I will come to that in a moment. Presumably ... [Interjections.] Who said that? [Laughter.] This is the Business Report:
Presumably those making the calls [for the entire process to be stopped] don't envisage halting the road works. To interrupt the operations would be a logistical nightmare and would extend the period in which motorists have to risk their lives on highways both in poor repair and under construction. The time to have raised all these issues was when the project was first mooted in 2002. Where was everyone then? The consumers, the DA ...
That's them saying it, not me -
... the trade unions, transport economists, motorist bodies and others? Why did everyone only wake up to the implications a few months ahead of the proposed launch?
The Business Report is absolutely correct, although they fail to mention where the journalists are who are now criticising the project, and who at that time were praising it to the sky. I remember The Star, for instance, having enthusiastic double-page spreads about speeches by the Gauteng MEC for Transport, and the provincial Premier at the time who is now a member of - I'm not sure - Cope or one of the Copes, but anyway you know who am I referring to. [Laughter.] Not only were we told that there was going to be a Phase 1 - which is what we now have - but that there would be a Phase 2 and a Phase 3 that were going to turn Gauteng into a world-class city- region.
So, where were we? I include myself in that question, along with Stewart, and Lucas, who was a little bit unfortunately handled, I thought, by the Chair. We were sitting here in the portfolio committee and we were receiving regular reports. This was not a secret project; we received regular reports from Nazir Alli about the tolling project for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project. When you check the Hansard you will probably find Stewart saying a few mild things. He's very mild. I certainly also raised a few questions around whether this was the right priority, and whether it was not public transport that we needed to look at as a priority, rather than tolling, and so on. Frankly, I would have to admit that I was not strong enough on this matter.
But in many other quarters there was an enthusiastic reception for this, particularly from those who are now shouting the loudest about it. What did these enthusiasts imagine? Probably that because we call them "freeways" they come for free! Well, they don't! [Laughter.] One way or another, whether it is tolled or it is something else, public infrastructure gets paid for by the public.
Well, we can all now throw stones at each other, but the fact is that we are facing a challenge. I think the first issue is to deal with the challenge we've got, and Minister Ndebele has stepped in very effectively to appoint a task group to look at what we can do. I think he will report soon from the task group. We need to be realistic about this. We are sitting with the near-completed Phase 1 of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, GFIP, and R20 billion in public debt. So, there is not a huge amount of manoeuvring space for the Minister, who was not involved in any of this, let me add as well. He has now inherited all of this.
We need to do certain things and certainly we will look at ameliorative measures, but there is not a huge amount of wriggle-room and I think we need to be very honest with each other about that. We can throw stones at each other and complain, but the more useful thing, I think, is to try to learn lessons. I want to suggest some lessons that we can learn from it.
The first one is at the most basic and perhaps banal level. It is that as portfolio committee members, as politicians in government and as the public, when we are told that a project is going to cost X amount, let's make damn sure that Value Added Tax, VAT, is included. [Laughter.] I say that because this is the second time that I've encountered this. Hon Farrow will remember. This is exactly what Gautrain did to us. They said, "Oops, sorry! It's gone up, as we forgot to include VAT." Now, again, it's with GFIP. I spoke to Nazir Alli, the chief executive officer, CEO, of the South African National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, and he said: "That's what we do in my trade as civil engineers." It's inexcusable. Maybe it could come from second-hand car dealers, but we should not have this. [Laughter.]
But more importantly, the second lesson is that we need to think clearly about funding models, Minister - I know that's what you're looking at. Tolling of roads is widely used throughout the world, and there are many important debates as to whether tolling is the most useful way. It's part of a broader user-pay principle approach to funding public infrastructure. Clearly, with the GFIP tolling there was an attempt in the original tariffs to provide for some developmental balance by way of targeted reductions, for example, charging less for public transport.
Should there be tolling or a larger dedicated fuel levy? I ask this because the fuel levy that we've got isn't going to pay for the roads that we need and maybe we need to increase it. Or should it be direct financing out of the budget? What is the best way? That's a debate that we need to have. There is no single answer either. Different answers are appropriate. Hon Farrow was suggesting that tolling some things is different from tolling others, and things like that. At the end of the day we cannot run away from the fact that public infrastructure doesn't come for free.
This leads to the third question: what are the public interest priorities when it comes to transport infrastructure? What, for instance, are we seeking to achieve when we expand freeway networks? Very often, and this was certainly the case with the GFIP, it was said that we needed to expand our freeways because of growing congestion on the existing network. But does the ever-increasing, widening and building of freeways solve congestion? International experience suggests that very often, perhaps most often, it doesn't. More freeway lanes alleviate congestion for a few years, but they simultaneously encourage more townhouse developments, more golf estates, and so forth, and within a few years you are back to the same situation that you began with.
Fourth lesson: this is not to say that we should never expand or build freeway networks, or that we should never toll them when they happen, or that we should never, perhaps more interestingly, introduce congestion charging like they do in London or Manchester to discourage car use and to encourage public transport use, and so on. This is the fourth lesson: If we use tolling to encourage public transport or an increased switch to rail freight, as we are trying to do, then we had better first provide affordable, accessible and safe public transport infrastructure and operations, and better rail freight. This is obvious, but we need to do that.
Fifthly, I have talked about public interest. But, of course the "public" - now I put my red hat on - is a diverse social and class reality. In many United States, US, cities an electronic tolling system on freeways may well largely impact upon upper middle-class households living in distant green suburbs somewhere out in the countryside. In this case the tolling is a way of making them pay for taking their four-by-four to work and shopping mall lifestyles. Likewise in Gauteng, many of the people that are complaining the loudest about the GFIP programme, are precisely those who pushed the hardest for more freeways, more expansions and so on, so that we could support their First World lifestyles.
However, in urban South Africa there is always another reality. This is because apartheid and persisting land use patterns have forced - these are people without choice - the great majority of the urban working class and poor into distant, dormitory townships. The question which arises is: Why and how could they possibly pay for other people's freeway-based First World lifestyles?
Lastly, the other important lesson is that over the past 17 years a number of major and arguably very poorly conceived mega-projects on the transport front have emanated from provinces and then, when it's clear that the scale of ambition is not going to be met from within provincial budgets, they get escalated up to the national level.
Going forward we need to ensure that we have a much more coherent, strategic approach to these infrastructure programmes, ensuring that national priorities - public transport and rail freight, for instance - and local challenges, like some poor access rural roads, are not overwhelmed and financially crowded out by costly provincial projects.
There are many things to be learnt from the GFIP experience going forward, and I hope that we will do it collectively and not just in the spirit of trying to score cheap points.
I believe that in the budget that we are tabling today, Minister, and in the work that we have been doing over the past several years as the Department of Transport, DoT, you will see that in fact all of these lessons that I've referred to are precisely the approaches that we have been trying to take. We need to prioritise, to phase, and to integrate different projects appropriately, and we need to learn by doing. We are all going to make mistakes, but let's not just dwell on those mistakes; let's also learn from them. That's what I'm trying to do now regarding the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project.
Let me say a few words about other things. The Public Transport Infrastructure and Systems Grants are not actually part of our budget as such, but are a very important part of our work. They go directly from Treasury to cities in South Africa, but while working closely with the Department of Transport and the Treasury. These are multibillion rand multiyear grants, which were originally basically for Soccer World Cup transport. Treasury has agreed to sustain these so that we build Integrated Rapid Public Transport Network Systems in all of our major cities.
Johannesburg, with its Bus Rapid Transit, BRT, System, Rea Vaya, has been the star performer in this regard. Rea Vaya recently won two international awards for its BRT system, and it's still in Phase 1A, but it's transporting 30 000 passengers every single day.
What is very heartening is the wonderful public support we are getting from the Sowetans in particular for this, and also from the taxi sector, which was originally sceptical and which, as the Minister mentioned, is now very much part of it, as the shareholders and operators of this publicly regulated but privately operated system.
Cape Town has now also launched the first phase of its MyCiti BRT operation. I'm not going to get electoral here, or maybe a little bit! It's experiencing some inevitable teething problems - it's in its first or second week at the moment. The new mayor-elect of Cape Town, Patricia de Lille, was out of order when she said that this was the first of its kind in South Africa; it's not.
One did appreciate the other point she made in the midst of the election campaign, that she wants to prioritise a different route, a trunk route out into the south-east of the City of Cape Town, which is Khayelitsha, Mitchells Plain and Nyanga. That's where the needs are; that's where it is. Regarding its going north to Milnerton, as it does, I think the Mayor-elect was implying that a wrong choice had been made by the City of Cape Town. I think she is right. I want to assure our colleagues that in the City of Cape Town they will continue to enjoy our support as the department, in the spirit of critical co-operative government, but support nevertheless. Important progress is also being made in a number of other cities.
On the Road Accident Fund, there are critical interventions that we are making. Hon Lucas, you'll remember that last year we brought a discussion document about transforming the fund into a no-fault benefit scheme. We are moving rapidly in that direction. We produced the discussion document, which we tabled here in the portfolio committee. We received comments, we worked on them, and we are going to Cabinet in the next few weeks with a revised version. We hope to draft legislation in the course of this latter part of this year and we will come to Parliament early next year to get us into a no-fault system. That's the critical thing.
The problems in the Road Accident Fund have to do with the fact that it is fault-based, it's highly litigious, it takes forever for claims to be realised, and there are false incentives, perverse incentives, because people are going for big one-off payouts. They are not encouraged to rehabilitate and get back to work if possible, as soon as possible. They hold out for the big "Zama Zama" payout. We've got to change that and we are going to do it. On the Road Traffic Management Corporation, RTMC, and Road Traffic Inspectorate, RTI, there are structural problems there. I corrected you, not to score a cheap point, but it's a shareholders committee and the shareholders include all the provincial MECs. So, it is not just the Minister; it's the shareholders, including the MECs and obviously including the MEC from this particular province as well. It's a challenge and we do need to look at it.
The final point, as I'm running out of time, is that at the end of this year we as a country are hosting the Conference of the Parties, COP 17. As the Department of Transport we are very actively involved in this with our colleagues at the ministerial level. We are working very closely with our colleagues to develop South Africa's negotiating position.
Transport worldwide, but also in South Africa, is the second culprit when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. The good news for us as South Africans is that all the things that we have to do in any case - public transport, rail freight rather than road freight, mixed income, more compact towns and cities overcoming apartheid geography and all of the other things that we have talked about, all the things that we have to do in any case - are precisely the things that will contribute to transport's diminishing and mitigating its carbon emissions.
We also have to use the hosting of COP 17 as a way collectively, with the support of the portfolio committee and all of our colleagues from the transport family, to sustaining and adding new oomph to the challenge that we all face to really produce qualitative transformation in the transport sector. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]