Much still to do to stamp out collusion, says Patel

DESPITE excellent work by South African competition authorities, much remained to be done in the country, which had a “rampant culture of collusion”, to stamp out anti-competitive behaviour causing untold damage to the economy.

This message was made clear by both the Minister of Economic Development, Ebrahim Patel, and the commissioner of the Competition Commission of South Africa, Tembinkosi Bonakele, at the 10th annual Competition Law, Economics and Policy conference in Cape Town yesterday.

In his opening address, Bonakele commended the South African competition authorities for their favourable rating in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) recently released Global Competitiveness Report.

The WEF report put South Africa at No 7 in the world for effectiveness of its antimonopoly enforcement.

But it was clear that the hard work was far from done when he added that it was not an exaggeration to say an enormous number of cartels were still being uncovered.

Hosted by the Competition Commission, in partnership with the Competition Tribunal and the University of Cape Town, the conference brought together international policy experts, economic consultants, scholars, lawyers and academics to focus on the impact of competition policy on economic growth. The conference, held at the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town, also examined the efficacy of competition enforcement in South Africa.

Patel, making the keynote address, agreed that while there was much to be celebrated, there was also much work to be done. He said while much experience had been gained, “we need to find ways of scaling this fast”.

Noting that 133 new cartel cases had been initiated in the past 12 months, he said: “We need to see how we can deal with the problems of success.

‘‘We need to learn how to deal with the many cases that come up.”

He said the investigative and prosecutorial capacity of the commission should be deepened to build on what was clearly one of the country’s success stories.

He noted that collusive practices in the private sector had their mirror image in the state, adding the lifestyle audits suggested for public officials were possibly their equivalent of market enquiries in the private sector.