Chairperson, I am very humbled to be a part of this debate and we as the DA see some very positive steps in moving towards the budgetary provision, particularly in regard to road maintenance and construction, rail and public transport. It may be seen as a little too late, though.
Hansard will show that over 10 years or more I have been standing on this podium, and we have called for additional funding in these very three categories. Now we seem to see it coming, but it has been a long time. Unfortunately, time takes its toll with inflation, and the nature of these increases means you can actually buy less with your money.
If one just takes road construction and maintenance, for instance, this has increased threefold in the past five years and, despite desperate calls for additional funding for the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, it seems that they all seem satisfied with their budget. However, when funds are inadequate, then Sanral is very quick to hit the international and local finance houses for funds and when that happens, Chair, we know exactly what happens, and you discussed it here today, Minister. It leads to toll roads.
Toll roads are not new in the country and they have a minimum impact on our motorists when once or twice a year they travel down to their destinations on holiday. When it affects motorists worse is when we talk about daily commuting. We need to differentiate between these two. Urban commuters travel in their cars because there is no alternative public transport that is either safe or sufficient. So, we need to start separating them.
The Gauteng Freeway Project holds no water with me, because thousands of Pretoria and Johannesburg motorists will now have to fork out nearly R1 000, on average, per month to drive to work and back. I trust therefore that, in the interests of the Gauteng motoring public, you will not let this foolhardy tolling project proceed and that alternative funding is looked at in order to try to ensure that there are adequate funds to meet the loan requirements.
The 40/60 split that your department uses for maintenance and construction also needs to be looked at in an entirely different way, in the light of what I have just said. Right now, our greater need is to get existing roads into a reasonable state before embarking on new and upgraded road construction.
Bitumen is an expensive commodity and its cost rises with the price of oil. Although this is still the best option, I do believe there are cheaper and equally as effective road innovations that should be looked at. We as the portfolio committee are studying that and looking at various options that are available to us as alternatives.
We commend you for creating the long-awaited dedicated road fund, and in particular for securing funding of R22 billion over the next three years for it. The DA trusts, though, that now that this R22 billion has been established, clear guidelines will be put in place - you did mention a few of them - to ensure that the funds allocated are prioritised on the basis of a well-researched road classification system, similar to what we are using for Sanral at the moment.
There is therefore an imperative upon you, Minister, to start funding more sustainable choices and alternatives to the road by putting at the top of your agenda more affordable public transport options. Rail networks exist across our country, many of them moribund, and the efficiencies of rail versus road transport are well known. It takes a litre of diesel to transport one ton of goods 100 m, compared to the same litre transporting one ton on rail transport for 400 m. That is something that we should, as a starting point, think about and not even allow these continuous road freight products, which are not naturally products of rail, to go onto the road.
I need to be very frank with you, Minister. In last year's debate I referred to your Office as having - and I will get it right this time, Deputy Minister - an annus horribilis. Well, I don't know how to define this year. From many accounts, things have not got better and increased financial demands from your agencies never seem to end. They are slowly becoming a bigger and bigger burden on your department's budget as the years progress, although never intended to be so when they were initially established.
The two biggest unresolved agencies needing intensive care, as I call it, are the Road Traffic Management Corporation, RTMC, and the Road Traffic Infringement Agency, RTIA - this is different to what you might be saying - as both these agencies have far-reaching effects on the country's road safety record, and this has a direct impact on the claims that we have against the Road Accident Fund.
Both these agencies did not present their strategic plans to the portfolio committee because of their current status, which is not mandated. Our portfolio committee in its budget report to Parliament proposed that you consider putting them under your department's straight and direct administration, until certain requirements of their Acts are met and a measured turnaround strategy has been agreed to.
Much of the blame for the Road Traffic Management Corporation's, demise can rest squarely at your feet, hon Minister, for it was during the first year of your tenure, in June 2009, that the misappropriation and corruption in, and mismanagement of, the RTMC became public through the DA.
Yet, despite a delay of six months before setting up a ministerial task team ... [Interjections.] Yes, we did bring it to the attention of the Minister on many occasions. A ministerial task team was set up - six months later. After that, it was nearly 17 months before we even received the report from Ms Phiyega.
To me, taking that time was already creating problems. This is because shortly after the presentation I wrote to the Minister proposing some considerations to be put before his stakeholders committee in order to resolve the impasse - the suspension of staff, and the legality of appointment of the acting chief executive officer.
I also requested - and we all did, in fact, Chairperson - that the portfolio committee should receive a full copy of this report. We still have not seen the report. It was requested in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, and Scopa has still not seen this report. So, how can we as parliamentarians then do our job in regard to accountability? We need to be able to look at some of the issues there.
The RTMC recently employed 40 traffic officers, at a cost of R100 million per annum, and this is really questionable. This is not only an illegal act, as I understand it, but a waste of public funds. Despite a retrospective decision that your stakeholders committee made, which I have seen, to authorise this decision, it still does not hold water. Let me explain why.
Traffic control is the responsibility of municipalities and metros, both of which have defined boundaries which give them jurisdiction. Roads that are being patrolled by traffic police run through these wall-to-wall municipalities and metros, and are therefore fully covered by them. They are also duly appointed peace officers, Minister, as required under the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, and they therefore have powers vested in them by their relevant provinces. How then, Minister, do you expect these newly appointed traffic officers to operate in these areas covered by already accredited traffic cops? It is going to be a war out there, certainly when they start crossing each other's areas of responsibility.
I don't believe enough thought went into this decision by your stakeholders committee to approve the appointment of these so-called national peace or traffic officers. I don't know whether the RTMC is, in fact, mandated to do that in its Act. It certainly also seems inappropriate and irresponsible to employ these traffic officers, knowing that in the 2010 financial year, the RTMC budgeted for a deficit of R194 million. I wonder what your stakeholders committee is going to feel about this when they are held accountable for that decision under Scopa.
Section 13 of the Road Traffic Management Corporation Act also states, Minister, if you read it, that the stakeholders committee has to provide this Parliament with, first, a directive where any change of policy or new policy is adopted. It is clearly contempt of Parliament, Minister, and something that is also becoming a worrying trend in your department.