Discussion on Committee's Programme for Oversight Visit

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that there was no quorum and therefore suggested that consideration of outstanding minutes be deferred to a later date.

The members that were present agreed that was suitable.

The Chairperson said this would give Members additional time to review the documents. At this point, he officially opened the meeting and welcomed the three members present and confirmed that they were in agreement for delaying the approval of the minutes.

Other Matters
Ms N Michaels (DA) said that on 12 June she and Hon E Marais (DA) did not receive notice of the meeting. They were marked as apologies, which made it seem as though they were unable to make the meeting, when they actually did not know it was happening. It was important to the DA to account for all absenteeism. Lastly, she suggested that there should be a special note stating that she and her colleague did not receive notice of the meeting; otherwise it was a black-mark on their record.

The Chairperson said they would leave it as an apology, but note they did not receive notice of the meeting through clerical error.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) was worried that too much blame would be shifted on Mr Disang Mocumi, the Committee Secretary, with such a note.

Ms Michaels said that it had turned out to be an IT blunder, as Mr Mocumi had grouped the new members, but when IT reset the group, the old members received the email. She noted that this had happened once more since then.

Ms C September (ANC) mentioned two things; firstly she hoped the meeting’s minutes under discussion would accurately reflect the story. Secondly, she hoped the Chairperson would establish with Mr Mocumi what the situation is, and what corrective measures needed to be taken.

The Chairperson said Ms September was right. The attendance issue needed to be discussed in a formal meeting and Ms Michael’s request would be considered at that time.

Committee Programme for Oversight visit 1-2 August 2012
The Chairperson tabled the programme for the Committee’s oversight visit to the Port of Cape Town, Transnet Rail Engineering and Port of Saldanha.

Mr Mocumi explained that all Members had received a copy of the programme. The hotel was closer to the harbour to make sure that all Members would be able to make it by 7:30. However, he noted that not all Members had decided to stay at the hotel in the Cape Town CBD.

Ms September asked if it was necessary to stay in a hotel in the CBD when transport could be used to fetch Members instead. This was an unnecessary expense and did not sit well with her.

The Chairperson asked if all Members would then be able to be at Parliament at 7am, transport would be organised to take Members to the harbout at 7:30.

Ms September said she did not want to get involved in the how of the process, but merely expressed her view. She also asked about costs incurred of cancelling the reservation.

Dr Koornhof stated that the Committee was discussing the middle of the programme and asked that Mr Mocumi start from the beginning and go through it chronologically. He agreed with Ms September about the accommodation, but perhaps after hearing the programme the Committee could make adjustments as needed.

Mr Mocumi explained that the accommodation had been reserved because of its proximity to the harbour. In addition, there had been complaints to the Speaker and the Chief Whip regarding the transport services Parliament was using. The service was unreliable and caused problems for the Members of Parliament and would be reviewed in the future. He had chosen 7:30 am to give Members reasonable time, to begin by 8:00 and do sight visits at the harbour until 12:00. He sent letters to stakeholders, local businesses, unions, and the mayor to make sure there was a representative present. For Transnet Rail Engineering, the Committee would be in Salt River by 13:30 for roughly three hours doing oversight.

Mr Mocumi said that the oversight delegation would sleep at the hotel, and as the traffic was often unpredictable he delegated two hours to drive to Saldanha Bay. The departure time would change depending on what Members were comfortable with. The programme would finish at 15:00, with the same programme as at the Port of Cape Town. He also noted the mayor, local businesses, and unions had been invited. This meant that the Committee would be back in Cape Town by 17:00pm on Thursday.

Ms Michaels said that she and Mr Marais would not be staying at the hotel because they had accommodation in Cape Town. It was not unusual to have an early morning start as a Member of Parliament, and it was unjustifiable to stay in a hotel at such a great expense given the circumstances. To say that transport was unreliable was irrelevant as the same thing could be argued if they were staying at the hotel. She was concerned and said it needed to be looked at seriously.

Ms September asked for clarification on where the Port of Cape Town was.

Mr Mocumi clarified that it was the Cape Town Harbour.

Ms September appreciated that Mr Mocumi took many factors into consideration when he drafted the programme but she believed that the decision to book hotel accommodation for Members in the Cape Town CBD could not be justified in this instance. She hoped that Members would be able to make sure that they were there on time. Arrangements could be made for Members without transportation. She repeated that she was not going to sleep at the hotel, and was going to take her own transport to get to the Port of Cape Town and Saldanha Bay.

Mr Koornhof sought clarity on the meeting with Transnet Rail Engineering in Salt River. He needed to know what Transnet was going to present or show the Committee. He also requested the same information concerning the visit to the Cape Harbour and Saldana Bay.

Mr Koornhof further stated that he would not stay at the hotel and advised that the things be arranged so that the Committee could start at the harbour at 8am and work backwards from there. The Committee needed to decide how to get Members there on time. If a Member used public transport, then he/she could be arranged to be picked up to make sure they departed on time. He suggested that they meet at the Houses of Parliament.

Mr Mocumi understood the concern about money and said that the booking could cancelled by 12:00.Transport would be arranged for those who did not have cars to Parliament. The Committee would then depart at 7:00 in the morning from Parliament both days. He would be in contact with all the Members.

Ms September was worried about traffic and hoped Mr Mocumi would check the times to adjust the programme.

Mr Mocumi clarified that Transnet Engineering was involved in manufacturing, though he was unsure exactly what they made. He also noted he was waiting on Transnet’s programme, and was hoping they would have sent it by now. He had sent a guideline as to what the Committee wanted, but did not have a time specific one.

Mr Koornhof said that with that guideline, Transnet was going to more or less repeat what the Committee had seen on its previous oversight visits. He was comfortable with a brief presentation and overview, seeing their facilities, interacting with workers and getting a feel of what was happening. Lastly, he said Mr Mocumi needed to factor in the postponement of the minutes and report, and put that in for one hour the next day.

Mr September went back to the programme and said she was not sure what the Committee Researcher, Eric Boskati, gave Mr Mocumi in these three areas, as they were not going to be the same. There were issues the Committee raised when Transnet made its presentation to the Committee. She said she wanted these things to be pointed out. Most importantly, how governance was being dealt with, and noted the Committee learned a lesson from Richard’s Bay, which termed as pathetic.

She suggested sending Transnet a programme if they did not send one to the Committee. She also noted the President spoke about the tariff issue, and it was important to raise the issue on their visits, as it was allegedly inhibiting trade in the ports. She asked this be tightened up. At Transnet Rail, she said that there was a programme of the Committee as adopted and agreed to at the workshop. That was the guidance of the oversight that must remain, as they had been done successfully. She asked that Mr Mocumi and the Committee Researcher go over these committee decisions. She said that the Committee never got the programme because it was delegated to an assistant. The Committee needed to give Transnet a programme as she believed they would not provide one themselves. She thought Members needed background on the three places they were visiting and the respective times. The Committee must avoid repeating things that did not go right at other oversight visits. One thing she said none of them did well with time, so someone must keep the Committee moving along.

Ms September then realised Mr Mocumi had some things at the bottom. She also asked how the Committee dealt with other stakeholders and if they wanted separate input from the unions. She said this made business people uncomfortable squeezing in.

The Chairperson said that the Committee wanted to hear from the stakeholders.

Mr Koornhof said that one of the better interactions they had was with Kusile as the discussion was properly coordinated between the stakeholder, the unions, and local authorities, so the conversation flowed. He thought it was best to sit at a table and speak frankly. The stakeholder then took the initiative on who to invite, which lead to flowing conversation and not conflict as they had good relations with one another. The entity needed to be prepared to answer questions the Committee had for them, for example on gender. All needed to be prepared to discuss and engage.

Ms September said she did not mean one by one, but to allow everyone to speak.

The Chairperson recapped that the Committee had agreed that transport for the next morning would be communicated and hotel arrangements would be cancelled. They would add oversight adoption and minutes in the programme for the next day.

The meeting was adjourned.