Tag: bill

MultiChoice denies R33bn Nigerian tax bill

Source: News24

MultiChoice has disputed reports that it was ordered by a Nigerian appeal tribunal to pay 50% of a 1.8 trillion naira (R66 billion) disputed tax backlog imposed on it by Nigerian authorities.

MultiChoice had to pay the R33 billion as a deposit and condition of the pay-TV company’s case being heard, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) says in an emailed statement on Wednesday. Bloomberg reported that the case has been adjourned for hearing on September 23.

But MultiChoice Nigeria said in a statement that the direction issued by the tribunal does not compel Multichoice Nigeria to make payment of 50% of 1.8 trillion naira, being half of the disputed tax assessment which is under appeal.

“The direction issued by the TAT in accordance with paragraph 15(7) of the Fifth Schedule to the FIRS Establishment Act requires Multichoice Nigeria to deposit with FIRS an amount equal to the tax paid by Multichoice Nigeria in the preceding year of assessment or one half of the disputed tax assessment under appeal, whichever is the lesser amount plus 10%.

“The lesser amount is the tax paid by Multichoice Nigeria in the previous assessed year which is substantially less than the disputed assessment.”

The company said it continues to engage with FIRS in an attempt to resolve the issue.

Last month, Nigerian authorities ordered local banks to freeze Multichoice’s accounts the unpaid tax. FIRS executive chairman Muhammad Nami said the decision to freeze the accounts was as a result of the group’s under-remittance of taxes and continued refusal to grant FIRS access to its servers for audit.


Source: Supermarket & Retailer

The opposition Democratic Alliance has tabled its Ease of Doing Business Bill which is aimed at cutting and reducing red tape associated with doing business in South Africa.

The private member’s bill specifically aims to deal Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA) and the impact and cost that new regulations will have on the economy.

“Following a study into the lack of understanding of the full cost imposed by regulatory measures and the impact thereof on the economy, the South African cabinet in 2007 decided that a need exists for the consistent assessment of the socio-economic impact of regulatory measures.

“The presidency consequently issued guidelines on the conducting of Regulatory Impact Assessments in 2012, which guidelines provided for a Central Regulatory Impact Assessment Unit to be housed in cabinet under the deputy president in order to coordinate the development of Regulatory Impact Assessments.

“However, no clear compulsory measures were provided,” the DA said.

Why these measures are needed

Assessing the impact of regulatory measures, from policy through to delegated legislation, before a final decision is made to implement that regulation will improve the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of government interventions, the DA said.

It said that conducting an evaluation of regulatory measures allows:

  • The integration of multiple policy objectives and ensuring linkages of policies such as industry, competition, trade, SMME and B-BBEE, thus promoting early coordination of policies;
  • The enhancement of competitiveness by reducing regulatory burdens;
  • The increase of transparency and consultation when developing regulatory measures;
  • The increased involvement and accountability of decision-makers at the highest political levels when developing regulatory measures; and
  • A tool for policy monitoring and an evaluation benchmark for monitoring and evaluation processes although it is not synonymous with programme/project monitoring and evaluation.

“Specifically for developing countries red tape impact assessments have the potential to contribute to poverty alleviation by reducing business entry costs and creating a regulatory environment that is friendly to small businesses, thus driving economic growth,” it said.

It added that a number of countries including the United States, the Czech Republic, Republic of Korea and Mexico have similar rules in place.

“It is necessary for South Africa to entrench this duty in legislation as it allows for certainty, uniformity and the establishment of a central RIA unit.

“Legislation also allows for the involvement of parliamentary oversight over this important function.”

The DA said that the draft Bill provides for:

  • The establishment of a central administrative unit to manage the RIA process. It also provides for the fiduciary duties, functions, powers and reporting duties of the RIA unit. One of the functions of this unit will be to provide for assistance to businesses in overcoming red tape;
  • The evaluation of new regulatory measures. In this regard, the draft Bill places responsibilities on ministers, members of Parliament, parliamentary committees and self-regulatory bodies when developing regulatory measures. It also provides for the mapping of such regulatory measures to determine whether a RIA is required and if so, the process to be followed. The draft bill will also provide for instances that are exempted from these processes;
  • The evaluation of existing regulatory measures by Ministers and self-regulatory bodies. It further requires the development of a plan to reduce red tape and the costs thereof in existing regulatory measure.

Bill to nationalise Reserve Bank re-introduced

Source: Eyewitness News

The reintroduction of the bill comes at an awkward time for President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is on an investment drive to boost an ailing economy.

An opposition politician’s bill to nationalise the South African central bank that spooked investors when first unveiled a year ago has been revived and referred back to lawmakers, parliamentary papers showed on Tuesday.

The reintroduction of the bill comes at an awkward time for President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is on an investment drive to boost an ailing economy. He has to juggle his pro-business approach with left-leaning elements of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) that want to legislate for land expropriation without compensation, among other policies.

Introduced by leftist politician, Julius Malema, in August last year, the bill lapsed when a new Parliament was elected in May. Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) were one big winner, gaining 19 new seats.

When initially introduced, the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill put pressure on the ANC to go through with a plan it shelved in 2018 and rattled markets wary of threats to the central bank’s independence.

The ANC has said any plans to nationalise the bank will be done responsibly and not affect the institution’s mandate or independence. Reserve Bank governor Lesetja Kganyago has previously warned that the ownership debate was increasing investor uncertainty and pushing up the risk premium attached to the country’s debt.

Unlike most central banks in the world, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) is privately owned. The ANC resolved at a party conference in December 2017 to move it into full state ownership.

Malema’s private members bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for further deliberations and public input before the lower house of parliament votes on it. If passed, it would normally then go to parliament’s upper house for approval before Ramaphosa signs it into law.

Malema, however, believes it is not necessary to refer the bill to the upper house, which could hasten its passing.

Sandton Gautrain station still without water

By Kgomotso Modise for EWN

The City of Jo’burg said that the water supply would not be restored at the Gautrain station in Sandton until it received an R8-million payment from property company Cedar Park.

Water supply was cut off two weeks ago after the company apparently failed to pay municipal rates since 2013.

The matter was in the High Court on Friday and the property company has been given two weeks to make a payment.

Joburg Mayor Herman Mashaba said the city could not give Cedar Park preferential treatment.

“We’ve got our residents out there who are financially suppressed, we don’t know why the previous administration made such a deal with Cedar Park.”


Discovery takes aim at controversial NHI bill

After the publication of the NHI Bill on Thursday last week, medical aid behemoth Discovery has released a statement regarding how they will tackle negotiations to keep private medical schemes part of the healthcare landscape.

The controversial Bill could spell the end of medical aids – and Discovery Health alone employs more than 4 000 people.
According to a recent Business Tech article, there are currently 8.9-million South Africans covered by registered medical aid schemes.

The statement from Discovery reads:

The extent of negative sentiment from press, investment markets and other stakeholders has been substantial. Discovery continues to study the Bill and to engage with numerous stakeholders, and their views will evolve over time. In the interim, we feel it is important to share current views with our clients.

The NHI is a huge, complex and multi-decade initiative and a considerable amount of debate and effort will be required to make it workable. Discovery’s overall position on NHI is unequivocal: we are supportive of an NHI that assists in strengthening and improving the healthcare system for all South Africans – little is more important. You will know that we have consistently expressed our support and made our capabilities available for its development. We are committed to assisting where we can in building it, and making it workable and sustainable. Of course, debates about its timing, affordability, execution and more will no doubt be complex.

A central issue that we are close to and upon which we must comment is the future role of private healthcare and medical schemes – what it means for medical schemes to provide “complementary cover ” to the NHI and when this will take effect. Our strong view is that substantially limiting the role of medical schemes would be counterproductive to the NHI because there are simply insufficient resources to meet the needs of all South Africans – this is an unavoidable reality.

Limiting people from purchasing the medical scheme coverage they seek will seriously curtail the healthcare they expect and demand. This will erode sentiment, denude the country of skills and impact the economy. Crucially, by preventing those who can afford it from using their medical scheme cover, and forcing them into the NHI system, this approach will also have the effect of increasing the burden on the NHI and will drain the very resources that must be used for people in most need. This would be detrimental to all South Africans, and would undermine the objectives of the NHI as we understand it.

While this is our strong view, the Bill needs clarification since it makes the point that the “complementary role” for medical schemes will only apply once the NHI is “fully implemented”. It defines “referral pathways” to which it will apply, indicating that where patients choose not to follow the referral pathways, the NHI will not reimburse their care, and that they can then claim from private health insurance. The Bill clearly gives rise to different interpretations – we will engage actively and constructively on this issue to ensure that the important role of medical schemes and private healthcare remains part of the healthcare system, together with the NHI. We provide more technical detail on the role of medical schemes within the proposed NHI below.

Having said this, we remain deeply confident that the resulting environment will be rational and workable. Our plans for Discovery Health and for the Discovery Health Medical Scheme remain the same. If anything, the future will be more complex and the need to invest in capabilities and technology are likely to increase substantially. That is what we plan to do.

Discovery is committed to playing its role in building a positive future – for our members, South Africa’s doctors and healthcare professionals, and for all South Africans.

The role of medical schemes as envisaged in the NHI Bill
The Bill contains only one paragraph (Section 33) referencing the role of medical schemes. This paragraph indicates that “once National Health Insurance has been fully implemented as determined by the Minister through regulations in the Gazette, medical schemes may only offer complementary cover to services not reimbursable by the Fund”.

While it appears as if the intention of the Bill is to prevent schemes from covering services provided by the NHI, we believe that in reality, medical schemes should and will continue to cover all of the healthcare services which they currently cover for the foreseeable future. We believe this to be the case for the following reasons:

– There is no clear definition of services to be covered by the NHI, and it appears that this definition will be expanded on an incremental benefit and geographic basis, with an initial focus only on primary and maternity care and other high priority services for vulnerable populations.

– Even for the limited initial definition of NHI benefits, we expect the actual implementation of universal coverage to be considered and deliberate, as there are extensive financial, legislative and administrative challenges to be overcome, as the Minister and other policy makers have acknowledged.

– There is uncertainty as to when the NHI will be considered “fully implemented”. In our view, given the constraints, it is likely that this point is most likely to be quite far in the future.

– The specific language of the Bill is open to interpretation. The Bill states that medical schemes cannot cover services “reimbursable” by the NHI. At the same time, the Bill clearly states that to obtain reimbursement, patients will have to follow the ‘referral pathway’ dictated to them by the NHI’s contracted providers. If patients decline to follow these referral pathways, their care will not be reimbursable by the NHI. When read together, the Bill appears to accommodate medical schemes being able to fund any services that are not reimbursable by the NHI due to patients choosing not to use NHI pathways. This would ensure that medical schemes are “complementary” and continue to absorb the current costs which they carry.

– We believe that the limitation of the rights of citizens to purchase additional health insurance, even after they have contributed to the NHI, would be globally unprecedented and inappropriate. As noted above, we believe that this approach will actually harm the NHI by draining resources from those most in need.

– In virtually every other country with some form of NHI or equivalent nationally funded healthcare system, citizens are fully entitled to purchase additional private health insurance cover, including cover that overlaps with services covered by the national system. A restriction on choice of medical scheme cover is not dissimilar to limiting the rights of citizens to purchase private education for their children or private security, on the basis that the public system already provides state schooling and security services.

– We will of course engage actively with the policy makers directly, and via the Health Funders Association, and BUSA, with the aim of addressing these specific issues and are optimistic about a positive outcome to these engagements.

The financing of the NHI system
The Bill makes no reference to the likely costs of the NHI once fully implemented but senior Department of Health officials have been quoted as estimating a total cost of approximately R245 billion in 2019 terms. This presumably refers to the incremental cost of the NHI over and above the current R223bn national budget for healthcare. Over 85% of the current budget is allocated to the 9 provinces and funds the current public healthcare system. Any fundamental change that improves quality and access and that is able to contract private providers will therefore require substantial additional funding. We understand that National Treasury will soon be publishing a costing document, and that this is likely to be based on an incremental approach to providing NHI benefits.

In our view, the government faces significant challenges in securing the funding required to implement the envisaged NHI, including the current and likely future fiscal constraints facing government.

The Bill specifies that payroll taxes and a surcharge on personal income tax could be considered as sources. Such taxes would need to be determined by National Treasury. At the presentation of the Bill, the Minister of Health indicated that no tax changes are envisaged over the 3 year period of the current Medium Term Expenditure Framework.

The Bill also refers to a redirection of the current medical scheme tax credit, which would effectively increase personal income tax revenue to the fiscus by approximately R17bn. The Provisional Report of the Health Market Inquiry argued for a restructure of the tax credit to create a greater income cross subsidy. We do not expect an immediate abolition of the medical scheme tax credit, but do expect National Treasury to continue to cap the nominal Rand value of the tax credit each year, as has been the case for the past two years.

Department of Health officials have also suggested that government could fund the NHI by removing the current medical scheme subsidy provided to government employees, which is worth approximately R30bn. This is obviously possible but would be a material change to the employment conditions of public sector employees and their trade unions.

In summary, there are material challenges to raising new revenues to supplement the current government budget for healthcare, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. This in turn implies that the roll out of the NHI as envisaged will be constrained unless there is a substantial improvement in the country’s economic prospects.

The role of private hospitals and health professionals
The Bill envisages that the NHI Fund will contract on a voluntary basis with private hospitals and professionals and other services to supplement the current public sector delivery system. The NHI Bill provides limited detail on how the procurement of services from private providers will be carried out. The lack of substantial additional funding noted above will constrain the ability of the NHI to procure extensively from private providers. Overall, for the foreseeable future we expect that the NHI will contract with some GPs to supplement its public primary care services, and also that it will contract for certain high priority services to address specific gaps in public sector provision. If this is achieved, it will already be a significant step forward. Beyond that, we expect that the vast majority of NHI services will continue to be delivered by public sector clinics and hospitals, and that private hospitals, specialists and other providers will continue to be funded by medical schemes.

It is our strong view that we have a brilliantly committed, highly skilled and world-class healthcare professional community in South Africa. These professionals work hard, provide excellent care and are committed to our country. We will work hard to defend their rights to fair remuneration, to an optimal working environment that promotes sustainability and ideal patient care, and to retaining and supporting them within our broader healthcare system.

The NHI Bill Process
The NHI Bill will now be tabled in Parliament, implying that a Portfolio Committee process will commence, allowing for public consultation. Discovery will participate actively in the parliamentary process through BUSA and BLSA, as well as the Health Funders Association and on its own account.

It is also expected that there will be a parallel process within NEDLAC, which will create further opportunities for engagement and influence over the final content of the Bill.

It also appears that the Minister intends engaging actively with stakeholders and this will create opportunities to engage on these vital issues. There are good indications that the current Minister is open to the potential for public private partnerships, and we welcome the opportunity to partner in delivering on the vision for a stronger and more accessible healthcare system for all South Africans.

Following the Portfolio Committee process, the Bill will be debated in the National Chamber of Provinces and the National Assembly. We thus do not expect the Bill to be promulgated until early 2020 at the earliest, and are optimistic that we can work with the policy makers to secure a positive result in the final NHI Bill and for the implementation of the NHI itself.

The cost of the NHI

The much-maligned National Health Insurance (NHI) bill has been tabled for Parliament’s consideration. Plans to prevent its rollout are already well underway, as medical professionals and opposition political parties vehemently oppose the proposals.

NHI in brief

  • Opponents believe that NHI would essentially be another state-owned entity – potentially failing, like Eskom, Denel and SAA
  • The taxpayer will fund the NHI
  • General tax revenue will include transferring funds from provincial health budgets to the NHI Fund
  • Taxpayers’ medical scheme fees tax credit will be reallocated to the NHI Fund
  • A payroll tax (employer and employee) will be implemented
  • A surcharge on personal income tax will be implemented
  • The bill obscures what the NHI rollout would cost, but three figures include R165 billion, R259 billion and R450 billion
  • There are roughly 21 million taxpayers in South Africa
  • Only 30% of them – about 7.6 million people – are actually registered to pay tax or sit above the annual income threshold
  • Taxpayers would pay between R7 857 and R21 428 per person for NHI
  • If everyone in South Africa had to contribute, they would pay between R2 807 and R7 656 per person

You could be jailed for lying on your CV

By Tom Head for The South African

The National Qualifications Amendment Bill is not here to play, ladies and gentlemen. The adjustment to the existing legislation comes with some pretty stern updates, which aims to clamp-down on dishonesty from applicants who embellish the truth on a CV.

The South African Qualifications Association (SAQA) will be charged with monitoring the registered qualifications of each citizen in South Africa. That’s quite the task for such a modest regulatory body, but the ANC has voted the move through in Parliament.

What is the National Qualifications Amendment Bill?

Cyril Ramaphosa now has the final say on what happens next – it’ll be his decision on whether the government should plough ahead with the proposals should they remain in power after Wednesday 8 May.

The bill isn’t likely to impact working-to-middle class workers too much, but it will serve as a deterrent to citizens applying for high-profile jobs. Executives, CEOs and even our politicians will be subject to rigorous background checks. If they are found to be lying about their educational history, stiff penalties await:

“Any person convicted of an offence in terms of this act is liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term of no longer than five years, or to both a fine and such imprisonment.”

“Any person, educational institution, board member or director may be ordered to close its business and be declared unfit to register a new business for a period not exceeding 10 years.”

Lying on your CV could soon be a serious legal issue

The punishment is not retroactive – so if your name is Jacob Zuma or Hlaudi Motsoeneng, you can breathe a sigh of relief. But if Ramaphosa decides to give this the green light, you may well have told your last porkie on a resume.

As IOL report, 97 national qualifications and 95 foreign qualifications were misrepresented between last October and November. That increased the total number of fraudulent applications up to 1 564 over the past 10 years.

The bill also aims to publish a “name and shame” list for those who try and push their luck just a little too far. So, if your CV is looking a little bare at the moment, try and think outside of the box – and not outside of reality.


Source: Fin24

The rand briefly broke below R14.00 to the US dollar following the news that Parliament’s portfolio committee on public works withdrew its expropriation bill on Tuesday.

The public works committee said in a short statement that it “officially resolved, in accordance with Joint Rule 208 (2), to reject (withdraw) the Expropriation Bill [B4D of 2015] so that it may be re-introduced at a later stage”. The bill is separate to the review of section 25 of the Constitution currently under way to make it possible for the state to expropriate land without compensation.

The rand, which immediately firmed to R13.95/$, returned to trade 0.06% firmer at R14.15 to the greenback by 17:13 in Johannesburg.

Important to note is that the expropriation bill existed before the latest processes on land expropriation and was referred back to Parliament by former president Jacob Zuma, who said consultation around the bill was inadequate.

Zuma returned the bill to parliament in 2017 due to inadequate public participation for the bill.

During its December conference, the ANC and its delegates agreed that expropriating land without compensation should be among mechanisms to effect land reform.

The condition was that expropriation should not undermine the economy, agricultural production and food security.

The constitutional review committee is due to report back to Parliament regarding its findings from the nationwide hearings on expropriation soon.

The controversial Films and Publications Amendment Bill, labelled by some as the “Internet Censorship Bill”, has been passed by the National Assembly.

According to the Parliamentary Monitoring group, the Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 6 March and will now be transmitted to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) for concurrence. After that it heads to the desk of the president to be signed into law.

The Bill is supposed to address the shortcomings of the Films and Publications Act of 1996, but has come under fierce scrutiny since it was first gazetted, with many calling for it to be overhauled for infringing on freedom of speech.

The Bill aims to make changes in order to provide for technological advances, especially online and social media platforms, in order to protect children from being exposed to disturbing or harmful media content. It also aims to curb revenge porn and hate speech.

According to Eyewitness News, opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) criticised the legislation saying it amounts to censorship and may be unconstitutional. The vote in the National Assembly was reportedly 189 in favour, 35 against with no abstentions.

Opponents of the Bill in the past voiced concerns over the vague and broad terminology used; stipulations that would see the Film and Publication Board (FPB) overstepping into the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa’s (ICASA’s) regulatory jurisdiction; and that it contained constitutional infringements on citizens’ right to privacy and freedom of expression. Last year, the FPB made some changes to the Bill after it received many comments from the public and industry players.

Source: ITWeb 

The Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, John Jeffery, said the country’s new Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill will be tabled in Parliament soon.

The Bill has already been approved by Cabinet.

“The Bill aims to put in place a coherent and integrated cybersecurity statutory framework to address various shortcomings which exist in dealing with cybercrime and cybersecurity in the country,” stated the SA Government website.

The purpose of the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill is to:

  • Create offences and prescribe penalties;
  • Further regulate jurisdiction;
  • Further regulate the powers to investigate, search and gain access to or seize items;
  • Further regulate aspects of international cooperation in respect of the investigation of cybercrime;
  • Provide for the establishment of a 24/7 point of contact;
  • Provide for the establishment of various structures to deal with cybersecurity;
  • Regulate the identification and declaration of National Critical Information Infrastructures and provides for measures to protect National Critical Information Infrastructures;
  • Further regulate aspects relating to evidence;
  • Impose obligations on electronic communications service providers regarding aspects which may impact on cybersecurity;
  • Provide that the President may enter into agreements with foreign States to promote cybersecurity; and
  • Repeal and amend certain laws.

How it will affect you

Michalsons law firm has published an overview of the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill, explaining why we need it and who will be affected by it. The bill is aimed at keeping South Africans safe from cybercrime and consolidates the country’s cybercrime laws into one place.

People who will be affected by the new bill include “everyone who uses a computer or the Internet”, along with:

  • People involved with IT or POPI compliance;
  • Electronic Communications Service Providers;
  • Providers of software or hardware tools that could be used to commit offences;
  • Financial services providers;
  • Owners of copyrights and pirates;
  • Information Security experts; and
  • Anyone who owns an Information Infrastructure that Government could declare as critical.

What the bill deals with
The bill creates around 50 new offences, which are related to data, messages, computers, and networks, said Michalsons.

These offences include:

  • Using personal information or financial information to commit an offence;
  • Hacking;
  • Unlawful interception of data;
  • Computer-related forgery and uttering; and
  • Extortion or terrorist activity.

The penalties for these offences range from 1-10 years in prison or up to a R10-million fine.

The bill also aims to protect critical infrastructure of a strategic nature from interference and disruption.

This infrastructure includes that which aids in keeping the country’s security, defence, and law enforcement operational; and provides essential services.

Powers to investigate

“The Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill gives the South African Police and the State Security Agency extensive powers to investigate, search, access, and seize just about anything – like a computer, database, or network,” said Michalsons.

As part of the requirements of the bill, the Minister of Police must establish a National Cybercrime Centre and a Cyber Response Committee, of which the chairperson will be the Director-General: State Security.

The Minister of Defence must also establish and operate a Cyber Command, while the Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services must establish a Cyber Security Hub.

Source: www.mybroadband.co.za

Follow us on social media: 


View our magazine archives: 


My Office News Ⓒ 2017 - Designed by A Collective