Transport Budget: Committee Report

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson said today’s meeting would deal with the consideration of the draft Committee Report on the 2020/21 budget, the annual performance plan (APP) and strategic plans of the Department. The Committee was required to formulate its observations and make recommendations.

Yesterday, he had seen emails exchanged between Members and the secretariat about questions that entities had not responded to properly, and had asked for guidance on the issue. He had replied to the emails, and would take the matter up. It would be the correct procedure for the Committee to first insist that unanswered questions be answered, and the Department had to write to entities and give them a timeframe to provide answers, as well as conditions for failure to meet these requests. If the Committee did not receive answers, a formal report would be written to the Speaker of Parliament stating that entities had not responded. For now, it had to be emphasised that the Committee wanted questions answered.

The Chairperson asked if Members agreed that the Committee write to the Department that questions had to be answered.

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) greeted those present and said he was one of the persons who had raised concern on the matter. It was not the first time the Department had not given responses. He supported the Chairperson’s proposal. He suggested that Members highlight the questions to be answered to assist the secretariat in writing to the Department or entities.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) seconded the Chairperson’s proposal, as he felt it was the correct procedure to follow. It would give the Committee guidance on what to do next if questions remained unanswered.

Meeting agenda

The Chairperson said the day’s agenda had three items:

• Consideration of the tabled report;
• A proposal from Chair that the Committee look at possibility of using the week of 9 June to have a meeting to receive a briefing on the Single Transport Economic Regulation (STER) Bill; and
• The consideration of minutes.

 

He asked if Members agreed with the proposed agenda.

Mr Mangcu asked if it was possible, time permitting, for Members to discuss Covid-19 -- specifically in line with Alert Level 3 -- as he felt the Committee was always receiving feedback from the media, which was not right. He asked if there was an opportunity to discuss possible oversight where Members were currently based during lockdown, instead of travelling together when the country moved to Level 3, to assess what was happening in the transport space. He thought oversight was necessary wherever possible.

The Chairperson asked if the Department of Transport (DoT) was in attendance.

Ms Valerie Carelse, Committee Secretary: said the DoT was represented by Ms Thandiwe Mpondo, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, and Mr Bosa Ramantsi, Acting Chief Director: Strategic Planning, as well as officials from the Deputy Minister’s office who would also join. Delegates from the Department would hear the Committee’s concerns regarding the lack of response to questions.

The Chairperson said he presumed that the Department would not be prepared to discuss Covid-19 today.

Ms Carelse said it would not be able to, because the matter was not on the agenda. The Committee had time and space in the programme in the week of 9 June because there was no other agenda, as it was initially an oversight week.

The Chairperson said the matter would be discussed, time permitting.

Budget, APP and Strategic Plan Report: Recommendations and Observations

The Chairperson said there would be no presentation, as Members had gone through the report and minutes which had been sent to them prior to the meeting. Members had to give their recommendations and observations.

Mr K Sithole(IFP) thanked the Chairperson and staff of the Committee for a job well done. He asked when the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) would present its own annual performance plan (APP) and strategic plan. It seemed unfair that the report was being finalised without SANRAL’s input and challenges.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary for her input.

Ms Carelse said there had been an email overnight from the Department, and last week it had stated it would try to get the SANRAL documents tabled this week. It seemed as if the Department was in the process of doing so, but had struggled to get the documents through to Parliament. She would follow up today to assist with getting documents tabled, and Members could probably expect a report by tomorrow or Thursday. The issue was that the Committee had to report on the budget of the Department by the latest on 1 June. The question was whether there was enough time to have the SANRAL briefing and still report before the deadline.

The Chairperson said the Committee could express its displeasure for the late submission by SANRAL, and get reasons why the entity was struggling to submit. However, it could not stop and wait for an entity that was struggling to present. The matter would be dealt with accordingly, but the Committee would have to move forward.

Mr McDonald suggested, with regard to the SANRAL situation, that there had to be a clear indication of what would happen with e-tolls. There had to be a finalisation on where the matter was going, as it could impact its funding and financial model.

It was difficult under the Covid-19 circumstances, but the Road Accident Fund (RAF) matter also had to be finalised as it was not currently earning the fuel levy it used to, and this could cause it to go further into debt. This meant the RAF would move closer to R1 billion in debt, and there was no finalisation on how it would proceed. A decision was needed on whether there would be a bail out, or if there were other alternatives

The Chairperson said the matter would be taken to the DoT, together with SANRAL matters.

He asked for observations and recommendations from Members on the Report. He said there had been no observations from Members, which implied they were happy.

Ms Carelse said unlike in previous years, Members had been given very detailed minutes to assist with working through the Report. The observations and recommendations covered most of what the Members had mentioned, and the remaining issues that required clarity were those submitted to the Department and entities.

The Committee staff would include the issue of late reports submitted in the Report so that the Department knew there was displeasure. When a report was late, a Minister would have to provide a reason, so when SANRAL submitted its report, the Minister would provide letter detailing why it had not been on time.

The Chairperson said that in the absence of Members’ observations, he would give his own.

He observed that the Transport Interacted Planning for Quarters 1 and 2 was not doing well. There was under-spending considering other entities, even though it had signaled a high level of under-spending, and civil aviation spending for Quarters 1 and 2 was not according to projections.

He wanted to put it on record that when it came to spending on employee compensation, the vacancies that existed had been indicated as the reason for under-spending. The Department had been given time to correct itself when it came to vacancies that had to be filled. It had had to decide and close the vacancies issue. Why was it taking so long to fill the vacancies? It had to finalise the matter so that it could provide the correct projections to the Committee.

Although fast-tracking of transformation was mentioned in the Report, it was becoming mere rhetoric. From his position as Chairperson, he was of the view that the Department and its entities were not doing enough in this space, unless he was not aware of something. It should not be a talk show -- there had to be clear and concrete steps on how to address the issue. For example, with roads, big construction companies were used, but the previously disadvantaged were not included and given contracts so that the country could get to a point where wealth was shared. He wanted to place these as observations and recommendations on record. The recommendations and observations would be taken from the minutes, as the secretary had said.  

He said the Report was passed.

Scheduling of future meetings

The Chairperson requested that there be a briefing on the Single Transport Economic Regulator (STER) bill during the week of 9 June so that the Committee did not fall behind. He asked for the Committee Secretary’s brief on the matter.

Ms Carelse said the week had originally been an oversight week when the programme was set out. The Committee did not have agenda item for that week, but it was now committee week. However, she was not sure if it was still an oversight week, and would have to check.

She had heard Mr Mangcu talking about more individualised oversight, and she would clarify and give a response hopefully before the end of this meeting. The STER Bill had been tabled earlier this year, and the Secretariat was thinking that possibly the Committee could have a briefing on the Bill before the Parliamentary recess. The reason for this was to allow the Bill to be advertised over a longer period of four to five weeks for public comments.

When the Members came back for the third term, the Committee would deal with legislation and appointments. The focus for the third term would be mostly on legislation, and it still had the Civil Aviation Bill and the Road Accident Benefits Bill to cover. There were also other areas the Members wanted to follow up on, such as a follow up meeting with the Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA) on India and Brazil investments, and a follow up on the revised strategic plans of the Department.

There were other meetings that still had to take place in the third term, so having the briefing before the third term, during the recess, would open up more programme time in the third term. The fourth term covered the annual performance report and the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR). She asked the Committee to consider this.

The Chairperson asked if Members agreed.

Mr McDonald said it would be fine for the Committee to have a briefing in that week, and requested that the Committee researcher give inputs while Members waited for the meeting.

Adoption of Minutes

The Chairperson said the minutes for the Committee’s meetings of 11 and 18 May were under consideration.

Mr Sithole proposed that the minutes of 11 May be adopted. Mr McDonald seconded the motion for adoption.

The Chairperson asked if any corrections had to be made to the 18 May minutes.

Mr Mangcu referred to point number four in the presentation by the South African Commuters Association (SACA) presentation, he did not recall the Deputy Minister giving an opening statement, as the statement had been made before the ACSA presentation.

On 5.4, he said there was a singling out of an EFF Member, as only that Member’s party had been mentioned. He proposed it be removed, as no other party was mentioned in the minutes.

On 3.0, it was stated ACSA had been asked to provide a breakdown of cases it currently had in court and its budgeted amounts for legal fees, but he did not recall that point.

On 3.8, there was sentence that stated “it was noted that the presentation did not focus on revenue and non-aeronautical services.” He proposed that because there was limited time, maybe it could be rephrased to state “not cover,” instead of “not focus”. Those were his recommendations and he moved for the adoption.

Mr C Hunsinger(DA) said he wanted to make a counter-proposal -- that the reference to the EFF be maintained, and that other parties were mentioned as well in future

Mr McDonald said he would assist Mr Mangcu. It had been his question on the amount of legal fees spent. The question was about the Cape medics, who would go to court tomorrow again, and it seemed ACSA’s property would be auctioned. He supported Mr Mangcu’s proposal.

The Chairperson said these were the conventions of the minutes for the purpose of the Report. It would go back to the ordinary way of writing minutes, where this would not be the case. He asked Members to accept the fact that for the purpose of these minutes, the format being followed was not to mention party names, and the Committee would be able to correct when one party was mentioned.

Ms Carelse said if there was an objection by a party, it had to be noted. This happened more with legislation and was not normally seen with strategic plans, but if there was objection it had to be mentioned. She asked for clarity on the adoption.

The Chairperson said Mr Mangcu had moved the adoption and Mr McDonald had seconded.

Mr Sithole said he seconded, with amendments.

Discussion on oversight

The Chairperson requested that the matter of oversight be discussed, as proposed by Mr Mangcu.

Ms Carelse said she had promised to give a response by the end of the meeting, and was communicating with her manager. There was a possibility of a programme change to allow the processing of the Appropriation and Amendment Bill.

The week of 9 June was therefore likely not to be an oversight week anymore, and it would probably be confirmed by Thursday, when there was a programming committee. For now, it was possible that it would just be a committee week, and not an oversight week.

Mr Mangcu said he accepted Ms Carelse’s response. For him, it was not the matter of the week, but the principle of conducting oversight. The trains and airports would be open at Level 3, yet there would be no form of oversight done. It was not in the interest of the Committee and its role to not have oversight. Oversight had to be made to fit the circumstances. He would accept what the structures outlined, but he felt limited. It was a Committee task, and not a party one. Members had to do oversight as a Committee in regions where they were.

Mr McDonald said he agreed that there were serious challenges in the transport sector, and it was not right that there was no oversight. Considering the airport and rail networks would be opening, there had to be oversight. It was an imperative that Members do oversight, otherwise they would be useless to Parliament.

Mr Hunsinger said he agreed with the two previous speakers. He was seriously concerned about what the Committee, in the current situation, regarded as important to fill an agenda with. He agreed that in terms of processes, structure and procedure, it was important to consider budgets like had been done today, but the Committee had to deal firmly with what had to be faced when going forward, as the budget could be seriously affected.

He asked the Chairperson to take the lead on this matter. He requested that the Chairperson take serious steps to change the direction of the Committee from where it had gone in the past. The Committee ran the risk of repeating the same performance of the previous Committee, which had been a Portfolio Committee which was toothless and directionless, as well as led by the agenda of the Department instead of fulfilling its mandate and holding the Minister to account. The country was in a crisis, and the Committee’s direction and agenda had to be focused on different items.

The RAF, for instance, was not regarded as an essential service, and this had to be engaged on. Public transport was a serious challenge, and there had to be engagement to determine what the DoT’s plans were post Covid-19. Yet the Committee was struggling to find items to discuss, and was discussing academic matters. He asked the Chairperson to take a lead, so the Committee was not toothless and directionless.

Mr P Mey (FF+) he said agreed with the previous speakers on oversight.

Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF) said she agreed with the previous speakers as well, but proposed that minibus taxi facilities also be included in the oversight programme.

Mr Sithole agreed with the other Members. He had visited a taxi rank in Germiston, and sanitation and social distancing would be a dream if there was no oversight. It seemed that there was no programme to sanitise the stations in Germiston. He agreed with other Members that the Committee had to be proactive about what to do.

The Chairperson said that the resolution today was that it was important for the Committee to do its work and oversight, despite the circumstances. He had seen that the Committee on Home Affairs had done oversight, so this Committee also had to be allowed. He asked Ms Carelse to pass the message on to the programming committee.

Members of Parliament had been declared as part of the essential service package, so the Committee should be allowed to perform its oversight.

Mr Mangcu said he had proposed earlier that there be a regular update on Covid-19. He knew of another committee that had received no fewer than three updates on Covid-19. It was one thing to say the taxi industry would be assisted, but the Committee could not wait for the taxi industry to go on strike before it realised it was not being assisted. There needed to be regular updates, and this had to be considered going forward.

The Chairperson said a WhatsApp group called “Covid-19” had been created, and Advocate Alma Nel, Committee Content Advisor, was doing well there. He agreed on the need for briefings, and suggested the same Whatsapp group could be used as agreed. At the next meeting, the Department had to give a 15 to 20 minute briefing on Covid-19.

Mr Hunsinger said he appreciated the Whatsapp updates, but nothing was mentioned about transport in the group. He wanted to put it on record that the Whatsapp group had not met its purpose.

He said the Committee did not have to get permission from the programming committee to do oversight. He expected the Chairperson take lead on the matter, and to arrange a meeting with the RAF to have an engagement as to why it had been excluded as an essential service. He expected this type of oversight could be done even on a virtual level. Other issues, such as truckers not having access to a decent meal, also had to be addressed.

He said he had submitted comprehensive requests to the Department and had approached the Director General (DG) on several occasions through WhatsApp, but had not received a response. He put it on record that the DG refused to answer his Whatsapp requests. Things were not functioning, and oversight was not working, therefore a focused direction was needed if the Committee wanted to play a role in fulfilling its function. It was year since the Committee had started, and it was the time where it either compromised or stood its ground and made a difference. 

The Chairperson said he heard Members clearly, and agreed going forward.

Mr McDonald said he knew the Chairperson would take the lead. It would be nice if the Department could keep Members informed on its meetings in the WhatsApp group as well. The Committee needed to know what would happen before the media, as it could not do oversight when it was playing catch up.

Ms Carlese said the programming committee did not approve oversight. It set out the parameters and framework for the Parliamentary programme. The issue of oversight had to be dealt with by the House Chairperson. It would be good to have an indication of when and where Members wanted to do oversight, so it could be scheduled.

If Members wanted a Covid-19 follow up, there was a space in next week’s programme in the 18h00 evening slot. She needed an indication today, so the Department could be informed.

The Chairperson said he was indicating that the programming committee had to be made aware of the Committee’s decision, and it would be taken up with the House Chairperson. Members had proposed that oversight be carried out on the RAF, SANRAL, mini-bus taxis, PRASA and ACSA.

He said the Committee would not fail its Members, and work would be done diligently. He thanked the Members for keeping the Committee professional.

There was an issue that the Committee had often raised regarding panel vans. This report had to come to the forefront and be dealt with.

The meeting was adjourned.