Blog - Page 3 of 30 - Dear South Africa

Parliament is forging ahead with a process aimed to amend the law to allow for the nationalisation of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB).

This comes after EFF chief whip Floyd Shivambu made a presentation on Tuesday night to a joint meeting of the National Assembly’s standing committee on finance and National Council of Province’s select committee on finance.

Shivambu’s presentation came almost three years after EFF leader – Julius Malema gave notice to Parliament to introduce the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill, six months after the ANC resolved at its December 2017 conference to nationalise the central bank.

The amendment bill could not be processed in the last term of Parliament and was recently revived for processing by the national legislature.

Chairperson of the standing committee on finance Joe Maswanganyi said the bill would be treated like any other bill introduced by a minister.

Select committee chairperson Yunis Carrim agreed that they would look at its content.

However, DA MPs Dennis Ryder and Willie Aucamp, who both serve on the National Council of Provinces, took issue that the NCOP was being involved in the bill’s introduction in the National Assembly and also raised the issue of its constitutionality.

They were overruled by Maswanganyi and Carrim since there was an arrangement in Parliament for committees of Houses to receive the introduction of bills and also to hold public hearings together owing to the Covid-19 pandemic.

In his presentation, Shivambu said as MPs they could individually introduce legislation, which should be discussed and once passed by the two houses, be taken to the president for assent.

He said MPs had the right to approach the Constitutional Court if what was contained in the bill was inconsistent with the Constitution.

Shivambu also said the South African Reserve Bank currently allowed private individuals, including non-citizens, to own shares and that the private shareholders had a role to play in the governance of the central bank, including receiving dividends from the bank’s profits.

He told the meeting that the bill was about the ownership of the bank.

“We appreciate the ongoing debate on the role and independence of the SARB but we deal with the ownership component,” he said, adding that there was nothing wrong with the mandate and role of the central bank.

Shivambu said out of more than 200 central banks worldwide, SARB was among the nine that still have private shareholders.

“By and large, the reserve bank is responsible for the reproduction of apartheid economic and financial inequalities. Significant shareholders are not people of South Africa and the majority are white people,” he said.

He insisted that the shareholders of the bank did not reflect the demographics of the country.

Shivambu said it was time the bank was owned by the country’s 57 million South Africans.

“In terms of the legislation we table, we set out three objectives. We are intending the state to be sole shareholder of shares of the reserve bank.

“We provide appointments of the board of directors, tenure of office of appointed directors and … whoever is minister will do so on behalf of a democratically elected government.”

He also said the finance minister would have the power to appoint directors of SARB.

Shivambu said the bank should no longer be owned by a group of individuals and that it should deal with the concentrated ownership and control in the banking and insurance sector.

“We need to take ownership of the reserve bank to guarantee true sovereignty and autonomy of our country and Parliament. From there we can debate the mandate of the reserve bank,” he said.

Shivambu said the 1994 democratic election had transferred political power but the economy remained in the hands of a few people.

“Today, we are presenting an important legislative milestone in the journey that will transform the South African economy,” he said.

Asked about legal issues surrounding getting the shares from private individuals and compensation, Shivambu said no rational court could grant billions in compensation.

He said there would be no massive financial gain accrued to the current shareholders of SARB as the highest dividend to shareholders was not above R1 000.

“There would never be a sound claim for compensation when we take over ownership,” he said.

Parliamentary legal advisor Noluthando Mpikashe told MPs that the bill in its current form would not pass constitutional muster.

“It is important to note that it does not stop the committee from processing the bill,” Mpikashe said, adding that as legal advisors they were not final arbiters.

Shivambu said issues of constitutionality should be raised at the end of the amendment process.

“No legal advisor can stop any bill from being tabled. It does not exist anywhere in the rules,” he said.

Shivambu also said the parliamentary process, which entailed public comments, should be allowed to take its course.

After some discussion, which saw Shivambu clash with Carrim, the MPs decided to advertise the bill to obtain input from the public.

25th August 2020

MBOWENI PRAISES SWIFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY APPROVAL OF 2 COVID-19 TAX RELIEF BILLS

Gaye Davis – EWN

The Disaster Management Tax Relief and Tax Administration Bills were passed without any parties objecting and will now go before the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) for concurrence.

The National Assembly has approved two COVID-19 tax relief bills.

The Disaster Management Tax Relief and Tax Administration Bills were passed without any parties objecting and will now go before the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) for concurrence.

The bills were tabled by Finance Minister Tito Mboweni with the emergency budget in June and provide for tax relief measures to help businesses, households and individuals deal with the economic impact of the pandemic and the lockdown.

Finance Minister Tito Mboweni commended lawmakers for swiftly dealing with the COVID-19 relief tax bills.

“The tax bills are never straightforward and to consider them under tight deadlines, through a new communications medium, makes it even more challenging, but I think you have risen to the challenge.”

Mboweni said that the crisis made it necessary to use the tax system to provide relief and support the economy as a whole.

Opposition parties, including the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Freedom Front Plus said that while they supported the bills, they believed that the relief offered was not enough to get the economy moving again.

The bills provide for, among other things, the deferred payment of taxes, a skills development levy payment holiday and increasing the tax-deductible amount of donations to the Solidarity Fund from 10% to 20%. The relief window’s been extended by two months and will apply until the end of September.

23rd August 2020

No environmental assessments needed for gas pipeline, water, electricity and solar infrastructure

Large-scale projects for the roll-out of gas, electricity, solar and other infrastructure projects will be given exemption from the need for environmental authorization in terms of notices gazette by the government on 31 July 2020.

This is certain to excite strong opposition from environmental lobby groups which have laboured for years to enforce compliance with the laws and regulations already in place.

Have your say here

But after nearly five months of lockdown, and an estimated 3 million jobs lost, authorities are under pressure to fast-track massive infrastructure developments to get the economy moving again. This has been suggested as one of the possible motivations for the proposed exemptions.

The National Environmental Management Act allows the minister to exclude certain activities and projects from the need to obtain environmental authorisation provided an “environmental management instrument” is developed that avoids, manages and mitigates environmental risks associated with the projects.

To all intents and purposes, this is a way of speeding up infrastructure development without having to go through the often agonising process of undertaking environmental assessments and approvals. Going through the usual environmental hoops can take several years, and that adds to the eventual cost of infrastructural development.

This does not mean, however, that environmental issues are neglected. The “environmental management instrument” is supposed to take care of that, though there is understandable suspicion that this may be a way of side-stepping environmental regulations imposed on all other projects that do not enjoy exemptions.

A series of environmental authorisation exemptions have been proposed that would cover virtually all major gas pipeline projects currently under consideration. This is achieved through the adoption of a generic environmental management programme for gas pipeline infrastructure.

Exemptions are also proposed for electricity transmission and distribution powerline infrastructure falling within certain geographical areas known as Strategic Transmission Corridors.

There are five primary corridors (and two extensions) for electricity transmission and distribution: from Limpopo to Gauteng; Gauteng to the Northern Cape; Gauteng to the Western Cape; Kwazulu-Natal to the Western Cape; and the Western Cape to the Northern Cape. Should more than 10% of the proposed electricity transmission and distribution powerline infrastructure fall outside these corridors, the entire project is subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations which were published in 2014.

A new environmental standard has been developed for these geographical areas which would exclude electricity transmission and distribution powerline infrastructure from having to obtain environmental authorisation. The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has also set management and mitigation standards that would exempt landcare, ecosystems and working for water projects from the need to obtain environmental authorisation.

The public is also being asked to provide input on procedures to be followed when applying for, and deciding on Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZ).

The opportunity for the public to comment closes on 4 September 2020.

23rd August 202023rd August 2020

SA seeks proposals for 2,000 MW of emergency power

South Africa has issued a request for proposals to procure 2,000 megawatts of emergency power, a step needed to help plug a severe energy shortage, the department of energy said on Saturday.

Source – Reuters

South Africa’s state-owned power utility Eskom has been forced to cut power regularly, hobbling economic growth in Africa’s most industrialised country as unreliable coal-fired plants struggle to generate enough electricity to meet demand.

Scheduled blackouts, known as load shedding, have resumed as South Africa has eased strict lockdown restrictions to contain the new coronavirus and has re-opened power-hungry industries, such as mining, in a bid to kick-start a weak economy.

During load shedding, which is meant to protect the national power grid from complete collapse, residents and businesses are typically left without electricity for a couple of hours at a time.

In December, South Africa issued a request for information (RFI) to source between 2,000 and 3,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity to be connected in the shortest time, at the least cost.

“All power procured under this programme is expected to be fully operational by not later than the end of June 2022,” the department said in Saturday’s statement, adding it expected to attract around 40 billion rand ($2.33 billion) of investment.

In February, Turkey’s Karpowership, one of the world’s largest suppliers of floating power plants, said it had submitted plans to provide “several” ships capable of alleviating the country’s power shortages.

The department of energy said on Saturday that bidders would need to conform to South Africa’s policies designed to broaden economic participation for the black majority and to make commitments to job creation and skills development.

21st August 202021st August 2020

New tax resistance threat to fragile SA

OPINION/EDITORIALS – FinancialMail

Thanks to the state’s handling of the lockdown, ours has become a country where the risk of rebellion has never been higher since democracy

South Africans — illicit cigarette smugglers, the ANC Women’s League and a smattering of EFF populists aside — may have been united in their delight at moving to a less restrictive level 2 lockdown this week, but that’s probably where the sense of national unity ends.

One of the harshest lockdowns in the world may have helped avoid a ghastly crush on hospitals, but it has left traumatic financial and social scars — and a country divided like never before.

It has birthed an unhealthy sense of us and them: ordinary South Africans versus rapacious political elites. This was illuminated starkly at the funeral of ANC stalwart Andrew Mlangeni, where not only did the politicians casually break their own rules on the number of participants at a funeral, but soldiers were photographed smoking — at a time when cigarettes were banned.

The response was predictable. When the Daily Sun interviewed people at a vibrant social gathering in the middle of the Joburg CBD afterwards, with alcohol in plentiful supply, they deemed it an act of rebellion against government hypocrisy. As one participant said: “They tell us to observe Covid-19 regulations and ban tobacco and alcohol sales, yet they smoke, drink and gather at funerals with more than 50 people.”

Thanks to the state’s handling of the lockdown, ours has become a country where the risk of rebellion has never been higher since democracy.

Last week, nonprofit Sakeliga released the finding of a new poll, in which 95% of respondents said the lockdown had reduced their willingness to pay tax. Six of 10 respondents said they’d even consider illegally withholding tax if it could end the lockdown quicker.

The social compact is precarious. As former SA Revenue Service executive Telita Snyckers wrote in the FM this week, the lockdown has given South Africans a “taste for insurgency — the danger of a tax revolt has never been greater”.

It means, says Sakeliga CEO Piet le Roux, that businesses are becoming “unusually motivated to decrease their tax payments”.

Le Roux’s argument — based on the poll — is that the corruption, mismanagement and harmful policies that accompanied the lockdown have created a “perfect storm” for tax morality in SA.

And it’s not just among individuals or small businesses. Le Roux says a senior executive at an “iconic” local company “considers paying tax in SA a possible violation of the American Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, since the money largely funds harm, mismanagement and corruption. While this interpretation is probably, legally speaking, incorrect, it is morally striking.”

It’s not hard to see why so many in the private sector — unlike public officials who suffered few salary reductions or job losses — feel so bitter. This is clear from the 61% of businesses that told Sakeliga they’d suffered big financial losses through the lockdown.

Now, the pandemic was always going to hurt incomes. But the way the state handled the lockdown — implementing rules without consultation, refusing to explain its decisions, and failing to crack down on corruption in its ranks — left a bitter taste.

Treating SA’s citizens — corporate and private — with such disdain, when they’re the ones who pay civil servants’ salaries, is a recipe for disaster. It’s not acceptable to keep the country in the dark over the science behind frightening Covid mortality models, nor to close ranks against tax-paying businesses when you’re likely to need their support now more than ever.

It’s unclear whether President Cyril Ramaphosa can mend this rift — but if he wants a shot at finding the money SA needs to survive, he’ll have to prioritise such a reconciliation.

17th August 202017th August 2020

Race-based employment targets on its way

Amendments to the Employment Equity Bill will enable minister to set targets for every industry.

Adriaan Kruger – Moneyweb

It will be interesting to see how businesses will react to some of the proposed amendments to the Employment Equity Act, which was to be tabled in the new parliamentary session before the coronavirus pandemic disrupted the parliamentary schedule.

One of the major changes in the proposed amendments to the act will enable the minister of labour to set specific numeral targets – based on skin colour – for different industries, sub-sectors and levels within a company. If companies don’t comply and don’t head warnings to comply, they can be fined up to R1.5 million or 2% of their annual turnover, whichever is greater.

A discussion paper on the Employment Equity Act Amendment Bill (EEAB) by Dhevarsha Ramjettan, partner at Webber Wentzel, and colleagues professional support lawyer Shane Johnson and associate Mbali Nkosi, says that the amendment bill follows the last report by the Commission for Employment Equity which revealed that top management, senior management and professional employee groups continue to be dominated by the white male population group across organisations in SA.

They noted that the report indicated that there has been some progress in making the workplace more diverse and representative. “However, massive discrepancies still remain particularly in senior positions” according to the authors.

The EEAB will empower the minister to set numerical targets for any national economic sector. The main goal of such target setting is to ensure the equitable representation of suitably qualified people from designated groups at all occupational levels in the workplace, says the paper.

The authors of the paper confirmed to Moneyweb that these numerical targets will apply to all occupational levels in the workforce, including directors of a company “who form part of the workforce”.

There are six occupational levels that employers must report on in their employment equity plan:

Top management
Senior management
Professionally qualified & experienced specialists or mid-management
Skilled technical & academically qualified junior management, supervisors, foremen or superintendents
Semi-skilled employees
Unskilled workers.

The department of labour gazetted the EEAB towards the end of July and the bill will be formally introduced in the National Assembly in due course. It is still subject to change and will only become effective once it had been dealt with in parliament and finally signed into law by the president.

It seems that the bill will give labour inspectors a lot of authority to demand employers to furnish employment equity plans or undertakings to furnish such plans within a specific time frame. Labour inspectors will have similar powers when it comes to policing the new racial quotas.

“Where an employer fails to comply with the numerical targets as set out in its employment equity plan, a labour inspector can request the employer to provide a written undertaking to comply within a specific time period,” says Webber Wentzel in reply to questions. “If the employer refuses to provide the written undertaking or fails to comply within the specified time period, the labour inspector can issue the employer with a compliance order which will detail a time frame for compliance and the fines that may be recommended to the Labour Court.

“If the employer still does not comply, the labour inspector can apply to the Labour Court to make the compliance order an order of court. For a first time contravention, fines can amount to R1,5 million or 2% of the employer’s turnover (whichever is greater),” according to the law firm’s review of the pending legislation.

The proposed amendments introduce a bit of relaxation of regulations for smaller businesses. The EEAB amends the definition of ‘designated employer’ by excluding employers who employ less than 50 employees and meet a turnover threshold set under the act. Such employers will not be subject to the numerical targets set under the EEA.

The purpose of these amendments, says the lawyers from Webber Wentzel, is to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller businesses.

A discussion of the EEAB on the Labournet site is harsher about some of the amendments, defining the numerical targets as “a headcount target”. It says that the amendments suggest that employers will no longer be setting their own targets in line with the economically active population as it is believed that employers are using self-imposed targets as a “shield” to evade the law by setting low targets and achieving it quickly.

It also notes that a subsection in the new legislation will allow the minister of labour to issue regulations prescribing criteria to be considered when determining a numeral target. “The minister of labour thus sets the bar for how stringent or radically transformative these targets are, and dispenses judgement on whether they were achieved or not.”

Labournet points out that the EEAB is set to promulgate a section regarding state contracts, proposing that state contracts will only be awarded to employers who have been certified as being compliant with the act. “An employer will be required to attach a certificate of compliance and/or a declaration by the employer that it complies with the relevant chapters of the act when applying for a contract with the state.

“A brand new subsection has been included which regulates when the minister may issue a certificate of compliance,” according to the review of the bill on Labournet. These criteria includes that employers meet their racial targets and that they have not failed to pay minimum wages during the last three years.

When government announced end February that the bill will start the parliamentary process soon, the SA Government News Agency voiced the opinions of Thembinkosi Mkhaliphi, chief director of labour relations at the department of labour, saying that “nothing has happened that should have happened and no real significant change has taken place” over the last 21 years.

“There has been very limited change and if we go at the rate that we’re going, it will take another 100 years before we really transform,” he said.

Mkhaliphi dismissed criticism that government setting targets will affect businesses. He maintains that current legislation states that employers can set their own targets and that the introduction of government setting the targets is not new.

“Target setting is not new, except that now government comes into the picture in setting the target. The principle of setting targets is not new, therefore it can’t be said that this is a drastic change that will affect business” he said according to the government news agency.

Business is bound to disagree strongly, voicing concerns that freedom of choice to employ people will be restricted, in much the same way as economic empowerment legislation forces companies to invite shareholders into a business, based on race rather than on their ability to supply capital.

12th August 2020

Sars is seeking to criminalise mistakes

Moneyweb [Barbara Curson]

In the preamble to the latest Tax Administration Bill, the South African Revenue Service (Sars) indicates that it proposes to “remove the requirement of intent from certain criminal offences”.

In what has become Sars’s attempt at a “tough stance” to scare taxpayers into compliance, it has taken a blunt tool to remove a higher burden of proof that an action – or an omission – had criminal intent.
Sars has already decided that any action or omission was “wilfully done”, and is therefore criminal. So why should it waste time in trying to determine this?

It seems that in Sars’s book, taxpayers cannot make an honest error (naturally this doesn’t apply to Sars’s own staff).

Bowmans partner Patricia Williams explains: “Sars wants to remove the requirement that the relevant action must have been done ‘wilfully’. This removes the requirement of criminal intent before the action is considered a crime.”

Have your say on the amendments here

Burden of evidence

Sars has in the past attempted to “utilise the criminal offence provisions to extract funds from people”. However, to be successful, Sars had to clear the ‘wilful intent’ hurdle. This was obviously placing too high a degree of skilfulness on Sars’s auditors; after all, ‘wilful intent’ requires a heavier burden of evidence.

Says Williams: “Criminal intent already encompasses dolus eventualis – that is, foreseeing the reasonable possibility of an outcome and reconciling yourself to that. In the circumstances, gross negligence would already arguably meet the standard of something ‘wilfully’ done. What Sars is seeking to do is to criminalise mistakes.”

Many frustrated taxpayers and tax practitioners complain that Sars treats them like criminals. Well, here is the proof.
Sars intends excising ‘wilful intent’ from:

Paragraph 30 (employees’ tax offences) of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act (TAA);
Section 58 (offences in regard to compliance) of the Value-Added Tax Act; and
Section 234 of the Tax Administration Act.

The amendment to Section 234 of the TAA now changes an error that can be made by anyone into a criminal act, such as: the failure to notify Sars of a postal address, a physical address, banking particulars used for transactions with Sars, an electronic address used for communication with Sars, or such other details as the commissioner may require by public notice.

It is also apparent that Sars expects all taxpayers to read their public notices, even those without access to the internet or newspapers.

Further, Section 234 provides that Sars may register and allocate a taxpayer reference number to a person who is not registered. Woe betide the person who doesn’t know this, as not using this number in any communication with Sars will turn you into a criminal.

In the Draft Memorandum on the objects of the Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill, Sars reasons that using the term “wilfully” in respect of a statutory crime is not correct, and that it is not possible to “wilfully” neglect something, and that failing to do something required by the Act could be “problematic”.

Intent

Williams is of the view that: “This is patently wrong. One can purposefully fail to submit one’s tax return, or purposefully fail to pay one’s taxes. This looks like Sars is misstating the position, in order to make the proposed [unfair] amendment seem more reasonable.”

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is of the view “that the current wording relating to criminal offences substantially undermines the ability of Sars to ensure compliance based on the objective standard expected of the reasonable person”.

“Consequently,” it says, “this may hamper the criminal prosecution of non-compliant taxpayers by the NPA in seeking to prove the elements of the crime.”

Williams is surprised: “Since when is it justifiable to remove certain elements of a crime in order to make it easier to prosecute?”

Is it possible that the NPA, which cannot point to a successful record in making powerful criminals account for their crimes, realises that it is not competent to pull off an ‘Al Capone’ tax arrest without removing ‘wilful intent’?

As for Sars, do its problems stem from the term ‘wilful intent’ scuppering its attempts at prosecuting the big boys – or from its lack of skills, inefficiency, and having been hollowed out by state capture?

11th August 202011th August 2020

Cigarette and alcohol taxes go up even though you can’t legally buy them

One of the ironies of the times in which we live is that taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are to go up – even though there isn’t a hope in hell of government collecting any of this while there is a ban on cigarette and alcohol sales.

Proposed changes to tax laws have just been announced, making good on finance minister Tito Mboweni’s 2020 Budget promise to raise “sin” taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

In his February Budget speech, Mboweni said a 340ml can of beer or cider would increase by 8c, and a 750ml bottle of wine would increase by 14c.

Excise on a box of 20 cigarettes would go up an extra 74c. Last week, government tabled the proposed changes to tax laws and rates, and invited public comment. Now might be a good time to make your voice heard.

Have your say on this amendment

Mboweni may not have known in February that a lockdown was coming and the tax collection projections he was banking on from cigarettes (and alcohol) would go up in smoke.

Then came the lockdown. Despite the ban on cigarette sales, 90% of smokers continuing to get their daily fix from their “dealers”. An estimated 11 million South African smokers have been criminalised, and Tax Justice SA (TJSA) estimates the loss to the fiscus of R5 billion so far. The loss is running at R35 million a day.

“The 132-day-old ban is causing untold misery for millions, robbing the fiscus of R35 million daily and destroying thousands of jobs,” says TJSA founder Yusuf Abramjee, after hearing court evidence led by cigarette manufacturer BAT against the government ban.

“Anyone who had to sit through two days of repetition, rambling and long-winded explanation by Minister Dlamini-Zuma’s lawyers will know how weak her case is,” says Abramjee. “Sadly for the three judges, they have a duty to consider the huge volumes of paperwork with which the Minister has tried to overwhelm them.

“But the President should not wait for their verdict, as patently the ban is so wrong and is doing so much harm. He should do the right thing and lift this failed prohibition immediately.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has promised to crack down on officials who break the law to profit from the pandemic after stories started emerging of politically-connected individuals scoring massive Covid-related supply contracts. Meanwhile, rumours abound of politically-connected suspects raking in profits from illegal cigarette sales.

Whether true or not, the tobacco industry in SA has been gutted, taken over by black market operators. SA Revenue Services (Sars) had spent the last decade trying to clean up the tax-dodging in this sector. It’s been set back at least a decade by the ban. The black market operators will not easily be dislodged, even when the ban is eventually lifted.

6th August 20207th August 2020

Minister of Social Development reminds South Africans to submit comments on the Victim Support Services Bill (VSS)

As we enter into Women’s month, the Minister of Social Development, Ms Lindiwe Zulu, is calling upon on all South Africans and organisations, in particular those in the fight against gender-based violence, to comment on the Victim Support Services Bill (VSS) as gazetted and published on July 17, 2020.

The VSS Bill is part of a critical legislative framework by Government in its endeavour to combat the scourge of crime, in particular gender-based and violent crimes. It, therefore, seeks to put the victim at the centre of the criminal justice system in order to ensure that the rights applicable to the perpetrator are also the rights entitled to the victim.

Currently the criminal justice system focuses more on the rights of an arrested person or accused person in line with section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, whilst limited emphasis is placed on the rights of the victims. It also seeks to begin to bring to the attention of the courts the meaning of section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 which provides that “everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.” Victims of gender-based violence, therefore, require this protection and benefit of the law in the same manner it is extended to the perpetrators.

click here to have your say

The Bill begins to recognise that victims experience secondary victimisation and therefore creates a prohibition against such. It provides that secondary victimisation is illegal and needs to be prevented at all times through our service provision.

The VSS Bill stipulates the various services to be provided to the victims vis-à-vis services channelled towards the accused. It delineates the services of various stakeholders according to their mandate and expertise. This includes the DSD psychosocial support services which are linked to the provision of sheltering services.

The VSS Bill advocates specifically for the legal representation of a victim. It calls for the State to endure the legal costs for the victim in cases whereby victims wish to sue the accused for damages. It also encourages providers of services to victims to be accredited to ensure that their services comply with the norms and standards as set by the Department of Social Development for all facilities. This will include ensuring that employees of facilities are vetted against existing registers for example the Child Protection Register (CPR) and the National Sexual Offences Register (NRSO) to protect victims.

All stakeholders including the private sector and civil society organisations as well as all members of society, are encouraged to heed the call and respond with their comments in shaping a society that will advocate for justice for victims of violent crimes and gender-based violence.

By its nature, this VSS Bill is a critical part of Government’s Strategies to fight the scourge of GBVF, including the recently approved Government Strategy – the National Strategy Plan on GBV and Femicide, 2020-2030. In terms of the DSD mandate, the VSS Bill will specifically be driven through the pillar four (Response, Care, Support and Healing) of the NSP on GBVF.

The Memorandum on the objectives of the Bill and the Bill itself, may be accessed on the Department of Social Development website: www.dsd.gov.za or from Government Notice No. 43528 Government Gazette, 17 JULY 2020.

The closing date for comments is 16 September 2020.

All comments may be submitted in the following format:

Clause Commented on
Proposal
Motivation

All comments may be submitted to the following address / via e-mail:

(a) By Post: The Director-General: Department of Social Development Private Bag X901 Pretoria 0001

(b) On e-mail: Ms Siza Magangoe on Sizam@dsd.gov.za; or Luyanda Mtshotshisa on LuyandaMt@socdev.gov.za; or Ms Anna Sithole on Annas@dsd.gov.za

OR, click here to participate immediately on this platform

ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Media enquiries may be forwarded to Ms Lumka Oliphant on 083 484 8067 or LumkaO@dsd.gov.za

6th August 20206th August 2020

The evidence is in: the lockdown has been a catastrophic failure

Written by Ciaran Ryan

Four months into the pandemic we have a clearer picture of the social and economic impacts of the lockdown.

It’s a catastrophe. The lockdown could kill far more people than the virus. At end July 2020, SA had 8,000 deaths from just short of 500,000 confirmed cases, for a case fatality rate of 1.6%. Far more people will die this year from tuberculosis and diabetes than coronavirus.

Yet more people will die from poverty-induced illnesses in the years to come. An April analysis by Pandemic Data Analysis (PANDA) estimated years of life lost to the pandemic to be 14 million, or 30X more than from the virus itself.

Bear in mind that around 450,000 people die in SA each year from all causes (446,554 in 2017 and 470,396 in 2016). Coronavirus is hardly going to move this needle, even slightly.

In late March 2020, the government’s official data modellers suggested 351,000 could die from Covid-19 in South Africa. PANDA was hastily formed to challenge this wild spreadsheet modelling. The team comprises actuaries, data analysts, economists and other specialists. PANDA challenged the government’s models, suggesting that it was more likely that 10,000-20,000 would die from the virus. Based on the current figures, PANDA is right on target as the virus infection curve maps a typical epidemic decline tail.

“What has happened in the last four months is the greatest social injustice in SA’s history since apartheid,” says PANDA co-founder Nick Hudson. “The lockdown is based on bad science, poor modelling and even worse judgment on the part of the government.”

The real effects will be felt in the years to come, and it won’t be from Covid. It will be from poverty and its associated effects.

It is not difficult to understand why: an estimated 6 million South Africans have suffered income contraction so far this year, and the figure will likely rise to 10 million by September. It is well known that poverty shortens lifespan. Economist Dawie Roodt estimated roughly 300,000 deaths would arise from lockdown-induced poverty, based on examples of rising death rates in countries such as Greece after the 2008 financial collapse. There is an undeniable link between economic decline and death rates.

Yet the headlines tell us that SA has the fifth-highest number of infections in the world. That’s grossly misleading, says Hudson, and an inevitable consequence of increased testing. A more instructive statistic is to look at deaths per million of population, in which case SA ranks number 36 in the world (and 22^nd in terms of absolute deaths).

With the benefit of four months’ worth of data from around the world, we now know that there was little difference between countries embracing a hard lockdown and those that didn’t. The outcomes were more or less the same. There is simply no sign of the dramatic suppression of the reproduction rate that modellers assumed. Yet government has abrogated its responsibilities to a team of data modellers and epidemiologists who seem to be top-heavy with error-prone alarmists.

Nassim Taleb, author of the Black Swan and Anti-Fragility, is dismissive of economists and advisors who suffer no harm when the advice they peddle turns out to be wrong. We are in such a time now. Advisors urging extended lockdowns, as if we are living through the Black Plague, will still draw their government-guaranteed salaries at the end of the month, dispensing their wisdom via Zoom. If they were wrong at the start of the lockdown, why should we trust them now?

When the data proves them wrong, they do what self-preservation demands: double down by warning of a second and third spike in infections, lasting perhaps years.

SA is not alone in heeding advice from sources that deserve far more scrutiny than they are getting. UK epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who had Covid-19 himself, had to walk back his original outrageous projections of 500,000 UK Covid-19 deaths, when in fact the virus has claimed less than a tenth of this.

President Donald Trump’s coronavirus czar Dr Anthony Fauci co-wrote a paper in March this year arguing (correctly) that the virus affects predominantly the old and the very sick. He predicted the mortality from Covid would not be significantly out of line with a seasonal flu. “It was remarkable that he predicted this at such an early stage in the spread of the virus,” says Hudson. “But ever since then he has been lapping up every minute of fear-mongering that he can, He’s a panic porn artist.”

Initially, most of the country seemed supportive of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s lockdown in the face of a viral attack the likes of which none of us had ever experienced. Yet we hoped it was temporary and the rights we voluntarily suspended – such as the right to work, move around freely, drink wine, smoke cigarettes, gather with friends – would be returned intact within a matter of months.

Now we’re not so sure. History teaches us that rights surrendered are seldom returned unalloyed.

Cabinet ministers and their government advisors who call for an extended lockdown based on erroneous data must be held to account. Their decisions will cause an unprecedented economic contraction of between 9% and 13% this year, but the effects in terms of poverty and declining wellness will linger for years. Blaming this on the virus and not the lockdown is the height of dishonesty.

By the end of June 2020 it was already clear that the infection curve in the Western Cape had peaked and was in decline. The same is now happening in Gauteng.

The type of modelling used in SA and elsewhere in the world is based on a completely erroneous reading of the actual data. It’s not that they lacked sufficient data on which to model their predictions. The Diamond Princess cruise ship presented data analysts with laboratory-type conditions with which to track and monitor the virus. This was a cruise ship sailing around the Pacific with 7,000 passengers, a large percentage of them old. In total, there were 12 deaths, all of them aged over 65. That’s a mortality rate of 0.2% of the ship population (in an environment in which it was difficult for anyone on self-isolate).

That presents an accurate picture of Covid’s spread in a confined environment. Yet senior academics trying to draw attention to the bogus science behind the global lockdown have been shut out of polite media circles, among them Dr Michael Levitt (born in Pretoria) of Stanford University, and Professor John Ioannidis, also of Stanford. Youtube has censored many who have questioned World Health Organisation (WHO) orthodoxy. There are dozens more senior scientists forced to get their message out on fringe podcasts and non-censored platforms. This is the “spirit of the times” in which we live, says Hudson.

Back in 1960 US-Hungarian psychiatrist Professor Thomas Szasz wrote The Myth of Mental Illness, arguing that undesirable behaviour was being medicalised and reclassified as “illness” with no science to back it up. He coined the term the “therapeutic state”. He warned us 60 years ago that the state wants dominion over our bodies and our thoughts., and would force “treatments” on us for the greater social good.

It seemed a long shot back then. Now it seems all too imminent.

Under no circumstances should a lockdown be permitted, says Hudson. “If there is a virus on the loose, people must choose their own risk-mitigation strategies. If you are afraid of the virus, then self-isolate, but you cannot force others to do the same.

“There’s something terribly wrong when you deny ordinary people agency in their own lives and their own health. People should be able to choose to stay at home, but have no right to force you to stay home. We want herd immunity, because that is how all epidemics are conquered.” It appears that the Western Cape is fast reaching that point in precisely the fashion projected by PANDA.

We need to demand our government acts on sound explanations and data. Because when this blows over and South Africans survey the wreckage, they will look for someone to blame.