company's motto should be "holier than thou art us"
These vignettes come from the minutes of presentation that our Li presented to some committee in parliament. This is what he told them (with the help of one or two others)
555 submission were received and analysed;
Consolidation of comments and engagements with the Presidential B-BBEE Advisory Council and other stakeholders; and on this subject
with regards to the analysis of the public submissions, there was a team working on each and every one of the submissions and changes were made where there were a large number of people commenting in the same manner.
The more skills development done, the higher the enterprise scored on that element and while it was not an absolute requirement, it was to the benefit of the enterprise.
with regards to new entrants, the increase to R50 million was done in order to ensure that more and more black people could be included in the B-BBEE in the years to come with the status and benefits of a new entrant.
the codes would kick in on October 2014 and the first assessment would take place in October 2015, which was a 12-month backward review.
the focus was not on ownership because even if ownership was changed in the economy, it did not mean that it would be a more prosperous society. Rather, growing the number of entrepreneurs was the way to do it, which was why 75% of the points were non-ownership points.
Admittedly I have been very selective about what I have chosen to put in this post, the rest of the stuff is just puffel and poppycock. The six selections that I have highlighted make for the most sensational blogging.
555 submissions. And then they consolidated the similar ones. We know that Udge and co were one of the companies whose submissions were accepted – because he told us. Why then were the comments from Anglo and pretty much everyone I know ignored. Were they in the minority? I think the answer lies in the second comment – "engagements with the BEE Advisory Council". This BEE Council is lacking in proper business brains and entrepreneurial capability. They also have too few (if any) white business people sitting on it. If white-owned businesses are the target market then surely it would make sense to have this racial sector adequately represented. I believe that legitimate comments that questioned these codes were ignored. And I also believe that there were many of these comments. I must return to a point I've made before, I also believe that a large number of comments came from companies who are now exempt from implementing the codes. But I've said this before.
Love the thing about skills development, Lionill forgot to mention that you need to apportion your skills' development spend according the race group of each person – a major omission I think. Yes a company will benefit from skills development but there are two problems with the 6% rule
You get less than 1% back from your SDL. The actual cost to a company is over 5% of payroll on black people alone. Don't forget that there are a lot of white and foreigner people working in South Africa. Their training is over and above this 5%. This is off the bottom line. And even if you spend that amount there is no guarantee that you'll get the points because they've limited what you can regard as skills development spend
Training in the workplace must benefit the workplace. You may recall a prior blog post where I postulated that FirstRand would need to spend about R18,500 on each black person's training every year. When are these people actually going to do some work? They'll be on courses all the time.
It's official – Sipho said it. We start issuing in October 2015.
The new entrants' thing is rubbish. It's giving those who got the first round of deals a second go.
But the focus is on ownership. Don't believe Lionel's propaganda. Please will someone send this to Mr October before October next year – here are those sections and their corresponding points that are concerned about ownership
Name
Points
Code 100 Ownership
25
Procurement
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Empowering Suppliers that are at least 51% black owned based on the applicable B-BBEE procurement recognition levels as a percentage of total measured procurement spend
9
B-BBEE procurement spend from all Empowering Suppliers that are at least 30% black women owned based on the applicable B-BBEE procurement recognition levels as a percentage of total measured procurement spend
4
B-BBEE procurement spend from Designated Group Suppliers that are at least 51% black owned
5
Supplier Development
Annual value of all supplier development contributions made by the measured entity as a percentage of the target
10
Enterprise Development
Annual value of all Enterprise Development and Sector Specific Programmes made by the measured entity as a percentage of the target
5
TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS THAT ARE CONCERNED WITH BLACK OWNERSHIP
58
We've been lied to and they continue lying to us. And this is the most alarming issue. We don't have to tolerate these lies and this arbitrary law making. Already there are EME certificates being issued under the new codes. I am sure that 100% black QSE affidavits are doing the rounds as well. And the DTI does nothing about this anarchy. We are going to stop them. I might not be able to prevent them from issuing more rubbish in the future but I am going to block these codes and I'm very far down the line in getting this right. If you are interested in my fight and you have a lean budget please submit a PAJA application. If you have a bit more money then I'll be contacting you.
