Paul Janisch

ZungGwabber politely assessed by Chris Barron. And the ICT Charter

(Sandile Zungu's) contemptuous attitude to BEE hand-outs is rich given that he himself was only too keen to accept what would have been one of the biggest hand-outs in the history of BEE through a stake in the Ayigobi consortium which he was invited to join shortly before it scored an R800-million deal with ArcelorMittal SA.

Sadly for him, and for one of Zuma's sons who was another member of the well-connected consortium, the deal went sour.

Zungu was widely reported at the time as conceding that it was "money for jam".

He denies that he said that, but there is little doubt that he is, in the words of BEE authority Reg Rumney, "one of these guys who's always been in the right place at the right time". (Yes but will he when Zoomer is booted out?)

via www.businesslive.co.za

The contemptuousness refers to Prasa's Lucky Montana telling Zungu and his BBC ilk to mind their own business when it comes to the fleet renewal tender.  A little different to what I thought the BBC were up to with the Prasa fleet renewal programme. They are a complete waste of time.  

On the subject of a waste of time (even though we will have to waste our time with it), Rob has gazetted the ICT Charter under section 9 (1).  Gazette number 35423.  He's known about it for two months plus - now we know about it.

Chris van Wyk on sector charters

This is an email I received from Chris van Wyk of AQRate, which I requested as a response to my post on sector charters.  It seems that he is writing in his AQRate capacity and not that of an ABVA Board member. You'll notice that he's coming from a procedural perspective where he argues that because the minister did not gazette the words "the TRANSPORT SUB-SECTOR CODES are binding on all stakeholders operating in the TRANSPORT Sector within which the Sub-Sector Codes apply" in the 9(5) gazetting this paragraph cannot have any legal effect.  His argument does not concur with Levenstein on the invalidity of the certificate in question.   Chris's comments are italicised below - I thought it prudent to include his disclaimer.

Herewith my response to SANAS:

I take note of the e-mail from Keith Levenstein. I am not aware of the circumstances that lead to the issuing of the certificate. I do however attach for your attention an opinion I did quite a while back on the applicability of the sector Codes. AQRate is accredited to conduct verifications on all sector codes and the matter is neither here nor there for us as we do not stand to lose business for lack of accreditation. The opinion that follows is merely my considered opinion on the entire matter as a legal professional.

The Codes clearly state that a sector code and the generic codes have equal status. Although the notice to the sector codes contains a paragraph to the effect that all business in the particular sector need to apply this sector code – this provision is not contained in the sector code itself but in a paragraph just above the Minister's signature on the Notice to the Code. It was not gazetted with the 9(5) notices to these sector codes and can therefore not be applicable.

Given the status of the Codes and its provision that a sector code and the generic codes have equal status – any attempt to give the sector code more status is in our view ultra vires.

AQRate advises all clients in such a sector to have the sector Codes verification done as opposed to Generic Codes verification. But in theory issuing a generic codes certificate to an entity in such a sector is not unlawful as is suggested by Keith Levenstein.

Even if my opinion, as highlighted above, were disregarded one cannot argue that because a particular business falls within a sector governed by a sector code, that it is unlawful for that business to have itself verified in terms of any other general Code of Good Practice or any other sector Codes for that matter, as long as the certificate in question clearly states the Code in terms of which the verification was done. At best the recipient of that certificate, be it a client of the measured entity or a tender board, is at liberty, as they are in any event, to reject the particular certificate and request a certificate be furnished to them in terms of the applicable sector code.

The entire BEE programme is voluntary and the fact that a particular company for example falls within the transport sector does not mean that it is obliged to have itself measured in terms of the transport sector or any sector for that matter. When it elects to have itself measured in terms of a Code other than the transport sector code, neither it or its verification agency will be acting unlawfully in conducting such a verification, as long as they clearly declare on the face of the certificate the Code in terms of which the verification was conducted. If they don't, the furnishing of such a certificate could be regarded as a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the measured entity's BEE status.

Off course, it is incumbent upon the verification agency in question to disclose its scope of accreditation to its client and also to advise appropriately. I don't know the facts around the particular case well enough to say whether the particular verification agency was at fault with this or not.

Kind Regards

Chris van Wyk

CEO

AQRate (Pty) Ltd / Tel: 021 914 9451 / www.aQrate.co.za

This e-mail and attachments relating thereto, is intended for the abovementioned recipient/s. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify the sender and delete it immediately as it contains information relating to the official business of AQRate, which is confidential, legally privileged and proprietary to AQRate. AQRate does not own and/or endorse any other content. The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being those of AQRate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt whether I am only person who knows that Keith Levenstein's opinions tend to veer on the side of the sensational without a proper consideration for sense, fact or logic. The email he sent to SANAS and the verification agency shows a complete lack of understanding of a subject that he has professed himself to be an expert in. In fact the numerous postings on his website and newsletters (which for some or other reason I am now receiving) are sometimes so ridiculous that you cannot but laugh. The problem is these newsletters are being circulated and people read them.  

The real question here is – can a person who sends such damning emails be taken seriously by the authorities? I have my grave doubts that they do.

When does a sector charter apply?

What do you do when you receive an email written by a man of great stature and genius.  So intimidating is his knowledge that I feel humbled to have been sent this email by a concerned third party.  I have edited it a bit to protect the innocent.

From: Keith Levenstein 

Subject:  invalid BEE certificate

I have spoken to some of the other staff at your company about this invalid certificate.

COMPANY A is a transport company, and should have been assessed using the transport sector and associated sub-sector codes.

I am extremely concerned that verification agencies continue to issue certificates based on the codes that they have accreditation for, without due regard for the sector code that the client falls into.   There is absolutely no discretion on the part of the measured entity, nor on the verification agency to use the wrong codes just because you have not yet received an extension of scope. You should have informed the measured entity of your inability to perform the requested verification.

The certificate is therefore invalid, and continued deliberate and public usage of that certificate by the measured entity will constitute deliberate misrepresentation of their BEE position. 

Please ensure that you immediately withdraw that certificate by informing the measured entity and ensuring that they withdraw the certificate from their web site, and they inform all their clients who rely on that certificate. You should inform all verification agencies that if they come across this certificate it is invalid and cannot be used in the procurement calculation.

How can I, a mere mortal comment on this short piece of brilliance.  If Mr Levenstein says this then we can be sure that he understands the law and is totally correct in making such a pronouncement - my goodness, this man is more than a genius, why he's a concerned citizen/good samaritan too.

So with this knowledge weighing heavily on me I will attempt to show that perhaps Mr Levenstein is just a tad misguided and a total  ignoramus (as I have suggested on this blog before).

What exactly is the status of charters and when is a company compelled to follow them?

We have to look at the primary legislation here which is the B-BBEE Act.  The Act actually clearly states when a code of good practice (as gazetted under section 9 (1)) must be considered.  This is contained in section 10 of the Act.

10. Every organ of state and public entity must take into account and, as far as is reasonably possible, apply any relevant code of good practice issued in terms of this Act in—

(a) determining qualification criteria for the issuing of licences, concessions or other authorisations in terms of any law;

(b) developing and implementing a preferential procurement policy;

(c) determining qualification criteria for the sale of state-owned enterprises; and

(d) developing criteria for entering into partnerships with the private sector.

The two highlighted "entities" (for want of a better word) are defined in section 1 of the Act viz.

"organ of state" means—

(a) a national or provincial department as defined in the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999);

(b) a municipality as contemplated in the Constitution;

(c) Parliament;

(d) a provincial legislature; and

(e) a constitutional institution listed in Schedule 1 to the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999);

"public entity" means a public entity listed in Schedule 2 or 3 to the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999);

Seeing that the Act is silent about other entities that don't fall under this definition they MUST be excluded from section 10.

Now let's move onto the DTI"s generic codes.  They've taken this one step further in code 000, statement 000, paragraph 3 

3.1 The following entities are measurable under the Codes;

3.1.1 all public entities listed in schedule 2 or schedule 3 (Parts A and C) of the Public Finance Management Act;

3.1.2 any public entity listed in schedule 3 (Parts B and D) which are trading entities which undertake any business with any organ of state, public entity or any other Enterprise;and

3.1.3 any enterprise that undertakes any business with any organ of state or public entity:

3.1.4 any other enterprise that undertakes any business, whether director indirect, with any entity that is subject to measurement under paragraph 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 and which is seeking to establish its own B-BBEE compliance.

A cursory reading of this would show that 3.1.4 makes it voluntary for those entities not doing business with an organ of state or any public entity.  The voluntariness of BEE is not going to be discussed, it is now common cause that it is particularly difficult to do business without a BEE certificate.

Legally then, if you are not doing business with those two entities then you can produce a BEE scorecard using any code (although I would recommend you use the DTI's generic codes as your default one) and a company should have no reason to reject it.

BUT HOLD ON - WHY DOES THE TRANSPORT SECTOR CODE SAY....

...the TRANSPORT SUB-SECTOR CODES are binding on all stakeholders operating in the TRANSPORT Sector within which the Sub-Sector Codes apply.

This is because it applies to section 10 of the Act.

WHAT THEN TO DO?

It doesn't take a great deal of forethought or insight to come to this conclusion so I think Mr Levenstein was talking a little but out of turn.  So out of turn that I can't but not ask the question "who the hell does he think he is, and what legal right does he have to send such devoid-of-fact emails?"

My recommendation to the verification agency concerned is that they send him a very stern letter of a legal nature requesting him to retract this email and issue a public apology.  I would even consider some other form of legal action because this email has certainly placed a question mark on that verification agency's integrity.    

As far as the client is concerned - this email has also placed a fair amount of doubt about their own commitment to BEE.  There would have to be commercial considerations to this.

I would NOT retract the verification certificate as Mr Levenstein was insistent that they do, and if Mr Levenstein is aggrieved or affronted he too may make use of a competent legal practitioner and perhaps a court date.  

King III and the B-BBEE codes of good practice - repost

King III's effective date is today.  Time to get those boards in shape.  This is a repost from last November.

The long awaited King III report was launched on September the 1^st this year and will come into effect on the 1^st of March, 2010.  It is expected that King III will assist companies in their compliance with the new Companies Act that should be promulgated in July 2010. 

King III is a framework that all companies should follow in their pursuit of good governance.  Its ambit has been extended to all entities regardless of the manner and form of incorporation in any sector, public, private or non-profit.  It aims to set standards for leadership, sustainability and corporate citizenship.  Instead of legislating the requirements (as the Americans have done with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) it instead opts for an “apply or explain” regime.  This then allows boards to make decisions that might not be in keeping with King III recommendations but are in fact in the best interests of that entity.  The rationale behind these decisions are then required to be recorded to satisfy the stakeholders in that entity.  King III is at pains to point out that the ultimate compliance officer are the stakeholders.

Whilst King III is applicable to all entities, because of its intrinsic relevance to boards and board members its BEE application is limited to those entities that are generic entities.

Code	Exempt	QSE	Generic
DTI	R0-R5m	R5m-R35m	R35m+
Tourism	R0-R2.5m	R2.5m-R35m	R35m+
Construction (BEPs)	R0-R1.5m	R1.5m-R11.5m	R11.5m+
Construction (Contractors)	R0-R5m	R5m-R35m	R35m+

 From a board perspective the management element is concerned with black representation, both from a voting rights perspective and the percentage of black people on those boards.  The table below shows the DTI’s generic management code with the top management aspect eliminated as this is not significant to King III.

Management Control (top management excluded)
Description		Compliance Target
	Board participation
Exercisable voting rights of black board members using the adjusted recognition for gender (ARFG)		50%
Black executive directors using the adjusted recognition for gender (ARFG)		50%
	Bonus points
Black independent non-executive board members			40%

King III does not make any specific reference to voting rights but it is very vocal about the percentage of non-executive and executive directors.  It recommends that each board should have a minimum of two executive board members (who should at least be the CEO and CFO) and that the majority of the board should be non-executive.  The thinking behind this is that an executive director should not be in a position to exercise an undue influence over other executive directors who are employees of the company.  Furthermore the majority of non-executive directors must be independent.  One of these independent non-executive directors must be the chairman.

If a board is pursuing points under the management element they might want to follow this example of a board of five people.

• Each director should have an equal number of votes
•  At least two of the directors should be black women
•  If there are two executive directors one of them should be a black woman
• Of the remaining directors two should be independent non-executive directors and one of those should be the chairman. 
• One of the independent non-executive directors must be a black person

 We will be hosting a breakfast session in March on King III and BEE.  If you would like more information email me. 

There are a few other acts that have a bearing on the behaviour of directors.  I am going to do a lot more research on this and post something as soon as I have - I think it might be found within the King report.

FNB rethinks 'racial' bursaries - hmmmm

Solidarity took FNB to task about their allocation of education bursaries for employees' children. The November issue of Treetalk (FNB's newsletter) offer financial support to children of African, Indian, Coloured and Chinese employees earning less than R100,000 a year.   This is a very well reported story indeed. 

I'm not in the way of getting involved in politics and I am no fan of trade unions so I'm not going to discuss the merits of Solidarity's complaint.  The thing that I picked up on was the comment on meeting with FNB CEO Michael Jordaan and Solidarity's  Dirk Hermann

The union said yesterday that during talks between Dirk Hermann, deputy general secretary of Solidarity, and FNB CEO Michael Jordaan, it had been agreed that the bank would include whites in allocating bursaries if the law allowed for such a step.

Apparently FNB had been advised by lawyers

According to legal advice obtained by FNB at the time regarding the transaction, those who benefit from black empowerment must exclusively be black.

LEGAL ADVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You paid for legal advice of this quality?  I think you were ripped off Michael.  The correct advice goes along these lines. 

Paragraph 3.2 of code 700 (DTI) clarifies what socio-economic development contributions are.   It is 3.2.2 that is most important here:

 The full value of SED contributions made to beneficiaries is recognisable if at least 75% of the value directly benefits black people.

Even the FSC implicitly concurs with this paragraph

13.2    CSI means projects aimed primarily at black groups, communities and individuals that have a strong developmental approach and contribute towards transformation.

You don't have to consult your dubious lawyers Michael - you can happily go ahead and include white people in this scheme and still earn your BEE points.  Any B-grade BEE consultant or verification agency could have told you this.

I know there are those (like my odd cousin and friend Joe) who feel that this is perfectly fair, after all whites did it to black people during Apartheid.  I don't agree, we as South Africans have a responsibility to invest in the future of all South Africans.  This country is still suffering under that policy with low education and literacy levels.  And this will always be a burdon on the country and tax payer.

Michael - you charge me R0.50 (fifty cents) for every email I send to people when I pay them from my FNB bank account.  I don't mind if you continue ripping me off with these excessive charges if you have an equitable CSI policy. 

 

ABVAcuousness

I was sent an email by Louis McLaren telling me that the certificate I issued might not be accepted.  I sent him a mail back telling him that it was perfectly legal in terms of notice 32467.  I then got a response from him telling me that a VA would not accept it because ABVA says it won't.  I then mentioned that the VA is not in a position to decide who are what certificates are acceptable.  I have blogged about this in a great amount of detail before.

I need to stress that Louis is a highly respected man in this industry - he is not part of this tirade.  At all times he kept the name of the VA away from me.

This dimwit (who is nameless to me) has a similar intelligence level to Bright Matonga  - in fact I'll call him/her that name.  This is Bright's response (peppered with my comments.

"His statement that no verification agency may decide what to accept or not clearly shows ignorance on the side of the individual in question.

Really?

It is the precise function of a verification agency to decide on the validity of evidence presented to it by a measured entity.  The procurement official of that measured entity may have decided what to accept as sufficient proof for its procurement purposes but for verification purposes verification agencies have to make their decisions within the context of a legislated regime which prescribes what is acceptable evidence or not.

Questionable legislation.  Tell me Bright have you actually read the verification manual?  It is a document drafted by someone who might be marginally cleverer than you.  The English and exemplary BEE knowledge of the drafter/s make for comedic reading indeed.  Here are but two examples

• Establish the existence (?) proof through the AMP201 (page 64).  What the hell is an AMP201?  It doesn't exist in a South African legislative context.  I somehow think they are referring to an EMP 201.  If Bright's drafter friends don't even know this then what are they doing drafting this riveting document?
• There are no local production (5.4.6.1 - page 69).  Lovely stuff - something my corporal might have uttered and he made no bones about the fact that he spoke English very reluctantly.  Bright, could you be my old corporal?

Whilst it might be regarded as "law" for now - everyone knows that this document would be thrown out of a court of law. 

The decision of the verification agency can therefore not be arbitrary but must have a sound legal basis.  The interpretation of ABVA on the particular matter is based on the current legislation issued on the matter.  Although controversial, it is the only interpretation that stands the test of legality.  I would love to hear the legal - not policy or emotional argument, for the view adopted by this individual.

Yes Bright this is ABVA's interpretation.  Confirmed to me by Andile (is BEE really my strongpoint?) Tlhoaéle.  And this is the most important point - it is not a point endorsed by the DTI or SANAS.  Whilst Andile avers that it has some legal backing because of the definition of a verification agency in R47-02 it still lacks legitimacy.  And this is another perfect example of ABVAndalism and ABVAingloriousness. 

I suggest he starts off by providing me with the legal definition of the term "unaccredited verification agency" that does not result in an absurdity"

I just did you knucklehead.  And I have a little news for you I have heard the Sipho Zikode asked the question why your little association should be the only one that gets to play BEE god.  He suggested at a recent meeting that SAICA, ACCA or any other association should also represent their members who are VAs.

My advice to you Bright is wake up, read the gazetted legislation and then work your pathetic little backside off from the 1st of February next year, because you are going to have to do about 50 verifications a day.  In the meantime stop hiding behind ABVA's skirt tails and service your clients not your immature ego.

Comment from Kevin Lester on Advisory Council

Kevin commented on my Zuma appoints members of BBBEE Advisory Council post. It's too good to leave buried away under comments so I've reblogged it.

I am thrilled by the composition of the Advisory Council - not one BEE consultant, not one verification agent and not one member of the team that drafted the Codes - finally an opportunity for an un-conflicted regulator. Chantyl Mulder was a member of the committee that drafted the Accounting Professions Charter, but she is an extremely level headed and capable person who is unlikely to be conflicted, even if that charter becomes a Sector Code.

Eltie Links, Wendy Lucas-Bull, Jerry Vilakazi, Sandile Zungu, Don Mkhwanazi and Claudia Manning all have extensive business experience. Big business in South Africa could not hope for a better "representative" than Lucas Bull who ran FNB before going out and co-building a not unimpressive BEE Investment house (Peotona that now holds some pretty impressive shareholdings, including a stake in De Beers)

But, all things being equal, a DTI that serves, an ABVA and NABC that is being watched, and my old friend Sandile Zungu up there, I have no complaints at all. Indeed, safe hands are finally completely on the wheel – I must say, with a team like this, I doubt very much that the (real or imagined) influence peddlers are going to be happy with this outcome.

But, if I have any complaint, I wonder why those with experience in establishing and managing genuine viable broad-based groups are absent from the team. People like Clifford Elk (MIC), Kgotso Schoeman (Kagiso Trust), Tanya Slabbert or Sonja Sebotsa (Women's Development Bank) and (my shareholder) Salukazi Dakile-Hlongwane (Nozala).

Also some people who manage BEE compliance from within major corporates would also have been useful, and I think particularly here of Nolitha Fakude, who's absence from this Council is notable.

In the interests of ensuring consistency in policy, I think it might have been useful for the President to co-opt Philisiwe Buthelezi from the National Empowerment Fund, but perhaps her role will be like that of the BEE Unit of the DTI, which is (I assume) to guide and support the Council.

But that said, I am still very impressed.

(ENDS)

Oy, Zumachine Gun - if you're reading this do as Kevin says (this is Paul writing).

The changing face of BEE deals as per FM?

Taken from an FM article on BEE investment houses who end up being benificiaries of deals and their overall performance.  The article concludes that BEE deals need to evolve, suggesting perhaps that a move toward entrepreneurship and away from passive hand-out involvement.

Recent broad-based empowerment deals from the likes of SAB, Tiger Brands and Adcock Ingram point to a changing trend in the structuring of black economic empowerment (BEE) deals. The tide has swung away from those that favour one black company or group of individuals. "The BEE deals of today are different to the way they were structured five years ago," says Sanlam Investment Management portfolio manager Ricco Friedrich. "Staff and related communities are now the preferred beneficiaries in deals that are broad based. They are more sustainable than the kind that favoured the usual suspects'. Those are dead in the water."

And then there is this quote from Jenny Cargill of BusinessMap.

"Current policy has effectively placed a 25% ceiling on BEE equity ownership. The acquisition of controlling interests by BEE investors is no longer evident and this has led to a more opportunistic character to BEE ownership."

I have always noted the sterility of the 25% target.  Once you set a target then people go for it and rarely exceed it - ask any sales manager.  Could this be why jungle (speaking predictably out of turn) is suggesting a 30% equity target by 2017?  Got to love his exemplorary knowledge of BEE and affirmative procurement.  And why not leave this post with a quote from my esteemed aficianado

Manyi said the BMF was changing its focus to concentrate on ownership, affirmative procurement and enterprise development instead of employment equity.

Does this mean that it's his other hat as DoL DG that will be looking after the EE side?

Zuma appoints members of BBBEE Advisory Council

I just got a call from Mzwandile Jacks telling me about the BEE Advisory Council that's just been announced.  This is what it looks like

1. Minister of Trade and Industry, Rob Davies.
2. Minister of Labour, Membathisi Mdladlana
3. Minister of Economic Development, Ebrahim Patel
4. Minister of Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities. Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya.
5. Professor Mohammed I. Jahed, professor of macro-economic policy, economics and public finance at the Wits University Graduate School of Public and Development Management.
6. Prof Eltie Links, a professor extraordinaire at University of Stellenbosch Business School
7. Wendy Lucas-Bull, a businesswoman and the founder of Peotona Group Holdings
8. Andile Lungisa, Chairperson of the National Youth Development Agency
9.  Sebenzile Matsebula, an independent consultant and former Director in the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons in the Presidency
10. Jerry Vilakazi, chief executive officer of Business Unity South Africa
11. Dumisani Mthalane, a member of the National Working Committee of the South African National Civics Organisation
12. Ellen Tshabalala, a business and management consultant with expertise in small, medium and micro-sized enterprises development, banking and marketing.
13. Adv Matshego Ramagaga, Vice-President of Black Lawyers Association
14. Tsakani Matshazi, President of the Association of Black Accountants and Vice-President of the Confederation of Black Business Organisations
15. Sidumo Dlamini, President of the Congress of South African Trade Unions
16. Sandile Zungu, businessman with extensive experience having served in various companies at a senior level including NAIL and Denel.
17. Don Mkhwanazi, a former president of the Black Management Forum
18. Dr Claudia Manning, businesswoman
19. Chantyl Mulder, senior executive for transformation and growth at the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants, who has served as facilitator of the BEE Charter process amongst other work on economic transformation.

It's the required 19 people with the exeception of the President who is required in terms of section 6(a) of the BEE Act.  I wonder if this will have an impact on the legitimacy of the council.

I would have liked to see more business representation.

Jacob Zuma on plans for economic transformation

Zuma's ANC letter beautifully precised by Moneyweb as "ANC president responds to the concerns raised by the BMF over Eskom and other SOE's". 

A few features/quotes

• One of the key focus areas of the ANC government is economic transformation.
• We emphasise that the creation of decent work will be at the centre of our economic policies and will influence our investment attraction and job-creation initiatives.

To achieve this, we said we would utilise state levers such as procurement, licensing and financial support to assist small and medium enterprises as well as to promote the implementation of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) and affirmative action policies. These policies must not just benefit a few but should be extended to a broad section, especially the workers, youth, women and people with disabilities.

(You know where licensing comes in - good old section 10)

And then a reference to the BMF (who now deny that they ever suggested Bobby is racist, but they want the board to resign).  And now for a post within a post.  This is from November the 9th (Business Report) in which they called for the resignation of the board and threw in a few choice epithets.

Mnyaka said the problems at the power utility stemmed from an ideological disconnection between the strategic imperatives of the ANC government and the board led by its chairman Bobby Godsell, as well as lack of clarity between his and Maroga's role. She added that Maroga was a victim of "anti-transformation people with a racist agenda" at the electricity parastatal.

'nuff sed about that.  Back to Zumachine Gun

• Our meetings with black business sensitised us to some actions of government which serve to hamper the development of small entrepreneurs. One of these is the delays in paying small businesses.
  
  During the election campaign we said we would change the way in which government works, and that we would ensure faster delivery. Treasury Regulations on the approval of expenditure in government states that unless determined otherwise in a contract or other agreement, all payments due to creditors must be settled within 30 days from receipt of an invoice or, in the case of civil claims, from the date of settlement or court judgment.
  
  We have instructed all government departments to comply with this regulation without delay.
• To further streamline our transformation work, we are currently in the process of appointing a BBBEE Advisory Council which in terms of the BBBEE Act will be chaired by the President of the Republic. This process should be completed in a few weeks’ time. The Council’s responsibility will be among others to advise government on black economic empowerment, monitor implementation and review progress in achieving black economic empowerment.

That's about it.  You can read the whole thing here.