Transport Budget: Committee Report

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting, welcoming the Members and noted absentee apologies from three Members. He also noted that Mr T Mabhena’s (DA) leave to attend to party business. The Chairperson provided a brief overview of the meeting’s proceedings, stating that the primary matter on the agenda is the adoption of the Transport Budget Vote Report.  

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on Budget Vote 40: Transport and Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans 2021-22 of the Department of Transport and Entities Reporting to the Minister of Transport

The Committee Content Advisor provided a brief overview of the Committee’s observations and recommendations as contained in the report.  

The Chairperson invited Members to make final comments on the reports.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) stated that he was happy with the report, as it captured the previous meetings deliberations. He commented on the issue of Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa’s (PRASA) failed security contracts noting that Members expressed unanimous disappointment at the failure of the renewal of security contracts, as it has led to extensive looting of the infrastructure. He proposed that some changes be made to better reflect this.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Hunsinger for his comments.

The Chairperson stated that the challenges pertaining to e-tolls have been discussed in a previous meeting and the Committee has decided to stand with the South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL) in addressing the issue.

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) suggested changes to paragraph two under the heading “mandate” of the report, asking that the words “three spheres of government” be omitted so as not to refer the levels of government. He observed that there is a contradiction that reads “in this regard, the Department has concurrent function on public transport and transport relation services” because while provincial roads are an exclusive provincial function under schedule 5, there is national enforcement. He explained that the wording should be changed to avoid confusion.

Mr Mangcu added that where the Minister’s name is mentioned, this be amended to refer to his position or office and not his personal capacity as Minister. Similarly, point 4.1 refers to President Ramaphosa, whereas it should be amended to “the President”.  He commented that this may be a cosmetic change and not a substantive one. In section five, where there is an analysis in point 5.1 on the Minister’s directives, there is a need for more detail and consistency in the presentation of facts.

Mr Mangcu asked that the word “amalgamating” in point 6.1.9 of ‘observations’ be reconsidered, as the Department spoke about a restructuring process. On the Driving Licence Card Account (DLCA), Mr Mangcu asked that the word “technology” be added, as the word ‘infrastructure’ does not always include technology. The report mentions “single traffic enforcement”, which Mr Mangcu does not recall as being part of the Committee’s comments in the previous meeting, as municipal traffic enforcement would already be adequate. He accepted that the timeframes should remain the same, as it has; they often do not change the Department’s readiness when the matters are discussed. He conceded that it would be best to accept the Department’s own timelines, in this regard.

The Committee Secretary noted the changes suggested by Mr Hunsinger on the security vacuum. She recommended that the Committee add a recommendation to have the security matter finalised within the financial year to emphasise the urgency.

The Secretary agreed with the cosmetic changes, opting for the office and not the name. She stated that the Constitution does allow for exclusive law enforcement in the provinces, but that there is a need for uniformity in law enforcement. She expressed the view that it may also help to have a standard uniform so that provincial and municipal law enforcement officers are easily distinguishable across municipalities.

The Committee Secretary stated she agrees with the change on the appointment of permanent boards, as the law does not permit the use of temporary boards. She stated that the Members’ concerns have been captured in the observations and asked that Members revisit this section to ensure that their concerns have been captured accurately to allow for adoption of the report in the next meeting.  

In respect to changing the “amalgamation”, the Committee Secretary stated that in order to change the language of the report to reflect the reality on the ground, the Committee needed to have a clearer understanding of the restructuring that the Department envisions. The phrasing in “recommendations” should be changed to “through the Minister” instead of “to the Minister”, as the recommendations are presented to the Minister through the House. The Committee Secretary asked whether she should shorten the Committee’s observations in the report instead of lengthening it, so that the report can be ready for adoption in the next meeting.

Mr Mangcu agreed that the observation section be shortened.

Mr Hunsinger agreed with the amendments, stating that a general outline of the observations was sufficient.

The report, with amendments, would be adopted at the meeting the following day.

Committee Strategic Plan report  

The Committee Secretary drew the Committee’s attention to the reviewed strategic plan, as there was a need for Members’ input on the section pertaining to public engagements. She stated that the modus operandi remains virtual meetings and suggested that the Committee have joint meetings when considering the Public Protector’s report. She stated that there is a request for Members to be included in the Department’s strategic planning meetings to make sure that the targets comply with the legislation and that the Department meets its deadlines. Due to the pandemic, there have been fewer site meetings and there may be findings in the Public Protector’s report in this vein. One of the Committee’s goals is to tour the Airport Company of South Africa (ACSA) airports once travel has resumed. There were talks of ACSA selling its interests in São Paulo and if this is the case then the Committee does not have oversight in this regard.  She suggests that the Committee embarks on virtual study tours in the meantime.

The Committee has received some information about PRASA and TRANSNET for the upcoming Transport Bill, but she cautioned that these matters be kept separately. She further noted that there are a number of reconfiguration and legacy issues, which are outstanding.

The Committee stated that last year it was not able to meet its biweekly targets and there may be a need to reduce this to one meeting monthly.

She explained that if the Committee does not finalise the ERT matter, it may be moved to the next quarter.

The Committee Secretary presented the APP, stating that the situational analysis has been updated to include the 2021 SONA (State of the Nation Address) recommendations. The 2020/2021 budget has not been included as yet but will be made available once it has been finalised. She said the Committee may be able to execute four reports quarterly. The Committee’s programme may have to be adjusted depending on the changes the parliamentary programme. She cautioned Members that the Committee should aim to complete as many reports as possible to ensure that Members are not overloaded in the next financial year.

The Committee Secretary highlighted that the metro bus strikes are still ongoing, and the Committee may have to respond to this matter. She noted miscellaneous RAF issues that need to be address. She stated that the APP is drafted in a flexible manner to better respond to changes in the Department’s programme.

The Chairperson asked Members if they had any comments or changes or recommendations for the APP and Strategic Plan.

Mr Hunsinger stated that there is a need to review the coordination framework in this regard, asking for the Chairperson’s input.

The Chairperson agreed that a monthly management meeting will be the best option to ensure that the targets are met.

The Committee Secretary highlighted that the APP is considered a living document, as the parliamentary programme changes on a weekly basis.

A Member highlighted some transport issues for school children, asking that this be included in the Committee’s oversight engagements.

The Committee Secretary noted given the time constraints, a virtual study tour for the Committee’s international engagements may be more appropriate.

The report was adopted.

Mr Mangcu raised concerns about the transport hardships that school going children in rural areas faced.

The Chairperson asked for clarity, asking whether this was a matter of provincial or national competence in terms of the Constitution.

The Committee Secretary clarified that the Department of Basic Education will identify which schools need vehicles, and that law enforcement officers issue licenses in this regard – explaining that this was a joint matter. She stated that it may be appropriate to consult the Select Committee on the matter. There is still ambiguity on who the “mother” of the rural education transport issues is.

Mr Hunsinger stated that it may be helpful to investigate what the transport issues were, as this may provide better clarity. 

The Chairperson thanked Members for their contributions and their preparedness.

The Chairperson asked for Members to adopt the minutes of two previous meetings.

Mr Mangcu stated that there is a SANRAL board Member who was not marked present in the meeting.

Both meeting minutes were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.