Economic Regulation of Transport Bill; DoT Quarter 4 performance; Moloto Corridor; with Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Transport

26 May 2021
Chairperson: Mr M Zwane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Committee Report on Department of Transport budget

Report No. 37 of 2018/19 on an investigation into the illegal conversion of goods carrying Toyota Quantum panel vans into passenger carrying minibus taxis to transport members of the public for reward

The Department of Transport (DoT) said two options had to be considered for the Economic Regulation of Transport Bill. The first option was DoT had to look at rewriting the entire Bill. The second option was the inclusion of a clause which would allow for a staggered approach in the assimilation of the functions of transport regulators into the Single Transport Economic Regulator (STER). DoT was leaning towards the second option as with such a clause, it would avoid having to come to Parliament each time it wished to have a new regulator assimilated into STER.

Members had concerns about the financial plan for the Bill; who had the power to issue regulations; who had the power to appoint the board and to which bargaining council employees would belong to and the placement of the C-BRTA in the third phase and not earlier. However, the Committee agreed to the second option to continue with the Bill with the inclusion of a clause to allow for a staggered approach and to allow the Minister to appoint the STER board.

DoT then presented its 2020/21 Quarter 4 performance noting which targets had been achieved. Members wanted to know if only four targets were unachieved as they found that hard to believe. How had DoT met its three Rail Transport targets while the trains were not running? They felt as if what was presented by DoT was not a true reflection of what was happening on the ground. Members asked about the number of vacancies, underspending and the significance of the socio-economic impact assessment that had to be completed for the Merchant Shipping Bill.

The Committee had a long discussion about giving feedback to the residents it had met during the oversight visit of the Moloto Corridor Project. It was agreed that as the Committee had committed, it would visit Mpumalanga again in the third quarter. The Chairperson would write to them immediately and explain that no progress had transpired from the Committee's communications with DoT, National Treasury and the President about the Moloto Corridor Project budget. It would request an official response from DoT, National Treasury and the President, and attach those to the letter.

Meeting report

Economic Regulation of Transport Bill
Adv Alma Nel, Committee Content Advisor, gave a short recap of the Bill as to the deliberations of the Committee when it had last met on Bill on 18 March 2021.

Minister of Transport of Transport, Mr Fikile Mbalula, spoke to the importance of the Economic Regulation of Transport Bill to accelerate economic transformation. The Minister emphasised the importance of these clauses in the Bill. He was confident that they had sufficiently narrowed down the concerns previously raised by the Portfolio Committee.

The DoT Director General, Mr Alec Moemi, presented the Bill to the Committee. Two options had to be considered. The first option was that DoT had to look at rewriting the entire Bill. The second option was the inclusion of a clause which would allow for a staggered approach in the assimilation of the functions of other regulators. DoT was leaning towards the second option as it believed with such a clause, they would avoid having to come to Parliament each time they wished to have a new regulator assimilated into the economic regulator.

Discussion
Mr C Hunsinger (DA) acknowledged the Minister and the Deputy Minister. He said the Economic Regulation of Transport Bill was previously presented to the Committee in a particular format, with particular objectives and goals, with a particular framework as a model and it was supported by a very firm financial model which showed transition from the current structure. The roles and functions that would be transferred justified a particular business plan. However, very soon after that, the Bill changed significantly, so much so that the financial and business model could be questionable. In this short briefing before the Committee, DoT motivated only on the basis that the Bill should continue, forced and pushed forward. The Bill was without any support for the changed format, functions and incorporations. He wanted to see the financial model and the implications for staff. Mention was made of an integrated economic regulation framework, how would it work in practical terms? He appreciated the competitive advantage the framework might have as a turn of phrase, but he wanted to know how it would turn out in practical terms.

He objected to the regulations being separated to be a core mandate of the Minister. Regulations should go to Parliament. Appointment of board members should be the function of Parliament. The Bill should go back to the drawing board. The Committee could not continue with a Bill that had changed from how it was previously presented to the Committee. The content changed without additional information. The presentation mentioned the Ports Regulator would be dismantled and incorporated into the new structure. He wanted to know the financial implications of that. How much would the entity that currently dealt with the regulations lose? How would it continue with its other functions after it lost the income?  

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) said questions about the interim transition of the Ports Regulator and employees belonging to which bargaining council, were in the context of the Bill wording. The Committee was trying to ensure that the wording in the Bill was made clear, it was not trying to legislate who belonged to what bargaining council. The question was to ensure that language was synchronised and did not contradict itself. If that was sorted out so the Bill did not contradict itself, the Committee should support the Bill. On who had the power to issue regulations was also based on the language in the Bill in that it created the impression that the regulator would directly gazette the tariffs. Although the terminology did mention “any other means”, it was specific on the gazetted tariffs. The DG had previously used the example of how toll fees were done by the South African National Roads Agency Ltd (SANRAL), and explained the regulator could determine the tariffs but ultimately the authority was with the Minister. If that was the correct understanding, the Bill should be accepted, and the Committee’s legal team must ensure that the meaning of the wording was aligned properly in the Bill.

Mr Mangcu said that the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (C-BRTA) finances were presented by DoT as an item that would be a saving. It was in that context that the Committee specifically stated that the C-BRTA had to be upfront about this.

Mr Mangcu said that the DG mentioned consideration of two options for the Bill. He pleaded with the Committee not to throw out the Bill. The Committee should consider the second option submitted by DoT. He asked Members to consider option two which phased in the Bill and pushed back C-BRTA to phase three. Whether it was done word for word the way the Bill was, was a different story. The implications would be subject to legal advice. What adding that clause would mean to the public participation process and such like would be something that the Committee might want to consider. The Committee should move forward with the Bill and make the adjustment to allow for the entities to be phased in.


He heard what DoT and the Members were saying on board appointments and the Committee had previously debated it. The Committee had already taken a decision on it. He did not know what the implications were of that decision. He heard the DG and Minister and he felt that the Committee must allow itself to be persuaded one way or the other. The Minister and DG were appealing to the Committee to reconsider that decision. Subject to what the implications were, he appealed to the Committee to reconsider that decision and see how it and DoT could meet each other halfway.

Mr Sithole (IFP) asked DoT to clarify some aspects. Who had the power to issue regulations? Who had the power to set price controls? DoT could not just wash away what the Committee had proposed and divert from it. Who had the power to appoint the board? To which bargaining council did the employees belong? The Committee must thoroughly check and do its own research on the regulations because there were many implications, especially financial.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) said the Committee should consider option two as submitted by the DG and not throw away the Bill. The Committee should find a way to make the Bill work. It was desperate for the formalisation of the taxi industry and other forms of transport. The Committee could shape something with what was before it.

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) supported Mr Mangcu’s proposal that the Committee should not throw out the Bill. The Committee should ensure that it identified specific issues that needed to be dealt with and deal with them. She also supported Mr Mangcu's point about the bargaining council, and the C-RBTA financial model. The Committee did oversight on the Executive. If they wanted to appoint board members, how was the Committee going to do that because they would have conflict of interest? She suggested that they left the appointment of the board to the Minister.

Director General response
Mr Moemi thanked the Members for their contributions and took note of them.  DoT would look at C-RBTA being brought much more forward than Phase 3 and what its implications were. DoT would look into bringing it forward, if not possible in Phase 1, then in Phase 2. The financial model had not been changed, it had been staggered. There was not a single regulator in the initial model that was being abandoned and not incorporated into the new one. The difference was that DoT was now working on a medium-term period of three to five years within which they would assimilate all those functions. It was also the outcome of DoT discussions with Treasury on the availability of money and of doing everything at once. However, the future structure and how it would function did not change. The economies of scale would be realisable within a period of five years. It is a staggered-up approach towards that point in a phased and organised manner to avoid the pitfalls the Minister pointed to. DoT had decided that was the route it was taking. DoT had made it clear even in the initial model that the centre of the new entity would be the Ports Regulator. DoT would start from the Ports Regulator and build from there. DoT consciously decided to start where it was the strongest. One of the most well-run machines DoT had was the Ports Regulator. They would then grow by adding road regulations to regulate the prices of SANRAL.

In Phase 1, the key preoccupation was to look at where the impact of regulation was more important to the economy and the challenges currently faced. The reinvestment into ports and the aviation sector as they were the key critical mover of people and promoter of business. Since 90% of all their trade in commodities and goods came via the sea and the maritime sector, the investment in ports and effective regulation was key.  Passengers largely travel by road instead of rail. DoT had to regulate roads because SANRAL largely had a role to play in determining tariffs for roads. South Africa was a country with the least expensive toll gates. There were some toll gates that were quite expensive. DoT needed to look at the concession pricing model. The regulator also needed to regulate that as that was added to the huge cost of goods and food in the Republic. DoT would target those sectors where effective regulation was key and for contribution to the economy. Ideally, DoT should have also regulated other subsets like the taxi industry.

DoT recognised that the poor people in the country utilised trains. In the four provinces where Metrorail was available, it was the preferred mode of travel for the poorest of the poor although it was not the best it could be. People had very few options before them. Rail regulation for passenger travel had become quite important, that was why for the first time it was put in Phase 1. In consideration of the price of goods, DoT’s stated policy of the shift of goods from road to rail meant it also needed to regulate rail freight tariffs in the immediate start as a way to incentivise such a shift. That was what motivated DoT to look at the phased in approach. 

DoT had put the regulation of taxis as the biggest mover of people last because it was not ideal to regulate a very disorganised informal industry. They first had to formalise the industry, professionalise it to a certain extent, have the requisite database and bring regulatory certainty. Once all that was present, then you could put the regulatory framework in place. That was another reason the National Public Transport Regulator (NPTR) had never been an effective regulator. DoT was in the process of formalising the taxi industry. They had an agreement with the South African National Taxi Council (SANTACO) that it would participate in the formalisation process. SANTACO would register for tax, they would register formal companies, they would register their employees for the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF), the employees themselves would be registered for pay as you earn (PAYE). The companies would register for corporate income tax as well.

DoT would also see the transfer of licences into an official trading business and not individual proprietors. Parallel to that, DoT was working on vehicle norms and standards for cleanliness. DoT was on a roll with SANTACO to ensure that formalisation became a reality, and they were creating programmes around customer care to improve services to the majority of the poor. Once the conditions were opportune and right, then DoT would have the regulations. It was for that reason DoT had put the NPTR last. The other one, C-BRTA, had been in Phase 3 due to the nature of the agreements and the interdependencies of the cross border transportation system. DoT did take note that the Committee wanted C-BRTA absorbed much earlier than what DoT had envisaged. DoT was committing to relook at that. He agreed that Parliament Legal Services would have to look at the Bill to see that it was properly drafted and the intent of the legislature was achievable.

Further questions
Mr Hunsinger said he heard a lot of expressions of support for the Bill. The DA was in support of the idea of the Bill. There was no resistance in principle. What the DA saw was a difference in what was expected and what was presented, it had changed.  What would be left of the Ports Regulator? Would the full function and the whole entity be dissolved and transferred into the new Economic Regulation of Transport (ERT) structure? How would the budget be split? What portion would be left for the function and role of port regulator? They also had not received a reliable financial plan for the new adopted ERT framework on how the budget and roles would be divided. He was in support of the idea and he was participating constructively. However, he was mindful of how the new entity would look and if it was financially viable. The DA was in full support of developing something that would be beneficial to all South Africans.

Director General response
Mr Moemi replied that DoT was not saying it would borrow the functions of the regulator in Phase 1. DoT was saying the whole of the Ports Regulator, together with the whole Civil Aviation Regulations Committee (CARCom) would be incorporated into the new one. There would be a complete transfer of the functions of those two. They would immediately build new regulatory capacity within the new Single Transport Economic Regulator (STER) to regulate new areas that did not have regulators before. Number 1 was rail, both for passenger rail and freight rail tariff determination. Number 2 was road transport, for freight and the tariff setting regime for toll gates. That would be Phase 1 of the new regulator as it was. Once Phase 1 was done, there would no longer be the Ports Regulator or Civil Aviation Regulations Committee.

The Chairperson said Mr Hunsinger indicated he was clear and agreed to the DG's explanation.

Mr Moemi offered to go to Cape Town to have tea with Mr Hunsinger to explain the process.

The Chairperson said they should now move on the proposal to choose option two and continue with the Bill. It was agreed to allow the Minister to appoint the board. He asked if that was correct.  

Ms Ramadwa said the Chairperson was stating what the Members had said.

Mr McDonald seconded what had been said and agreed to continue with the Bill.

Mr Sithole also agreed.

The Chairperson said the matter would move to the next stage. He thanked the Minister and the Deputy Minister for availing themselves. The Committee agreed to continue with the Bill. It should go through the legislative process. If there were any other concerns, they would monitor this in terms of their agreement.

Department of Transport 2020/21 Quarter 4 performance
Mr Moemi and Mr Makoto Matlala CFO DoT, presented the following (see document):
Quarter 4  Overview
Quarter 4 Analysis Per Programme
Key Highlights For The Quarter Under Review
Areas of Non-Achievement and Reasons for Deviation
Consolidated Indicators
DoT Response to Covid-19 – Internal and Interventions
Financial Information

Discussion
Mr Hunsinger asked if the mentioned areas of non-achievement included all of them. Did DoT still have staff stuck abroad due to quarantine conditions? He noted the unachieved target of the National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy for the Road Traffic Environment – what was the importance of this document for Programme 4 Safer Transport Systems.  What was the intention and outcome of the intended provincial workshops on the document? What was the relevance and significance of the socio-economic impact assessment system (SEIAS) report that was not completed in time for the Merchant Shipping Bill to be approved by Cabinet? When was this Bill submitted to the State Law Advisors and how long has it been with them? He asked if the DG was in a position to comment on the ability of the generator in the electric locomotives to control the braking system and the doors. He asked for more details on the underspend for the Public Transport Grant monitoring.

Mr Sithole said his concern was the trains. The trains were not running and the vandalism was continuing. If DoT said it had achieved its targets for Programme 3 Rail Transport, what did it achieve if the trains were not moving? How many vacant positions did DoT not fill? If they filled 11 positions, what was the target? How many personnel had been trained if the target was 70? How many taxis were targeted if DoT scrapped 516 taxis? What was the target for the number of bicycles to be distributed? He was worried about the underspending. DoT could not hide behind Covid-19 because the underspending happened even before the pandemic. He requested it provide its plan for dealing with the underspending.

Mr McDonald said DoT had previously presented on its Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) spend from March to October 2020 which was R33 679 348. Here the CFO presentation states the PPE annual expenditure was R32 million. Did that mean one of the two presentations was incorrect? He was concerned as there had been no confirmation from people he spoke to at taxi ranks that they had received PPE and Covid-19 was not gone yet. They could not continue to put the lives of ordinary South Africans at risk because taxis were not sanitised and there was no PPE procurement. DoT attained 100% of its target while on the ground there was no service delivery. DoT had the opportunity to fix the trains while there was no demand. The Committee believed that there was no service delivery.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) extended his condolences to the families of the passengers in the bus that caught fire on the Moloto Road. The families were not receiving assistance from the Department. He asked DoT to get in touch with the families and assist. What were the conditions attached to the transfers? What were the subsidies?  DoT had to ensure that people were safe on the road. That was not happening, people were losing their lives.  What were the checks if the Public Transport Grant recipients were adhering to the grant conditions? Were there plans in place to revisit these conditions? The conditions were a bit fluid – there was enough evidence for them to be revisited.  

Mr Mabhena said DoT had received inputs from all nine provinces and it had captured this in a report and using it to improve roads. How was DoT processing those submissions? What was the input from Mpumalanga and Gauteng on the roads which were linked to the R573 Moloto Road? How was DoT liaising with those two provinces to ensure that road was made safer?

PRASA targeted 42 new trains for the year but only ten were provisionally accepted for delivery. Could DoT clarify the “provisionally accepted” term? The output on the new train sets had been very slow. On Safer Transport Systems, there were a number of incidents and lack of safety occurrences that happened in the rail transport sector which was something that the Committee had always decried. At the stations, the rail corridors and the vicinity around the train stations are porous in terms of safety and security of the passengers. The non-security of the infrastructure means there is non-security for employees which was a serious concern. There was an open line collision where people had died. Could the Committee be furnished with a report on that collision.  It was problematic as one could argue that train transport was not safer due to such accidents.

DoT said they had stopped and checked over five million vehicles. The big challenge was that these roadblocks would stop small cars while allowing Putco buses to pass unchecked. It was as if there was a conviction within DoT that those buses did not need to be checked. How many of the 17 000 impounded vehicles were Putco buses from Mpumalanga and Gauteng?

According to the report, SANRAL was over performing but the report sometimes does not speak to what was on the ground. When you drive on the road you could see that what DoT reported and what was on the ground did not correlate.

Director General response
Mr Moemi replied that those four unachieved targets were the only areas of non-achievement DoT had for Quarter 4. There were no staff members stuck abroad due to Covid-19 lockdown. DoT had one staff member studying abroad in Malta from October 2020 until June 2021 on a scholarship programme by the International Maritime Law Institute. The course was important for the DoT capacity building programme for the implementation of the Merchant Shipping Bill that included Annexes 50 and 55 of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). He would also study the new Maritme Pollution (MARPOL) Convention to deal with those who pollute the sea. Participating countries were given scholarships. When the staff member had to go, he had to quarantine and later get vaccinated before he was allowed into Malta. There were some staff members abroad representing South Africa in international forums. There was a person in Canada at the IMO, and at the African Civil Aviation Authority. DoT had employees stationed full time abroad.  

He explained that Cabinet would not approve a law or strategy unless a study on the economic and social impact of it had been done; hence the relevance of the SEIAS for the Anticorruption Strategy and the Merchant Shipping Bill. The SEIAS  guidelines required that the parties impacted by what DoT was doing had to be consulted first.  Some delays would be caused if these parties were not as ready as DoT. Once the SEIAS certification was done, DoT was ready to proceed to Cabinet. With the Merchant Shipping Bill, the same process would be followed. DoT would have to indicate the impact of the Bill, what the Bill would require, what must be put in place, and how much that was going to cost. The assessment also looked at the regulatory impact on the industry. It looked at if the items introduced would impact on investments and the operations of companies. It was a comprehensive study. The Bill was submitted after the National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF) met on the 21 March. By 31 March they had redone what needed to be done and submitted the Bill to the State Law Advisors. The Bill was long and quite wide and the Advisors had to do their work thoroughly so DoT understood the delay. Without the State Law Advisors certifying the Bill, Cabinet would not consider it.  

Mr Moemi replied that the diesel locomotives could not open doors because they were not designed for that purpose. The diesel locomotives were being used for haulage to pull the load. Without electricity, the doors in the coaches gave them the opportunity to manualise the doors. That was how the doors operated when the train reached the station, it was not as automatic as the new trains. When the train stopped, all doors would open and before departure all doors would close. DoT agreed with PRASA and Treasury that for the remainder of the stations they must protect them. They had platform marshals that ensured the doors were closed and would tell people when the train was full. People were cooperating with the 50% capacity.

For the braking system of the diesel locomotive, the driver had to start braking from far because the locomotive worked by pulling the load. Depending on the speed, one would determine the distance. The drivers who drove diesel locomotives were fully aware of when to brake. It was for that reason that it had put through fare one way on the busy corridors to increase the number of trains and also because of the manual train operations. Without the substation, the signal could not function. To avoid accidents and to ensure they did put a through fare they had to put a fare time lag of 45 minutes. It was now running 16 corridors where trains were running on diesel power. The trains were able to operate and there had not been a single accident with the delayed time lag. The time lag was not ideal because it did not give one many trains but it was best that way on the busiest corridors. He agreed it was not ideal. Diesel was much too expensive, especially for PRASA which was struggling with cash flow. It did realise that the majority of the poor would be stranded if it did not offer an alternative service. It was trying to do it on a cost recovery basis. It was recovering lines and had began working on substations and returning electrical lines on the key busy corridors. 

Unspent budget on the monitoring of the Public Transport Grant was due to DoT being unable to monitor due to Covid-19. What DoT would normally do was to transfer the money to provinces and the provinces would contract bus companies to deliver services. DoT monitoring role was to ensure that those companies did not rob the state and say they had undertaken 30 000 passenger trips meanwhile they had undertaken 20 000. The province’s primary responsibility was to pay based on returns. DoT could either appoint a service provider to do surprise visits to check the records or deploy DoT staff to take public transport trips incognito and record how many people were on the bus on specific dates. DoT would sample the invoices submitted by the bus companies to check those specific dates to see correlation or lack thereof. DoT was unable to do that during Covid-19 as buses had come to a halt and taxis were the ones carrying essential workers. DoT did want to monitor but it was not feasible, hence they had massive savings. DoT would go on monitoring visits with the Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) and Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT).

DoT was the first to admit the point about it achieving all three rail targets when the trains were not moving.  Almost 95% of the DoT budget was sent to entities to deliver services on behalf of DoT. The running of trains was the work of PRASA which was accountable to DoT. It gave PRASA money for that objective. The Q4 Rail Transport targets specific to DoT were achieved which were the Railway Safety Bill, draft Private Sector Participation Framework and draft High Speed Rail Corridor Framework.

DoT had indicated that it had 79 vacant posts when 2020/21 started and by Q3 it had filled 23 and in Q4, it filled 11. By the end of Quarter 4 DoT brought the number of vacancies to below the requisite 10%. DoT had already dipped below the 1 0% mark by the fourth quarter. It was not possible for a large department to have 0% vacancies as there were always different types of staff movement.

The initial target for bicycles for Quarter 4 was 5 000 and DoT exceeded the target. The overall underspending was just 1% of the total budget. For the Accounting Officer, in the last month of each financial year they start monitoring on a day-to-day basis as the last thing they want is to overspend, that was the bigger sin. The secondary sin was underspending. Underspending was undesirable but when it happened, the only consequence was the money got surrendered to the National Revenue Fund. However, when there was overspending, it would be financial misconduct which would result to unauthorised expenditure. The consequences for overspending were dire and even career limiting for an Accounting Officer because they must now contend with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and the financial misconduct of overspending money not approved by the Appropriations Committee and the representatives of the people in Parliament. The idea for Accounting Officers and CFOs was to push the spending as close as possible to a 100% without exceeding. When the spending reached 98 or 99% they knew they had done extremely well.

He noted the PPE expenditure discrepancy raised by Mr McDonald. As long as the misstatement was not material, it did not get reported on by the Auditor General (AG) in the audit. The AG would be interested to see if DoT had done the corrections. Where there had been misallocation in journals that should also be addressed as the discrepancy would affect allocation to the correct programme. DoT was instructed to separate the two.  DoT apologised for the error that may have occurred on PPE expenditure figures. DoT had allocated 4.5% of the budget for PPE and provinces had money to spend on PPE provision. None of the provinces approached DoT to say they had run out of money. DoT was monitoring on a quarterly basis, and they were not seeing any movement.

The DG agreed that it may be true what Mr McDonald reported that no one had PPE on the ground. DoT promised to send Public Transport staff to check and report back. Many accounting officers across all government systems were not prepared anymore to buy PPE based on what society had labelled them to be. Yes, there may have been acts of corruption, but the PPE was essential to save human lives and contain the spread of the virus.

Mr Moemi agreed on fixing trains. The Minister launched a programme and availed a plan that would help recover the lines quickly.  Services were not running smoothly as he had explained but they were looking at recovery of infrastructure to ensure it was bringing certainty and reliability. It had also adopted methods that would help to recover stations faster.

DoT welcomed the criticism. They understood that it was intended to push them into faster action, and faster response times. DoT hoped to report better in what they had covered in the next reporting cycle. He requested the Committee, when there is time, to allow the Department to put a thorough presentation on the recovery plan to the Committee.

Mr Moemi accepted the point made on the Moloto Road bus fire. He would dispatch officials to seek out the families. DoT had discussed this with the Gauteng Provincial Government and the City of Tshwane. They committed and provided DoT with a report on setting up a working committee. All was going well and their next report was on 4 June. DoT official would source the provincial officials who had been at the forefront to accompany them to meet the families immediately after that meeting.

Mr Moemi  explained the grant transfer conditions. DoT set the general conditions in the Public Transport Grant framework which was then gazetted by Treasury. The conditions were clear about the requirements and anyone could apply for the grant framework. The provinces were the contracting parties responsible for the conditions of appointment of a contractor like Putco, setting out their role and complying with the law and local content. National Department did not participate in the dual agreement between the province and bus providers. The provinces needed to submit these contracts to the National Department for release of grant funds.  He could find out from Gauteng what its arrangements were with Putco and relay the information to the Committee. The Department wanted to see that people were transported safely, DoT was not over charged and there was accountability for the funds. They held provinces to account. Putco was not given right of passage at roadblocks. Each operation was done differently and it would state upfront what it was targeting and it was not a catch-them-all type of thing. One time they would target small vehicles, sometimes cross border taxis and sometimes buses. At times they would have multisectoral operations where they targeted everything.

He could not disclose the exact number of buses impounded because it would appear as if they were targeting a certain company. Since he had been DG, they had done two operations at the Putco depots and in one operation they impounded 63 buses and discontinued 18 buses. For others they would indicate what needed to be fixed and give them a timeframe. Those buses would be put through a roadworthy assessment again and those that pass would be put back into operation. When they inspected Putco for the second time, the owners and commuters complained that they were being inconvenienced as they were suppose to leave to carry passengers. However, it could not issue a notice when it would inspect as that would defeat the purpose.

DoT would source the report on the train collision from the Railway Safety Regulator (RSR) and send it. He was not sure if RSR was done with its investigation but he would source at least a preliminary report.

The DG conceded that Mr Mabhena was spot-on on the concern he raised on road condition assessments. Grass cutting must happen every third week, but SANRAL was cutting every five weeks. No one would say it did not cut the grass but the interval at which it did it was quite different from what was stipulated due to SANRAL financial constraints. There were some national roads where it was having challenges with their maintenance. He had previously reported to the Committee that the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) matter was weighing heavily on the SANRAL balance sheet. It had caused it to postpone some programmes that it should have undertaken. It had to report, if it had done the condition assessment report and maintenance work, regardless of what the maintenance was. Sometimes it would just fill a pothole and then had to report on that.

On the 42 new train sets, he had explained to the Committee previously that PRASA did not have depots and they had no place to park trains. It had issued a tender successfully in Cape Town and they had already started building. That would help DoT receive the blue trains and send them to Cape Town to start operating on some lines. DoT could not send them to where there was no parking because they would not get insurance for them and if they were then vandalised DoT would be liable for them. It was building the depots on a fast track and had already gone to the market to look for a contractor for the Pretoria depot. There was work on the Braamfontein depot. Once the depots were in place, DoT would receive the trains more quickly. When DoT said it had "provisionally accepted" the trains, it meant it had gone to inspect them and they met the standard of being out of the factory and it had signed for them although it had not taken receipt. The trains were safer at the factory as there was no parking for them.  

The Chairperson thanked DoT and released them from the meeting.

The Committee adopted the minutes of 11 and 12 May meetings.

Moloto Corridor report-back
The Chairperson noted matters arising from the 12 May minutes about the Committee's Mpumalanga oversight visit to the Moloto Corridor. The residents of Moloto wanted the Committee to give them a response as soon as possible. The Committee had resolved to give feedback in a Zoom meeting.

Mr McDonald said that was the decision of the Committee on 12 May. It would be up to the Chairperson and the Secretary to arrange the Zoom meeting.

Mr Sithole said there was an objection to the Zoom meeting. There had been a suggestion that the Committee should return to Mpumalanga accompanied by DoT.

The Chairperson asked Mr Sithole who objected to the meeting being done through Zoom.

Mr Sithole said Mr Mabhena was vocal in his objection that the meeting be done on Zoom and suggested going to Mpumalanga.

The Chairperson replied that on 12 May there was no objection. Mr Sithole was referring to an old matter from a long time ago where Mr Mabhena persuaded the Committee to go to Moloto in the third quarter of 2020. The people of Moloto were writing letters wanting to know the response. He proposed that they should not waste any more time as the matter was causing the Committee more problems. There was no objection last week but he put the matter on the table again.

Mr Mabhena objected to a Zoom meeting report-back. The Chairperson specifically said to the people that the Committee would come back and he did not say a Zoom meeting. The previous week six people died on Moloto Road. Yet the Committee charged with transport oversight was running away. How many people were going to have access to Zoom? How was the Committee going to ensure that people had data access and devices? The Committee must protect the Chairperson’s integrity. The Committee was supposed to go back in March. The people who lived in that community were poor; they would not waste money on buying data. The Committee should not play with the emotions of the people. People were dying on that road. Why was the Committee behaving as if they did not care and were far removed from the situation? Politicians always claim that they were on the ground where the people were. However, when it mattered, they wanted to have Zoom meetings. If this was a community in Houghton, Sandton or Bryanston, it would be understandable because the people there had Wi-Fi and fibre. There was not a single fibre line in Moloto, let alone a stable 4G network. The Committee must protect its integrity.

Ms Ramadwa agreed with Mr McDonald because the Committee could not go to the people with nothing. Treasury indicated that it did not have money and DoT said it was still discussing it with Treasury. The people were not going to agree to that. When Committee members went to Mpumalanga, the meeting was not conducive for Members as people were angry. Members could not go there, they needed to do Zoom for now. Going there with nothing for those people who were angry and bitter would not be safe for Members.

Mr Hunsinger said he was not in agreement with doing a Zoom meeting. Committee members should go in person. Sometimes as politicians they needed to go to the people and tell them that they did not have a good answer but since they promised to come, they did. Doing it on Zoom would be worse than doing nothing.

Mr Sithole said if the Committee was still waiting for communication from DoT, the best way was to communicate with those people was by writing a letter. Zoom showed that the Members were cowards, they should face them. The Chairperson should not allow it. They should write a letter telling the people that the meeting would be delayed due to these reasons.

The Chairperson said they were set to go back in March, and it was now May. They were meant to go and give the answer that was already public that the Minister said DoT would not be doing the rail, they were expanding the road. That answer was already out. Mr Mabhena knew and had informed the Chairperson that the people of Moloto were organising saying that the Committee was coming. Several letters had been written to the Chairperson that requested this Committee come and asking the Chairperson to respond to the people urgently. What would change if they went to Moloto and said the Minister was correct because the decision was already out there. This was not about bravery, it was about service delivery.  Was the Committee saying because they wanted to be seen in Mpumalanga physically, they should delay a message of one sentence?

The second issue was that the Committee was not in unity when it was in Moloto. Some people sided with the community, and they ended up insulting each other along party lines. Was that what the Committee wanted to go and do in Moloto? The people wanted the feedback as soon as possible. Why was the Committee delaying the feedback when it had it? That would be neglecting the role of the Committee by delaying a simple message. The people of Moloto were impatient. He had discussed that with them even on radio and they asked him to provide them with an answer. Was the Committee going to say to the community it could not give them the answer because it wanted to see the community physically? If Members want to save the integrity of the Committee, they should be able to communicate with the people of Moloto on a decision that would not change. Going back to Mpumalanga would not change the decision, except that they would be seen as brave. It would be irresponsible of the Committee to delay the response when the people were asking for it.  The decision that was taken the previous week was a good decision. The Committee should be able to communicate the simple answer.

Mr Mabhena said the Committee was not the implementing agent, they were not the Executive. The Committee was there to exercise oversight over the Executive. Why was the Chairperson presenting a posture that the Committee had the budget to implement the project? They needed to go there and be honest to people. They should not politicise this. If the Chairperson wanted to think about what happened in Moloto it was not going to serve the Committee any good. Some Members were behaving in the most unnecessary way possible. Instead of being impartial and neutral, some Members were wearing T shirts making promises they knew they could not keep. Now they want to hide behind Zoom. They did door-to-door when they wanted votes, but when the community wanted to hold them accountable, they were hiding behind Zoom meetings and one-line emails.

They were not going the to save the Members’ skins, they were in the Committee to serve the public. The Committee must be honest even when the answers were not satisfactory. It was not about bravery, it was about accountability. DoT and Treasury should go to the people and speak – the Committee was not their spokesperson. No one insulted anyone last time. The challenge was that a lot of promises were made to those people and none of them were fulfilled. There was even a promise that the Chairperson would write a letter to the President and ask him to put the Moloto Road back into the budget process. The Committee had not received a letter. What was the response of the President?

Ms Ramadwa said her understanding was that the Committee could not go to the community without something solid. She suggested that the Committee wrote a letter to the community and apologise for not coming in March and then they needed to persuade Treasury and DoT about that and go to Moloto when they knew there was something the Committee was doing. She understood that Mr Mabhena was speaking about the letter that was supposed to be written to the President, maybe those were the things they needed to do. The Committee should go back if it was necessary to go back to Moloto. The Committee should write a letter and hold a Zoom meeting indicating their frustration.

Mr McDonald reminded Mr Mabhena that when they suggested doing one or two days oversight during the two-month constituency period and go to Moloto, Mr Mabhena vehemently disagreed due to election work. He was difficult to understand as on the one hand he said the Committee should have gone to Moloto, but when the Committee wanted to make time during a very difficult election year, he fought against this. The Committee should stick to the 12 May decision and find a way forward without further dividing the Committee.

Mr Hunsinger said they had engaged the community as the Portfolio Committee on Transport and its credibility should be prioritised. Whatever process was agreed to should have regard to the credibility of the Committee. Following the meeting with the Moloto people, the Committee had engaged with DoT, engaged with Treasury and got a submission from Treasury. There was something to report back to the people. It was not true that they had only to say there would not be a railway but only a road. Whether the communication was through a Zoom meeting, a letter or physical meeting everything was already later than promised so the credibility of the Committee was already in jeopardy. All efforts should be undertaken to communicate as soon as possible. The best way to communicate was in person. It was the choice of the Chairperson to protect the credibility of the Committee.

Mr Mabhena asked Mr McDonald to withdraw what he had said. If he failed, he was going to write a letter to the Ethics Committee. There was no record of Mr Mabhena opposing oversight. He was going to go for the maximum sanction. He had never opposed any oversight.

The Chairperson said Mr Mabhena right. He was not part of the 12 May meeting where the Zoom meeting and the Committee working during the constituency period was discussed.

Mr McDonald unreservedly withdrew his statement.

Mr Mabhena said he wanted him to apologise.

The Chairperson said Mr Mabhena was taking the matter too far. The matter was resolved. Mr Mabhena was correct; he was not there.

Mr Mabhena said he had a problem with how the Chairperson was conducting the meeting. He had never challenged the Chairperson's authority since he joined the Committee. Mr McDonald had lied and he must apologise in the meeting. Failure to do meant he would write to the Ethics Committee.

The Chairperson said Mr McDonald had apologised unreservedly. He asked Mr McDonald if that was correct.

Mr McDonald said that was correct. He withdrew unreservedly which was as good as apologising.

The Chairperson said there were two views on the table. He had said earlier the Committee should speed up the matter and have a Zoom meeting with the people of Mpumalanga as soon as they can. There was a second view that the Committee should wait for the third quarter to visit as they could not do anything during the constituency period. The Committee would do that face to face and the Committee would write a letter apologising for the delay. He asked Members to comment.

Mr McDonald said he was 100% in agreement that they needed to send a communication to the people as soon as possible. They should provide insight on what had happened. The Committee should also plan a visit to the area after the constituency period.

Ms Ramadwa said the Committee should write a letter and communicate with the people through Zoom. The Committee should also ensure that the relevant structure would talk to the people.

Mr Mabhena accepted the apology. He welcomed and agreed that the Committee go to the people in the third quarter. When the Chairperson replied to the people in writing, he should get an official communication from DoT, National Treasury and the President, if possible, and attach those. He should inform the people that, as the Committee had committed, it would be coming in the third quarter; in the meantime, it explains what was happening.

The Chairperson said they would communicate in writing with the people of Mpumalanga stemming from the meeting the Committee had with DoT and Treasury. The Committee would prepare for an oversight visit in the third quarter to engage with the people of Mpumalanga.

Committee Programme
The Chairperson said the following week they were having bumper-to-bumper meetings.

The Committee Secretary said the House was sitting on Friday 4 June so that meeting could be excluded. They had to confirm the Wednesday 2 June 6pm meeting and Thursday 3 June 6pm meeting.

The Chairperson asked Members to confirm attendance for these meetings on the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill. He noted all Members were available except for Mr Hunsinger on Wednesday.

The Committee Secretary said the programme had to await the Committee decision on the ERT Bill. She requested that the Committee include a slot on 3 June to look at the A-list of the Committee proposed amendments to the ERT Bill.

The Chairperson said that seemed rather progressive and he would like to hear from Members.

Mr Hunsinger said they were rushing the Bill by presenting the A-list. It was a bit premature.

The Chairperson asked if all Members felt that way.

Mr McDonald said he agreed with Mr Hunsinger. The Committee should have another session of deliberations before the A-list.

The Chairperson said they should allow another session of inputs. Members should be allowed to digest the Bill and later consider the A-list.

The Committee Secretary said 3 June was the right slot for ERT Bill deliberations so that there would be something for the legal advisors to work through during the recess period.

The Chairperson noted a request for a meeting by a Road Accident Fund (RAF) claimant. The Secretary had circulated the letter that was written to him by the then Portfolio Committee Chairperson. The claimant wanted to have a meeting with the full Committee.

The Committee Secretary noted that th Content Advisor had summarised the concerns as there were a lot raised by the claimant. She had also circulated the summary.

The Chairperson asked if the Members would grant the claimant a meeting.

Mr Sithole said he read the letter but failed to understand why the claimant wanted to see the Committee.

The Chairperson said the previous Chairperson answered the letter and when the current Chairperson came in, he also answered the letter. It was for the Committee to say if what the Chairperson had said was sufficient and there was no need for a meeting or the Committee could give the claimant a meeting.

Mr McDonald said the Committee had only one side of the story. One of the concerns was that it took more than five years for the RAF to process the claim. The Committee should deal with the matter once they had the side of the story of the RAF Administration. It was sufficient from the Chairperson’s side to acknowledge receipt of the letter. The Committee had an oversight role over RAF and they had a public responsibility as public representatives.

The Committee agreed to this proposal.

Meeting adjourned.

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.

Share this page: