COMPETITION TRIBUNAL STRATEGIC PLAN PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAY 2015

2 NORMAN MANOIM: CHAIRPERSON JANEEN DE KLERK: COO/CFO LERATO MOTAUNG: HEAD OF REGISTRY PRESENTED BY x

3 The Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) is one of 3 institutions set up to administer the Competition Act 89 of 1998 Competition Commission investigates and prosecutes Tribunal adjudicates mergers and anti-competitive conduct Competition Appeal Court hears appeals from Tribunal cases Currently 9 members, 4 full-time and 5 part-time, serve as pool of judges to hear competition cases on Tribunal panel WHAT WE DO x

4 OUR VISION – where we want to go To be seen as an exemplary administrative tribunal by being independent, impartial, ethical and professional OUR MISSION – how we plan to get there To develop credible competition law and an effective structure for administering the law OUR VALUES Fairness, objectivity and independence Timeous decisions of high calibre Effective communication of our work with the public Courteous, efficient, informed interaction with our customers VISION, MISSION, VALUES x

5 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

6 Strategic plan provides a 5 year view (2015 – 2020) and APP unpacks this on an annual and quarterly basis Because we are an adjudicative body, strategic goals do not change fundamentally Our case load fluctuates year on year because cases are brought to the tribunal, which makes work load uncertain We have, however, developed goals which look to improving efficiency and quality of the service we deliver INTRODUCTION x

7 To ensure effective and efficient adjudication on matters brought before the Tribunal GOAL STATEMENT 1 x

8 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.1 x

9 Strategic objective OutcomeKPITarget for 2015/2016 Matters brought before the Tribunal are heard within the adopted delivery time frames Hearings are set down within required timeframes % of large mergers to be set down for the beginning of a hearing or a pre-hearing within 10 days of filing of the merger referral 75% % of intermediate mergers to be set down for the beginning of a hearing or a pre-hearing, within 10 days of filing of the request for consideration 75% EXAMPLE x

10 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.2 x

11 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.3 x

12 ELECTRONIC SYSTEM IMPROVED TURNAROUND TIMES REPORTING TOOL IMPROVED ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE CAN SEE PROGRESS AT A GLANCE SHARING EXPERIENCES WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND COURTS CASE MANAGEMENT x

QLIKVIEW REPORTING TOOL

14 To build and develop effective stakeholder relationships GOAL STATEMENT 2 x

15 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2.1 x

16 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2.2 x

17 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2.3 x

18 To ensure effective leadership, transparency and accountability in the Tribunal through capacity building, effective reporting, policy management and financial compliance GOAL STATEMENT 3 x

19 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.1 x

20 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.2 x

21 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.3 x

22 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.4 x

23 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.5 x

24 CHALLENGES FACING US

25 Funding Office space Appointment of Tribunal members CHALLENGES x

26 Why is budgeting in the Tribunal difficult? FUNDING x

Type of case Large merger Intermediate merger Complaints from the Commission Consent order Complaints from a complainant Interim Relief Procedural matter Exemption appeal Totals CASE LOAD x Tribunal case load fluctuates but has also increased over time

CASE LOAD x Orders/days in hearings over time

29 FUNDING x

30 In March 2014 we requested this grant: FUNDING x

31 In July 2014 we were informed we would receive: FUNDING x

32 Why did our grant request increase by 50.67% from Year 2 to Year 3 ? FUNDING x

33 Increase in size and activity of the Tribunal over 15 years Years of reliance on retained surpluses coming to an end – more reliance on grant allocation FUNDING x

34 Shortfall in funding as follows: FUNDING x

35 July 2014 we submitted a revised request for funding; FUNDING x

36 R m made up as follows; R 9.18 m referred to earlier Appointment of an additional FT member – R 6.01m Increased rental on campus – R 15 m Marginal increases in operational expenses – R 2.5m FUNDING x

37 Funding comparison FUNDING x

38 November 2014 informed by National Treasury additional funding not granted FUNDING x

39 December 2014 EDD on behalf of the Tribunal requested dispensation to budget for a deficit in terms of Section 53 (3) of the PFMA. FUNDING x

40 January 2015 informed by National Treasury dispensation denied. FUNDING x

41 Urgently required to prepare budget that excluded deficit This budget contained in approved APP and referred to as “slash and burn” budget FUNDING x

42 March 2015 letter sent to DG of EDD requesting approval for revised budget. FUNDING x

43 Why did we submit a revised budget ? FUNDING x

44 March 2015 evident we had received filing fees in excess of our budget “Slash and burn “ budget not sustainable FUNDING x

45 Do we need funding in Year 1? - No Do we need funding in Year 2? – No Do we need funding in Year 3? – Yes – approx. R 9.5m FUNDING x

46 Comparison of “slash and burn” budget and revised budget FUNDING x

47

48 Two issues; Office space Rental OFFICE SPACE x

49 Ministerial instruction OFFICE SPACE x

50 What we have – sqm What we need – 2014 sqm OFFICE SPACE x

51 What we did; Made 5 single offices become offices for 2 people Created 5 work areas in passage space Encouraged FT members to work from home so that they could share an office OFFICE SPACE x

52 What we budgeted for; R per sqm (R 1.87m per annum) What dti initially asked for; R per sqm ( R 6.5m per annum) Revised rental; R290 per sqm (R 2.74m per annum) Rental x

53 EDD granted Tribunal additional funds to be ring fenced for rental for Year 1 and Year 2 - R 1.81m Rental x

54 What are EDD’s plans going forward ? Rental x

55 Vacant positions for 2 PT Tribunal members since 31 st July 2014 TRIBUNAL MEMBERS x

56 Questions and Answers THANK YOU