Road Traffic Management Corporation + Rail Safety Regulator 2016/17 Annual Report
NCOP Economic and Business Development
17 October 2017
Chairperson: Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) (Acting)
Meeting Summary
In the absence of the Committee Chairperson, Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape), being off sick the Committee was expected to elect an Acting Chairperson. However, when nominations were put forward by the majority party ANC and minority party DA the Committee reached a stalemate as on either side there was equal support for their respective nominees. Mr S Mthimunye (ANC, Mpumalanga) and Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) were the nominated members from either party. Even when put to a vote the stalemate persisted until Mr Y Vawda (EFF, Mpumalanga) arrived and cast his vote in favour of Mr Faber. Mr Faber was elected Acting Chairperson for the meeting.
The Road Safety Regulator had achieved an unqualified audit report with noncompliance on expenditure management. For 2016/17 the Auditor General of SA had eleven findings with one being recurring. It was the fourth year in a row that the RSR had obtained an unqualified audit report.
On performance, the Regulator achieved 89% of its annual targets. Some of the RSR’s achievements were that it had overhauled its permit regime, had established five regional offices in Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg and Nelspruit to service SA. The Road Safety Regulator had also successfully implemented its Safety Management System assessment tool in 2016/17 and had adopted regional standards. In addition, 71 inspections had been conducted and revenue had increased by 19%. The Regulator, however, also had non- achievements. Annual Performance Plan targets of having the Railway Reserve Regulations and Human Factor Regulations implemented were not met as impact assessments on both would only be done during 2017/18. The target on Platform Train Interface Improvement Directives had also not been met in 2016/17 and the outstanding directives would be followed up for implementation in 2017/18. The Regulator identified insufficient cash flow and delays in finalising and promulgating regulations as high strategic risks. The New Rail Policy and the investigation of anonymous allegations were considered to be emerging risks in the medium to long term. The Road Safety Regulator was however, committed to addressing these risks.
Members were concerned about the Auditor General’s audit findings and asked what interventions the Road Safety Regulator had in place to address them. Members asked the Regulator to provide the Committee with its action plan on dealing with the Auditor General’s audit findings. Members asked how the Regulator was assisting local suppliers to get on board, given that the industry was very technical. The Regulator was asked what its challenges in relation to compliance were. Why had targets not been met? The Regulator was asked to provide the Committee with a breakdown of figures per province on youth development. Did the Road Safety Regulator have a unit in place to deal with emerging risks? Members asked the Regulator to provide the Committee with its Annual Performance Plans. Members also would have liked to see what the Road Safety Regulator’s targets in terms of the National Development Plan were. Members as ambassadors of provinces needed statistics on work that the Regulator did in provinces. In as much as members agreed with the Regulator that rail transport needed to be a safe mode of transport the reality was that it had the worst safety record. What was the Regulator doing about it? Issues like overcrowding, late trains and cable theft were still rampant.
Members observed that the investigation of anonymous allegations should not be seen as an emerging risk but rather as an opportunity to wipe out corruption and fraud. The Road Safety Regulator was asked why there were recurring issues. Why had issues not been sorted out? Cash flow problems seemed to be one of the most recurring issues. How was the Regulator dealing with cash flow issues? Members asked about the R5m penalty that an inspector of the Road Safety Regulator had imposed against the Passenger Rail Agency of SA over the Booysens train accident matter. Had the Agency paid the penalty yet? What other repercussions were there for the Agency besides the penalty. Members felt that there should be a time limit within which the Agency should pay the penalty.
The Road Safety Regulator was further asked why its spend on youth and women in relation to Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment was so minimal. What was the Regulator doing to improve the figures? If the Regulator considered delays in finalising and promulgating regulations as a risk, the Committee asked how it could assist in this regard. The Committee hoped to have another interaction with the Road Safety Regulator in the near future to check on progress made.
The Road Traffic Management Corporation was established in terms of the RTMC Act of 1999. In terms of the Corporation’s shareholding it reported to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Transport as well as to nine Members of Executive Committees and to one SA Local Government Association representative.
In 2016/17 the Corporation had obtained a clean unqualified audit report. The intention was to reduce road fatalities and road accidents. This depended firstly on the Corporation’s legislative capabilities or the lack thereof as well as on the eNaTIS Platform. Historically eNaTIS was handled by the company Tasima. The contract had expired and had been renewed. Three years ago, legislation stipulated that eNaTIS should be placed within the Road Traffic Management Corporation. For the past three years the matter had been tied up in court. The Constitutional Court had found in favour of the Road Traffic Management Corporation. Tasima had not taken the decision lightly as the contract was worth R40m a month. The legal battle impacted upon the Road Traffic Management Corporation performing its work. The Corporation was the only entity that had a shareholder committee and a Board to account to. Only 24% of the Corporation’s funding was from government. The rest of the funding came from transactional fees.
The strategic goals and objectives of the Road Traffic Management Corporation were outlined to Members. On performance the Corporation had achieved 79% of its targets for 2016/17. The figure was down from performance in 2015/16, which had been 92%. The Committee was provided with a broad overview of achievements for 2016/17 against the Annual Performance Plan. Some targets were however, not achieved. Remedial actions had in the meantime been taken.
The Corporation overspent by 9% due to mainly the eNaTIS transfer issue as well as anti-corruption activities. The core of the Corporation was the eNaTIS system. It was a R40m a month revenue generator. Challenges faced by the Corporation were continuous litigation due to court battles, RTMC financial sustainability, harmonisation of legislation and the need to implement a 24/7 shift system for traffic officers such as the South African Police Services had.
The Road Traffic Management Corporation was asked whether it had a strategy on fraud and corruption. Did the Corporation work with the South African Police Services? Members asked whether there was a road safety strategy in rural areas. Members also asked about the 9% over expenditure by the Corporation. Members were perplexed to hear that litigation over the eNaTIS system was continuing even though the Constitutional Court had pronounced itself over the matter. The Constitutional Court was after all the highest court in the land. The Corporation was asked to explain.
Members stated that it was common knowledge that there was corruption in the drivers licence system and the Road Traffic Management Corporation was asked what it was doing about it. Members felt that fatalities on roads were a societal issue and that a change in behavioural patterns of South Africans was needed. The Corporation was asked whether the public perception that minibus taxis were the main cause of road accidents was true. Was there scientific proof to back the perception? Members further asked whether media reports were correct that there was to be an increase in motor vehicle licensing fees. Was the increase justified? The Corporation was also asked why road safety was only a focus during the festive season and the Easter weekend when in reality road deaths was a year-round problem. The concern was that road deaths were not decreasing. SA had the highest percentage rate in the world. What could be done to deal with the issue? Members were in agreement that it was important for the Committee to have another interaction with the Corporation in the near future. Regular engagement was needed. The Corporation was asked to take into account the effect that alcohol consumption had on drivers. Concern was also raised about accidents on national roads being caused by trucks. Members asked whether eNaTIS was working 100%. Members felt that the National Road Safety Strategy was not working too well. Was the Corporation considering changing certain aspects of the National Road Safety Strategy? The Committee was concerned about the lack of funding for the National Road Safety Strategy. The Road Traffic Management Corporation was urged to come up with creative and innovative ways to deal with road deaths. Perhaps road deaths were increasing because more people were using roads. The Corporation was asked whether it had done a study on the number of motor vehicles that were on South African roads.
Meeting report
In the absence of the Committee Chairperson, Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape), being off sick the Committee was expected to elect an Acting Chairperson. However, when nominations were put forward by the majority party ANC and minority party DA the Committee reached a stalemate as on either side there was equal support for their respective nominees. Mr S Mthimunye (ANC, Mpumalanga) and Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) were the nominated members from either party. Even when put to a vote the stalemate persisted until Mr Y Vawda (EFF, Mpumalanga) arrived and cast his vote in favour of Mr Faber. Mr Faber was elected Acting Chairperson for the meeting.
The Road Safety Regulator had achieved an unqualified audit report with noncompliance on expenditure management. For 2016/17 the Auditor General of SA had eleven findings with one being recurring. It was the fourth year in a row that the RSR had obtained an unqualified audit report.
On performance, the Regulator achieved 89% of its annual targets. Some of the RSR’s achievements were that it had overhauled its permit regime, had established five regional offices in Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg and Nelspruit to service SA. The Road Safety Regulator had also successfully implemented its Safety Management System assessment tool in 2016/17 and had adopted regional standards. In addition, 71 inspections had been conducted and revenue had increased by 19%. The Regulator, however, also had non- achievements. Annual Performance Plan targets of having the Railway Reserve Regulations and Human Factor Regulations implemented were not met as impact assessments on both would only be done during 2017/18. The target on Platform Train Interface Improvement Directives had also not been met in 2016/17 and the outstanding directives would be followed up for implementation in 2017/18. The Regulator identified insufficient cash flow and delays in finalising and promulgating regulations as high strategic risks. The New Rail Policy and the investigation of anonymous allegations were considered to be emerging risks in the medium to long term. The Road Safety Regulator was however, committed to addressing these risks.
Members were concerned about the Auditor General’s audit findings and asked what interventions the Road Safety Regulator had in place to address them. Members asked the Regulator to provide the Committee with its action plan on dealing with the Auditor General’s audit findings. Members asked how the Regulator was assisting local suppliers to get on board, given that the industry was very technical. The Regulator was asked what its challenges in relation to compliance were. Why had targets not been met? The Regulator was asked to provide the Committee with a breakdown of figures per province on youth development. Did the Road Safety Regulator have a unit in place to deal with emerging risks? Members asked the Regulator to provide the Committee with its Annual Performance Plans. Members also would have liked to see what the Road Safety Regulator’s targets in terms of the National Development Plan were. Members as ambassadors of provinces needed statistics on work that the Regulator did in provinces. In as much as members agreed with the Regulator that rail transport needed to be a safe mode of transport the reality was that it had the worst safety record. What was the Regulator doing about it? Issues like overcrowding, late trains and cable theft were still rampant.
Members observed that the investigation of anonymous allegations should not be seen as an emerging risk but rather as an opportunity to wipe out corruption and fraud. The Road Safety Regulator was asked why there were recurring issues. Why had issues not been sorted out? Cash flow problems seemed to be one of the most recurring issues. How was the Regulator dealing with cash flow issues? Members asked about the R5m penalty that an inspector of the Road Safety Regulator had imposed against the Passenger Rail Agency of SA over the Booysens train accident matter. Had the Agency paid the penalty yet? What other repercussions were there for the Agency besides the penalty. Members felt that there should be a time limit within which the Agency should pay the penalty.
The Road Safety Regulator was further asked why its spend on youth and women in relation to Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment was so minimal. What was the Regulator doing to improve the figures? If the Regulator considered delays in finalising and promulgating regulations as a risk, the Committee asked how it could assist in this regard. The Committee hoped to have another interaction with the Road Safety Regulator in the near future to check on progress made.
The Road Traffic Management Corporation was established in terms of the RTMC Act of 1999. In terms of the Corporation’s shareholding it reported to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Transport as well as to nine Members of Executive Committees and to one SA Local Government Association representative.
In 2016/17 the Corporation had obtained a clean unqualified audit report. The intention was to reduce road fatalities and road accidents. This depended firstly on the Corporation’s legislative capabilities or the lack thereof as well as on the eNaTIS Platform. Historically eNaTIS was handled by the company Tasima. The contract had expired and had been renewed. Three years ago, legislation stipulated that eNaTIS should be placed within the Road Traffic Management Corporation. For the past three years the matter had been tied up in court. The Constitutional Court had found in favour of the Road Traffic Management Corporation. Tasima had not taken the decision lightly as the contract was worth R40m a month. The legal battle impacted upon the Road Traffic Management Corporation performing its work. The Corporation was the only entity that had a shareholder committee and a Board to account to. Only 24% of the Corporation’s funding was from government. The rest of the funding came from transactional fees.
The strategic goals and objectives of the Road Traffic Management Corporation were outlined to Members. On performance the Corporation had achieved 79% of its targets for 2016/17. The figure was down from performance in 2015/16, which had been 92%. The Committee was provided with a broad overview of achievements for 2016/17 against the Annual Performance Plan. Some targets were however, not achieved. Remedial actions had in the meantime been taken.
The Corporation overspent by 9% due to mainly the eNaTIS transfer issue as well as anti-corruption activities. The core of the Corporation was the eNaTIS system. It was a R40m a month revenue generator. Challenges faced by the Corporation were continuous litigation due to court battles, RTMC financial sustainability, harmonisation of legislation and the need to implement a 24/7 shift system for traffic officers such as the South African Police Services had.
The Road Traffic Management Corporation was asked whether it had a strategy on fraud and corruption. Did the Corporation work with the South African Police Services? Members asked whether there was a road safety strategy in rural areas. Members also asked about the 9% over expenditure by the Corporation. Members were perplexed to hear that litigation over the eNaTIS system was continuing even though the Constitutional Court had pronounced itself over the matter. The Constitutional Court was after all the highest court in the land. The Corporation was asked to explain.
Members stated that it was common knowledge that there was corruption in the drivers licence system and the Road Traffic Management Corporation was asked what it was doing about it. Members felt that fatalities on roads were a societal issue and that a change in behavioural patterns of South Africans was needed. The Corporation was asked whether the public perception that minibus taxis were the main cause of road accidents was true. Was there scientific proof to back the perception? Members further asked whether media reports were correct that there was to be an increase in motor vehicle licensing fees. Was the increase justified? The Corporation was also asked why road safety was only a focus during the festive season and the Easter weekend when in reality road deaths was a year-round problem. The concern was that road deaths were not decreasing. SA had the highest percentage rate in the world. What could be done to deal with the issue? Members were in agreement that it was important for the Committee to have another interaction with the Corporation in the near future. Regular engagement was needed. The Corporation was asked to take into account the effect that alcohol consumption had on drivers. Concern was also raised about accidents on national roads being caused by trucks. Members asked whether eNaTIS was working 100%. Members felt that the National Road Safety Strategy was not working too well. Was the Corporation considering changing certain aspects of the National Road Safety Strategy? The Committee was concerned about the lack of funding for the National Road Safety Strategy. The Road Traffic Management Corporation was urged to come up with creative and innovative ways to deal with road deaths. Perhaps road deaths were increasing because more people were using roads. The Corporation was asked whether it had done a study on the number of motor vehicles that were on South African roads.
Documents
Present
-
Nthebe, Mr B Chairperson
ANC -
Faber, Mr WF
DA -
Londt, Mr J
DA -
Magwebu, Mr L
DA -
Mthimunye, Mr S
ANC -
Parkies, Mr JP
ANC -
Vawda, Dr Y
EFF
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.