The Department of Transport provided a briefing on the two amendment Bills, looking at background, objectives and consultation procedure for each Bill as well as going through the Bill clause by clause.
The Committee was concerned about the lack of financial provision in the Maritime and Aeronautical Search and Rescue Bill for salvaging stranded ships as this resulted in large irregular expenditure for the government. There was a discussion on the continued difficulties faced by the Department in accessing funds for emergencies and it was suggested that an agreement must be made with National Treasury to allow for the quick accessing of funds in emergency circumstances. The question of filing flight plans and what legislation governed that was raised with concerns about international and small domestic flights creating problems for each other.
During the discussion on the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill, members asked why the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) was collecting money for the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) in areas such as Gauteng where there were no borders, why all toll prices were not clearly advertised, why the Bill was considered a section 75 and not section 76 Bill when it affected provinces, and there was concern at the lack of input from the public. The Committee advised that they would advertise for public comment on the Bills. There was discussion on the costing of this Bill and the Committee requested a further breakdown and analysis of those figures to be distributed.
The BRRR and the minutes for the meetings from July and August were adopted without amendment.
South African Maritime Search and Rescue and Amendment Bill 2012 [B28-2012]
Representatives from the Department of Transport (DoT) included Mr Johannes Makgatho (DoT Director: Corporate Legal Services), Mr Trevor Mphahlele (Deputy Director: Legal Services) and Mr Tshepo Pheege (Deputy Director General: Maritime). Adv Adam Masombuka, DoT Director of Legislation, explained that the South African Search and Rescue Organisation (‘‘SASAR’’) was established by the South African Maritime and Aeronautical Search and Rescue Act, 2002 (Act No. 44 of 2002) as an authority responsible for the coordination of maritime and aeronautical search and rescue operations within South Africa’s search and rescue regions. The Act provided for the requisite legal framework for the provision of a search and rescue service in South Africa. The Act also incorporated the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, and Annex 12 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944.
The objects of the Bill were to amend the SA Maritime and Aeronautical Search and Rescue Act, 2002 to:
▪ expand the composition of the South African Search and Rescue Organisation (SASAR);
▪ provide for the management committee and sub-committees of SASAR;
▪ provide for SASAR to perform its functions outside the Republic’s search and rescue regions in accordance with the Conventions;
▪ provide for the head of SASAR to appoint a designate to preside over any meeting of SASAR;
▪ provide for the head of SASAR to determine the time and place of the first meeting of the sub-committees of SASAR;
▪ compel all licence holders of aerodromes, airfields, heliports or helistops to file emergency plans with the aeronautical rescue co-ordination centre;
▪ provide for the head of SASAR to publish the contact details of the places where a person could report an aircraft or a vessel that was in distress.
▪ insert a definition and delete obsolete provisions and effect certain technical corrections.
This Bill does not contain any policy changes; it was only wording and sentence structure issues and making references in it to latest legislation. It purpose was also to explain the procedures of the sub-committees of SASAR.
Mr Masombuka summarized each of the 19 clauses.
▪ Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to amend section 1 of the Act by the insertion of the definition of ‘‘regulations’’.
▪ Clauses 2 and 3 seek to amend sections 2 and 4 by effecting certain technical corrections.
▪ Clause 4 seeks to amend section 5 by substituting the former names of departments with the current names. Clause 4 also seeks to amend section 5 by providing for the establishment and composition of the management committee and sub-committees of SASAR.
▪ Clause 5 seeks to amend section 6 by providing for SASAR to perform its functions outside the Republic’s search and rescue regions in accordance with the Conventions.
▪ Clause 6 seeks to amend section 7 by providing for the designate of the head of SASAR to preside over any meeting of SASAR if he or she was unable to preside over that meeting.
▪ Clause 7 seeks to provide for the head of SASAR to determine the time and place of the first meeting of the sub-committees of SASAR. It also amends section 8 by the substitution of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (7) to provide for the determination of the time and place of the meetings of the sub-committees of SASAR.
▪ Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 amend sections 11, 12, 13 and 15 by effecting certain technical corrections.
▪ Clause 12 seeks to amend section 16 by the deletion of subsection (5), which provides for the authorisation that must be obtained from the head of SASAR prior to the commencement of search and rescue operation contemplated in section 16(4) of the Act. Clause 12 also seeks to effect certain technical corrections.
▪ Clause 13 seeks to amend section 17 by providing for the substitution for the South African Civil Aviation Authority Act, 1962 (Act No. 40 of 1998), of the Civil Aviation Act, 2009 (Act No.13 of 2009). The South African Civil Aviation Authority Act had been repealed by section 166(2) of the Civil Aviation Act.
▪ Clause 14 seeks to amend section 18 by compelling licence holders of aerodromes, airfields, heliports or helistops to file emergency plans and any amendments thereto with the aeronautical rescue coordination centre. Clause14 also seeks to delete section 18(2) of the Act.
▪ Clause 15 seeks to amend section 19 by providing for a person who believes that an aircraft was in distress to report the occurrence at the rescue coordination centre, port centre or airport. Clause 15 also imposes a duty upon the head of SASAR to publish the contact details of the office or facilities to which a person could report an aircraft or vessel that was in distress.
▪ Clause 16 seeks to amend section 20 by the substitution for the heading of section 20. Clause 16 also seeks to provide for the aeronautical and marine rescue coordination functionaries to report to the management committee.
▪ Clause 17 seeks to amend section 22 by imposing a duty upon SASAR to furnish the Minister with any report, other than the report contemplated in section 22(1)(a) of the Act.
▪ Clause 18 seeks to amend section 23 by extending the scope of regulations to be made by the Minister.
▪ Clause 19 seeks to provide for the substitution of certain expressions wherever they occur in the Act.
▪ Clause 20 was a standard provision dealing with the short title and amendment of the envisaged Act.
In regards to consultation on the Bill, Mr Masombuka explained that before the Bill was published for comments, it was discussed and approved for public consultation by the SASAR Committees which includes those members of SASAR as outlined in Clause 4 and finally, the South African Weather Service, who was newly added to SASAR. The Bill was published in the Government Gazette 33126 on 23 April 2010 under notice 538 of 2010. Two institutions offered comments: the Air Traffic Navigation Services Company Limited and South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA). All comments were incorporated into the Bill. The Bill was presented to Cabinet who approved the Bill. He requested that the Portfolio Committee consider and approve the Bill.
Mr I Ollis (DA) asked if they had considered changing the provisions in this Bill to create a fund which covers the cost of towing a ship which had become stranded for whatever reason. Currently, the cost fell to government and the financial costs were considered irregular expenditure. If the Bill was passed without a provision for this, the government would still have to cover that cost. He asked if they would consider adding it to this Bill and if not where it could be included.
The Department responded that this Bill was not going to include a provision for this fund but they would discuss with the department where they could include it.
Mr P Mbhele (COPE) asked if it was not in the interests of SAMSA to raise the issue of the funding of stranded ships with the Portfolio Committee. The Auditor General (AG) previously recommended that this was a problem. Mr Mbhele explained that the AG would ask what happened to that recommendation and why SAMSA had not raised his concerns.
The Department explained that these were unforeseen and unexpected incidents. It was discussed at length with National Treasury. It would be discussed further, but the budget for unforeseen incidents was very hard to access. He sympathized with the department’s concerns but National Treasury was taking the lead. He stated that they would discuss with the legal branch of the department to see if it was possible to make it part of the legislation.
The Chairperson asked if it was not part of the disaster management budget. She said that it was possible to budget for this in the disaster management services. The department provides risky services which must be budgeted for, all that would not be not known was what type of disaster it would be.
The Department agreed with the Chairperson and explained that they struggled to access the disaster management budget.
The Chairperson asked for clarity about the meaning of budget.
A representative from SAMSA explained that there was a Maritime Fund. National Treasury had put funds in there but the process of accessing of funds at short notice was very complicated. Due to the delays, the costs of accessing of funds could be multiplied and by the time funds were available the costs had multiplied. Now, service providers were very hesitant to work with SAMSA as they often wait so long to get paid.
Ms N Mdaka (ANC) asked for tangible reasons for the purpose of the budget if it cannot be accessed.
The Chairperson clarified that the Department of Transport (DoT) was as frustrated as the Committee. The budget was approved but when they wanted to use the money to pay the service providers, there was so much red tape in trying to get the money and pay for their services. She expressed frustration at the red tape surrounding government money. She urged the Committee to discover what was causing the delays in releasing the funds.
Mr Ollis explained that this had been a problem for a long time; it was not a new issue. He suggested that SAMSA go to the Director General of Labour or the Minister and ask for an agreement with National Treasury to make sure the department could access funds and have the ability to act without getting permission when there was an emergency. He emphasised that this disagreement cannot occur every year.
He noted that this Bill compels license holders of aerodromes, airfields, heliports or helistops to file emergency plans which he commended but taking it further, he asked if there was legislation in place to compel them to file flight plans in advance. He asked if legislation was in place to ensure there was coordination of flight plans between all airfields and airports to avoid emergencies with the larger airlines.
Mr Mbhele was concerned about the lack of communication between the DoT and Treasury and the lack of feedback about concerns and decisions taken to the Portfolio Committee.
The Chairperson said that it was unfortunate that when a gap was identified between the Portfolio Committees and the Deputy Director Generals, the department did not support the Portfolio Committee. After this concern was raised previously, officials messaged the absent DDGs, who then contacted the Chairperson about their many misunderstandings. She urged the department that if they needed a point of clarity, they should ask rather than creating hearsay amongst the department.
She saw it as a responsibility of the department to intervene in these problems, as SAMSA was a department entity. The department and the Minister should speak to Treasury if there was a problem with SAMSA doing its work to avoid a future situation where a service was needed but payments were not easily made available. She instructed the department to find a solution to this.
Mr Tshepo Pheege, Deputy Director General: Maritime, explained that any aircraft that flies through a controlled airspace had to file a flight plan. Smaller aerodromes did not need to do it.
Mr Ollis gave examples about space becoming congested and showed that Lanseria and OR Tambo were having problems due to the smaller airfields interrupting their flight routes and suggested that there were differences between what ‘controlled airspace’ was. He asked if that was an administrative problem and suggested that that was a conversation for a later day. Was it merely an implementation problem rather than a legislative one?
The department suggested that the Committee should be briefed at a later date regarding aviation legislation and the National Airport Development Plan which was currently underway. He explained that OR Tambo and Lanseria were a Saturation Area. The department was working on Slot Allocation which was utilisation of the airspace and performance based navigation (PBN). He explained that the department had three functions at sea: search and rescue and salvage. Search and rescue was the saving of life at sea and not salvage. This Bill was only concerned with search and rescue. The questions regarding salvage would be taken on board but were not relevant to this Bill.
There were no comments from the parliamentary legal advisor or the state legal advisor.
Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill.
Mr Masombuka explained that the South African National Roads Agency Limited (‘‘SANRAL’’) was established in terms of the South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998). The SANRAL Act provided for the establishment of SANRAL to manage and control the Republic’s national roads system and take charge of the development, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads within the framework of government policy.
The Bill had been necessitated by the development of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (‘‘GFIP’’), as well as future plans for the development of road infrastructure in the Republic. Apart from the physical infrastructure, the GFIP would result in the operation of a road network that involved the utilisation of ‘‘intelligent’’ transport systems. An important component of the network was the electronic toll collection (ETC) system. The Bill was essential to enable the appropriate implementation of the ETC system.
The SANRAL Act came into operation on 1 April 1998. The SANRAL Act provided for the establishment of SANRAL and for the functions, powers and responsibilities of SANRAL. SANRAL, within the framework of government policy, was in the main responsible for, and was given the power to perform, all strategic planning with regard to the South African national roads system, as well as the planning, design, construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads for the Republic, and was responsible for the financing of all those functions in accordance with its business and financial plan, so as to ensure that government’s goals and policy objectives concerning national roads were achieved. When the SANRAL Act was promulgated, the ETC was not envisaged in its current form. The SANRAL Act was not broad enough to cater for some aspects of the ETC.
The objects of the Bill were to facilitate the collection of tolls and the implementation of the ETC system. These measures were essential to implement the GFIP, that is, to upgrade transport infrastructure and public transport in the Gauteng Province and beyond, as well as other proposed projects.
The Bill seeks to:
▪ provide more effectively for the collection of toll;
▪ amend the Cross-Border Road Transport Act, 1998 (Act No. 4 of 1998),
▪ empower the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) to collect toll on behalf of SANRAL;
▪ amend the SANRAL Act by inserting a definition;
▪ further provide for the differentiation in respect of the amount of toll that may be levied;
▪ provide that the regulations made by the Minister must be published by notice in the Gazette;
▪ provide for the Minister to make regulations relating to specified toll-related matters;
▪ provide for the Minister to publish draft regulations in the Gazette calling for public comment;
▪ provide for certain presumptions relating to the driving, operation and use of vehicles on a toll road and the ▪ use of electronic evidence to prove an alleged contravention of the SANRAL Act;
▪ exclude the levying and collection of toll from the ambit of the National Credit Act, 2005;
▪ amend the contents of the SANRAL Act and to provide for matters connected therewith..
▪ Clause 1 seeks to amend section 4 of the Cross-Border Road Transport Act by empowering the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency to collect toll on behalf of SANRAL.
▪ Clause 2 seeks to insert the definition of ‘‘owner’’ in order for the owner of a vehicle to be responsible for the payment of toll.
▪ Clause 3 seeks to amend section 27(3)(b) of the SANRAL Act to provide a means of differentiating the amount of toll payable according to whether the toll was pre-paid depending on the use of an e-tag or some other device as compared with identification through licence number recognition.
▪ Clause 4 seeks to provide for the Minister to publish regulations by notice in the Gazette; to provide for the Minister to make regulations relating to specified toll-related matters; and to provide for the Minister to publish a draft of the proposed regulations in the Gazette calling for public comment.
▪ Clause 5 seeks to insert section 59A(3) in the SANRAL Act to provide for a presumption that any electronic evidence must be deemed to be correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This aims to facilitate law enforcement and assist in the prosecution relating to the non-payment of tolls.
▪ Clause 6 seeks to amend the heading of section 60 of the SANRAL Act and provide for the exclusion of the SANRAL Act from the ambit of the National Credit Act, 2005 (Act No. 34 of 2005), in relation to the levying and collection of toll.
▪ Clause 7 provides for the amendment of the Contents of the Act to reflect the insertion of section 59A.
▪ Clause 8 provide for the short title and commencement of the Act.
The consultation to the Bill: A draft amendment Bill was published in Gazette No. 31715 on 19th December 2008. It was split into two draft Bills, one would treat the Bill as a section 75 Bill and one would treat the Bill as a section 76 Bill as the Bill had contents of both. The two draft Bills were published in the government gazette simultaneously but separately. They were Gazette No. 33027 and Gazette No. 33028 on 15 March 2010. It is presented now as a section 75 Bill.
The Bill was circulated for input to the Shareholders Committee of the Road Traffic Management Corporation. Comments were received from the following institutions: Public Entity Oversight and Border Control; South African Chamber of Commerce; South African Tourism Service Association; the South African Police Service; the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency; the Road Traffic Management Corporation; and the National Treasury. The Bill was developed and finalised by the Department of Transport, in consultation with the National Treasury.
Mr Masombuka explained the financial implications:
The Bill was vitally necessary to enable the collection of tolls for the GFIP. A lack of appropriate legislative authority to collect tolls would place the entire project at risk. The non-collection of tolls may impact negatively on the ability of the other state-owned enterprises to raise capital for their infrastructure programmes, and thus the need for the Bill must also be seen in the context of government’s plans to fund its envisaged infrastructure programme. SANRAL had issued bonds to fund the project of R24 billion (initial capital costs amounting to approximately R20.6 billion plus capitalised interest amounting to approximately R3.4 billion) that need to be repaid from toll revenue. Failure to collect tolls and repay the bonds would have very serious financial implications for SANRAL and also for national government, which provided a guarantee in respect of most of the SANRAL bonds. The financial consequences of ineffective collection of tolls to SANRAL and government, due to the guarantee, would be both reputational and costly. Inability to collect revenue would damage the credit reputation amongst investors, who may price the bonds higher to cover this risk or sell the bonds. This in turn would have a negative impact on both SANRAL’s and possibly the government’s credit ratings. Furthermore, the inability to collect the toll at predicted levels would result in lower revenue available to service debt and force further debt to be incurred to fund the shortfall. This would be costly in terms of interest paid as well as the credit reputational impact explained earlier. The financial implications for the overall project also include future maintenance costs, road rehabilitation and operational costs, servicing of debt (interest) and other toll-related costs. Therefore, ineffective toll collection would result in these costs to be funded from other government resources in future, thereby reducing government’s ability to meet its disparate demands. A slide was shown with the financial implications but was not explained.
In terms of parliamentary procedure, the State Law Advisers and the Department of Transport were of the opinion that the Bill must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure established by section 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, since it contains no provision to which the procedure set out in section 74 or section 76 of the Constitution applies. Furthermore, the State Law Advisers were of the opinion that it was not necessary to refer this Bill to the National House of Traditional Leaders in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (Act No. 41 of 2003), since it did not contain provisions pertaining to customary law or customs of traditional communities.
Mr Ollis asked what the motivation was for the CBRTA collecting tolls for SANRAL as there were no borders in Gauteng. He noted that there was no provision in Clause 4 for the Portfolio Committee to see a Bill, only for the Minister to see it and for publishing in Government Gazette and asked if input from the Committee could be included in the provisions. He asked why there were two draft versions of the Bill and which one the Committee should deal with. He suggested it should be a section 76 Bill as it affected provincial leaders. The provincial legislature should have a chance to deliberate the Bill as the legislation would affect them. He asked why the department was now dealing with the Bill as a section 75 Bill. He asked why the National Credit Act was considered not applicable. There was no provision in this Bill to require the department to publish the whole tariff which the public would be charged. This left the public vulnerable. In Gauteng, the toll billboards only show the e-toll rates for e-tags and do not show the normal rates. He asked how they consider the National Credit Act not applicable yet they do not publish all the rates publicly. He urged that there be a provision for this in the Bill. He asked how to deal with problem of cloned number plates when the Bill emphasised that the “owner” was guilty in Clause 4. He asked if it was the owner’s responsibility to prove otherwise. What presumed a road was a toll road unless stated otherwise.
Adv Alex Van Niekerk, SANRAL Manager of Toll and Traffic (North); explained that the Bill was first drafted in 2008 and arose from a request by the CBRTA at border posts to charge vehicles coming into South Africa as an attempt to level the playing field as other countries charge tolls for South African vehicles entering their country. They established a facility at Mesina for vehicle checking etc and they want to introduce a step in that process where a vehicle was charged at the border posts for using South African roads.
The Department agreed that it would be possible to include a provision to submit drafts to the Portfolio Committee as well as the Minister and the publishing in the Government Gazette.
Mr L Suka (ANC) was concerned about the process of consultation. He asked if it was conventional not to consult civil society and external stakeholders. He was concerned about the institutions that were consulted, as the ones listed only appear to be government institutions. He felt the department did not consult broadly enough.
The Department explained that the Bill was published in the Government Gazette for public consultation and only the ones on the list submitted comments. They did not consult through a public workshop and agreed that perhaps they should have done that but explained they have fulfilled the national requirements regarding consultation.
Mr Suka explained that he was protecting the government from external stakeholders who may accuse the government of not undertaking thorough oversight. He would have liked other stakeholders to respond.
The Department stated that the CBRTA must enter into an agreement with SANRAL about how they could work together in the collection of tolls and if no agreement was made, it would still be the responsibility of SANRAL to collect tolls. He agreed with the suggestion that the Portfolio Committee receive a copy of the Bill for consultation after it was published in the Government Gazette.
Adv Mahatu explained the publishing of two draft Bills. There was initially a single Bill which was published for comments. As there were provisions which affect both national and provincial, the state advisors recommended that it be split in two, which it was.
Adv Gary Rhoda, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, explained that the tagging of a Bill was a checklist used to decide in which section a Bill would fall. The Bill did not deal with any of the requirements of Section 76 which were ‘If the provisions of the Bill fall within a substantial areas listed within Schedule 4 of the Constitution’. None of the provisions of the Bill deal with any of the categories listed in schedule 4 of the Constitution. Only the title of the Bill deals with transport but the content of the Bill does not fall into that category.
Mr Malusi Ncolo, State Law Advisor explained that a recent ruling had ensured that the legal advisors must analyse every clause in a Bill as to whether it applies to Section 75 and 76. As a constitutional country, the Constitution must be considered when tagging a Bill.
Adv Rhoda explained that although it was a section 75 Bill, it did not preclude the Committee from workshopping and consulting with the various provinces affected by E-tolling. The test was not whether it affected the provinces but as the Constitutional Court had confirmed, it was whether the substantial areas fall within the Schedule 4 of the Constitution. Schedule 4 did not deal with traffic.
Mr Ollis disagreed and said that this Bill directly affected the regulating of traffic as it regulated the use of roads. He noted that the GFIP plan came from the Gauteng legislature and not from the Department of Transport or Parliament. They decided to fund it through a toll system and this decision required the legislation to be drafted. He urged the Committee to send it to Gauteng and to other provinces for consultation as once it was approved, it would govern their requests to build roads in their provinces.
The Chairperson asked DoT to unpack the background of the Bill, on why the Bill was necessitated. She agreed with Mr Ollis about the confusion surrounding whether it was a Section 75 and 76 Bill.
Mr Suka asked for clarity on the figures on the slide which were passed over during the presentation.
The Chairperson noted that the information on the slide was very small and unreadable and that it was passed over without an explanation and was suspicious about the cause for this.
Mr Van Niekerk explained that the slide was so small as they had technical difficulties and not because they were hiding anything.
The Chairperson explained that the first area of concern was the lack of proper consultation. The second issue was of fees and the third issue was that was of the system that was being used to collect the fee as it was not a South African developed system. She reminded the department that it must provide full information to the Portfolio Committee, as it was the Committee who had to process the figures and debate the Bill before the House. This was a controversial Bill and so the Committee must have the full information and know all the details.
Mr Van Niekerk explained that the purpose of the slide was to show the financial implications and although a figure of R20 billion capital investments in the project was raised, from a project financing perspective, one must see the overall cost. Project Financing was to generate the benefits much earlier than it would have if they had to wait for the cash. The slide shows the initial costs and the money borrowed by GFIP. The first capital cost was R20.6 billion. The road maintenance costs were over a 24 year period and year by year maintenance including every few years, a large action such as replacing asphalt at the airports was all factored into the costs. The third cost was the violation-processing costs; that was an operating expenditure to process violators or potential violators. This was mostly self-funding because there was a higher tariff which applied to a violator. There were discounts available to the public such as if an invoice was paid within 30 days. The toll related to capital and operating expenditure, was the cost calculated for operating the system. There were other costs including the costs of lighting up the freeways and the freeway management system such as SANRAL vehicles with cameras on the roads which could go directly to an incident and make it safe. Also, there were ‘Firstline’ medical response teams which could assist in an accident until the ambulance arrived. These things made up the total cost of R71 billion. These figures were publicly available.
Mr Van Niekerk explained that cloned number plates was a reality in terms of the National Traffic Act. The department was currently implementing a system to assist with this and having various meetings with SAPS. This was why the department encouraged users to get a tag, they were free and could not be cloned. If a tag and a number plate did not match, it would be recorded and so cloned number plates could not get a tag. The account holders would be able to see the information for every toll transaction. Toll tariffs would be published in full for comment. There was a practical consideration on the amount of information that could be displayed by the side of the road in terms of road safety and the amount of information a person could read. They had put the E-tag figures on the boards, as this was the one most relevant to the majority of users.
Mr Suka asked about for clarity about the differences between the old and revised figures. The first figures show a total for the end of the 24th year as R89.7 billion and the revised figures show a total of R71.3 billion.
Mr Van Niekerk explained that the first expenditure was a mistake. There was a double count in terms of the inflationary effect of money and was built into the interest and incorrectly reflected. It was noticed and corrected quickly and was presented to the court.
The Chairperson was concerned about the accuracy and the quality of work and the respect given to Parliament as a presentation cannot be brought to Parliament with inaccurate information as they were the highest decision-making body in the country. If a mistake was discovered, it should be identified immediately before the Members.
Mr Suka was concerned about the way the figures added up and stated that this mistake put the integrity of the document into question. He asked whether the document should be revised.
The department apologised and proposed that it present a thorough financial presentation on this Bill from the finance section of the department at a later date so that all information could be openly available.
Mr Suka stated that the objectives were lengthy and requested a chance to internalize them and get back to the chair.
Adv Rhoda offered to explain to members clause by clause how the legal advisors went about the tagging of the Bill.
The Chairperson indicated that the department would be informed when they would have to return and complete their presentation. She explained that they would advertise for public comments and once this was done, they would be called back.
Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR): adoption
The Chairperson noted that they had previously discussed the report and made amendments on it. He turned to the observations and recommendations on page 12 and 13. In the recommendations, the Committee noted the need to establish a manufacturing plant for bicycles instead of buying the finished products, this was linked to the uneven development in South Africa. She noted that the department had not taken the recommendation to create a plant in the townships for job creation opportunities into consideration and so would not be helping the uneven development.
The Committee noted that the department did not speak to some of the major transport challenges as identified in the 2003 National Household Survey on public transport. Highlighted in that service was the issue of reducing the duration and costs and dangers of traveling. The survey showed that people did not believe that the department’s strategies reduced these challenges. The department did not have a strategy to make air strategy accessible by the poor. The department took time to finalise policies and due to this, funds were moved to other programmes. An example was the scholar transport programme which had taken more than five years for the department to finalise and did not address all the issues.
The Chairperson then read through all the recommendations outlined in the BRRR. The BRRR was adopted.
Adoption of the minutes
The minutes of the 24 July 2012, the minutes were adopted with no alterations.
On the 7 August, the minutes were adopted with no alterations.
On the 14 August, the minutes were adopted with no alterations.
On the 15 August, the minutes were adopted with no alterations.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.