Road Accident Fund & Cross-Border Road Transport Agency Annual Performance Plans 2019/20

Meeting report

Mr L McDonald (ANC) was elected to be the Acting Chairperson in the absence of Mr M Zwane (ANC).

Briefing by the Road Accident Fund (RAF)

Ms Lindelwa Xingwana-Jabavu, Acting Chief Executive Officer (ACEO) of the Road Accident Fund said that she was going to take the Committee Members through their mandate, business model, organisational structure as the RAF, performance information, alignment to the seven Apex Priorities, strategic objectives and any projects that the RAF was currently working on as there was a special request on that from the Committee. In addition, she said the presentation would also cover the financial status of the organisation, the challenges the organisation encountered as well as the litigation processes they were currently dealing with.

The RAF Strategic Outcomes (2015-2022)

The Fund has seven strategic outcomes which consists of; efficient claims processing, accessible services, effective financial management, optimal ICT services, improvement of people management, and transformation of the RAF and finally one that pertains to quality.

RAF’s Performance Achievements

The Annual Performance:

• 84% as a start-off percentage
• 2015/16 they performed at 90%
• 2016/17 they performed at 90%
• 2017/18 they performed at 91%
• 2018/19 they performed at 77%

RAF’s Revenue (in the year so far):

• Staff compliments increased from 2754 to 2776.
• The revenue from 2018 to 2019 increased from 37.3 billion to 43.2 billion, which was result of the 30 cents increase they received from the fuel levy.
• The fuel levy was set at 193 cents per litre from 163 cents per litre. This represented 13% of the fuel price.

Ms Xingwana-Jabavu stated that more than 78 300 claimants were engaged through the Award-Winning RAF on the Road Community Outreach Program and other promotions and activations. She confirmed that at the end of September 2019 the organisation would be visiting Escourt on a Saturday, whereby all Committee Members were invited to attend. She also mentioned that these visits happened almost on a monthly basis.

Claims Liability:

• The RAF registered 328 173 new claims and finalised 229 534 claims in 2018/19;
• Late claims liability increased by 27% at a value of 273 billion from 215 billion in the previous year;
• The average value per claim increased by 3% from R111 to R114;
• The RAF accumulated about 40 983 of direct claims in 2018/19 as opposed to 32 622 direct claims in 2017/18; and
• Of those direct claims 14 323 were settled in 2018/19 and 20 399 were settled in 2017/18.

The RAF’s Cash Expenditure:

• Amounted to 92% of the net of the RAF’s fuel levy;
• This suggested that out of what the RAF received from the fuel levy the bulk of the money went towards the payment of claims;
• Funeral costs increased by 11% from 16 000 to 18 000;
• Average medical claims increased by 45% from 10 000 to 15 000; and
• Average general claims increased by 8% from 429 to 462

(See document for more details)

Improvements and Achievements around the seven Apex Priorities:

• The RAF developed a business model around the transition, sustainability and dispensation.
• They improved direct claims management to ensure that full compensation goes to the accident victims.
• They improved post-care management to ensure that victims of road crashes are provided with medical care and are reintegrated into the communities and are economically active citizens.
• They implemented 100% of their ethics initiatives in 2018/19.
• They improved fraud detection and management before undue payments were made in 2018/19. (She confirmed that the RAF works very closely with Law Enforcement Agencies particularly for fraudulent activities) and
• They improved their procurement outcomes.

 

Mr Victor Songelwa Acting Chief Financial Officer (ACFO) of RAF took the Committee through the organisation’s financial figures mostly on the organisation’s income, expenditure and deficits of the current year and the past 5 years. (Please see document for more details). However, Mr Songelwa pointed out that the RAF receives on average R3.5 billion a month which is spread across six banks in the country. He stated that their expenditure on claims kept increasing as they usually find themselves paying up to R4.5 billion worth of claims even though they only receive roughly R3.5 billion. This suggested that they exceeded the given budget, and this has been a challenge for them.

He also stated that with the current RAF Act, the Funding Model and the Financing Model are not sustainable at all and this was something that the RAF had to work on. Essentially, the RAF was faced with cash constraints that lead to the non-payment of claims. He did confirm that those claims (R15 million worth of claims) had been finalised, however they were unable to pay them due to the lack of resources.

Ms Xingwana-Jabavu reassured the Committee that the RAF was determined to deliver in terms of their strategic plans.

The Chairperson opened the floor for questions.

Discussion

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) asked how the RAF intended to deal with the symptoms of their problems. He referred to slide 17 which pertained to the RAF’s alignment to the seven Apex Priorities. He drew everyone’s attention to the capable, ethical and development priority which addressed the management of fraud detection. According to the second bullet the RAF improved fraud detection management which was about R1.4 billion in 2018/19. He argued that he had not seen any figures or an annual report for 2018/19 on fraud detection. That said, in 2016/17 the organisation’s fraud detection was at R1.5 billion. He wanted clarity on why the information on fraud detection management was as unclear as the RAF had made 10 arrests in 2016/17 and another 10 arrests in 2018/19 pertaining to fraudulent activities. He wanted to know the efforts that RAF had made pertaining to the matter specifically on recovering the money that was linked to the fraudulent activities. He argued that it seemed like there was no permanent solution regarding that matter. On the 33 targets that the RAF had set they achieved 90.9% of those targets in 2017/18, thus he questioned what they had achieved in 2018/19. He expressed that he wanted to know what measures were put in place in order to close that gap.

He referred to slide 15 (alignment of apex priorities) specifically on economic transformation and job creation and mentioned that he struggled to link the part about the 200 unemployed youth driver licenses and PDP with the RAF’s mandate. He then expressed that he was struggling to understand why the presentation did not address or mention any attempts or projects pertaining to pedestrians as they were the organisation’s biggest claimants.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF) expressed that the presentation was nearly equal to the task and said that he had a number of questions. His first question was directed to the Funding Model that the RAF mentioned that they received from the fuel levy. He wanted to know whether they also received money from e-tolls and normal tolls. Secondly, he wanted to know how long does a claim last for people living in the rural areas as most of them have no idea on the claiming procedures. Thirdly, he wanted the know why the ACEO was still acting, as Committee Members had made it quite clear that that position was to be filled. He also argued that there were way too many “acting” positions. Fourthly, on the point of the driver’s licenses, he asked who was making their own licenses. He also asked in which country were these licenses being made and if they were being made outside of South Africa. His fifth question was about the fraudulent activities, where he wanted to know what was being done if these fraudulent activities were being committed by lawyers and advocates. The last question was pertaining to the Youth Drivers Development Program, where he wanted a detailed explanation on how this program was being carried through. He also wanted to know how these driving schools were being appointed particularly in the Free State.

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) thanked the RAF for the presentation. She expressed that it seemed like the entity was undergoing challenges which was what she got from the presentation. She suggested that at any time that the RAF talks about its challenges, they should also provide solutions for those challenges just so the Committee Members can see that there was progress in the entity. Thus, she expressed that the organisation failed to do so in their presentation. She also wanted clarity on whether the fraud was being committed by just the lawyers or the officials in the Department as well. Therefore, if indeed it was the officials in the Department, she wanted to know the repercussions of that. She emphasised that if nothing was being done about this fraudulence then it would continue. She reiterated the importance of having consequences for such actions. That said, she expressed that she would have liked it if the organisation included the Auditor General’s (AG) report in their presentation, particularly the findings and plan of action as nothing was reported on that. She reiterated Mr Chabangu’s point on the vacant positions by arguing that, by not filling the CEO position it would affect the organisation’s progress. She asked when the processes of filling all the mentioned vacant posts would be concluded.

Mr P Mey (FFPlus) wanted clarity on the entity’s legal costs. He wanted to know what the entity was doing in order to address the increase of unnecessary legal expenses. He also wanted to know what other measures were being implemented to reduce legal costs. About the statutory duty to compensate, he asked what businesses were being used in order to revamp hospitals centres, etcetera. Lastly, he wanted to know if there were any cut-off dates or age for the treatment of patients as far as the new system was concerned.

The Chairperson gave the Department an opportunity to respond to the questions asked. He also mentioned that for some of the questions they could respond to them in writing which would have to be done in the next seven days.

Ms Xingwana-Jabavu in response to Mr Mangcu’s questions, stated that there was a slide that outlined the entity’s performance for the past five years which included 2018/19. That very slide (page 12 of the document) included graphs pertaining to 2018/19’s performance which was at the value of 77%. She pointed out that the drop from 91% to 77% was due to the lack of medical experts in the previous year. She did confirm that the entity had recently finalised a tender that would provide for the medical experts in need. Regarding the question on e-tolls, she asked Mr Chabangu to repeat his question. She then confirmed that they do not receive any funds from e-tolls.

On the question about driver’s licenses, she confirmed that the RAF does not get involved in the issuing of licenses. She stated that they were only involved in the compensation of claimants that had been involved in car accidents. Regarding the question of fraudulent crimes committed by lawyers, her response was that they usually conducted an investigation and also reported the alleged lawyers to the Law Society and lastly, they involved law enforcement agencies for any arrests that needed to be done. On the Youth Driver Development Program and the appointment of driving schools, she stated that the Strategy Officer would respond to that question.

On the question about who usually got involved in fraudulent activities, she confirmed that it was sometimes attorneys or medical experts or doctors or even the RAF’s officials. She stated that if the outcome of the disciplinary hearing resulted in the termination of employment then they would do so. However, if there was a criminal element after the termination of employment, they usually report such crimes to law enforcement agencies. She told the Committee they had a case in East London where one or two of their employees sold a claim to a lawyer. She confirmed that the employee was fired and they took action by going to court. Thus, that particular employee has been struck off the role of an attorney. About the AG Report, she said that slide 17 of the document addressed the entity’s audit outcomes for 2018/19. She mentioned that it was an unqualified audit opinion which was similar of that of the previous year (2017/18). The main reason behind this unqualified audit opinion was based on the performance information, specifically how they report on their performance of their set targets as an entity. She confirmed that they were currently in the process of bettering the reporting on that matter. Lastly, she responded to the question on vacant positions by stating that the Board was currently busy with the recruitment processes. She mentioned that the Chairperson of RAF would give a more accurate answer on when those processes would be concluded. She did confirm that for the CFO position they had started with the interview processes and that they had a follow-up session soon for the appointment of the chosen candidate. She also mentioned that they had not had a 14-year period where they did not have a CFO. She told the Committee that RAF had a CFO who eventually resigned who is now the current CFO of South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).

Mr Chabangu expressed that he was not satisfied with the response that Ms Xingwana-Jabavu had given regarding RAF’s current critical projects particularly on the Youth Driver Development Program. He then read an abstract pertaining to the Youth Driver Development Program from the document. He then asked the Department to explain in detail how they assist the youth with getting those licenses through the program and asked how they involved the mentioned driving schools. In other words, he wanted know how was the entity helping the youth get their licenses.

Ms Xingwana-Jabavu said that they were still going to respond to that question. Regarding the question on having permanent solutions to their problems, she said that the problem lay with the current business model as it was not sustainable and was informed by legislation. She mentioned that they had been working with the Department of Transport in order to come up with a more sustainable legislative arrangement. Then on the question about the cut-off dates for claims, she said that claimants were only allowed to claim for a period of three years. If after the three-year period the claimant has not claimed, the claim would then be prescribed. She then asked some of her colleagues to take some of the questions.

Mr Mangcu expressed that where RAF could respond, they should please do so in writing as the Committee was not impressed by the entity’s response to the question on the AG’s Report. He emphasised that the Committee wanted to know what exactly the AG had to say as well as RAF’s response to that report. He urged the entity to give the Committee more detailed responses than the responses they were receiving back.

Ms Xingwana-Jabavu said they would take that into consideration. She did mention that they were going to share the document about the AG’s outcome with the Committee.

Mr Songelwa said that they would rather provide their responses in writing. About the audit findings he said that they had a report on that and that it would be shared with the Committee in writing.

The Chairperson urged that they jumped straight to the question about the entity’s recruitment processes.

Mr Matsonto Mathebula the Chairperson of RAF, said that one of the Board’s top priorities was to appoint a CEO. He confirmed that they have had their first round of interviews. He also mentioned that candidates had been selected for the second round of interviews. He assured the Committee that they were still planning the date that those interviews would take place on. He also mentioned that this was happening with the concurrent appointment of a CFO. He assured the Committee that they were trying to conclude these processes as quickly as possible. That said, he mentioned that the Board’s intention was to submit their recommendations to the Minister by the mid-September. He further mentioned that they were hoping that when that time came, they would be able to present the names of selected candidates. He told the Committee that they were having interviews for the CFO position on the 6th of September, which would also be concluded on that same day.

Ms Mantiti Kola Chief Strategy Officer of RAF responded to the question regarding the Youth Driver Development Program by saying that the crash-data that was supplied by their ‘sister-entity’ as well as the information collected from Road Information Collection Agencies like the Metro Police indicated that road accident fatalities were between the ages of 18 and 40 which was the reason behind the establishment of Youth Driver Development Program. She mentioned that, that was done through advertisements on the Department of Transport’s website in order to ensure that they had as much coverage and inclusivity of all provinces. She confirmed that because of these advertisements they were able to gain about 9 000 applicants. However, due to cash constraints they were only able to finance 200 of those applicants. She also told the Committee that the appointment of driving schools was done through an open tender, therefore service providers were selected through an SEM process. Regarding their Corporate Social Responsibility, she pointed out that their budget for this particular area was about R8.5 million of the R37 billion that they receive. She mentioned that they manage to use that money wisely as they only target areas that were linked to RAF’s objectives such as the Files and Patient Optimisation Project in hospitals.

Ms Xingwana-Jabavu addressed the question about the Practice Directive in Gauteng and stated that they would respond comprehensively in writing. She did mention that it was an initiative from the Judiciary where they work with plaintiffs and attorneys. She also mentioned that they would respond to that in writing.

Mr Mey expressed that wanted clarify on his question about the treatment of patients and not about claims, particularly on what was the cut-off age that the Fund would assist patients with their treatment.

Mr Chris Wilemse, Senior Manager of Regulations of RAF said that he assumed that this was in reference to the Bill that was currently before the National Assembly. Thus, he mentioned that in that Bill a provision had been made for the medial treatment of road accident victims, therefore he confirmed that there was no cut-off age for that medical treatment.

The Chairperson thanked RAF for their presentation. He expressed that the Committee would appreciate it if the Department could be on time and to have all the relevant members present for future meetings. He emphasized that time management was very important. He expressed that the Committee did not want to feel like they were being disrespected by anyone. He also expressed that the Department would have to be more honest with the Portfolio Committee. He then urged the Board to finalise the appointments of those vacant posts. He suggested that they improve their expenses for legal fees. He also expressed that RAF’s claim system was tedious and that it was something that needed to be addressed with urgency. Lastly, he urged that the next time the RAF or the DoT were presenting, they should bring all the necessary information as this would help them make more informed decisions.

Briefing by the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (C-BRTA)

Mr Mos Ramathe, Chairperson of C-BRTA said they were going to take the Committee through their Annual Performance Plan (APP) for 2019/20 and their presentation would include the Agency’s mandate, the strategic objectives, the  (National Development Plan), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol and communications with other entities. The Committee was also going to be taken through the 2019 budget and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) estimates.

Mr Collins Letsoala, Acting Chief Executive Officer of C-BRTA said that the mandate is discharged through the execution of the following main functions such as regulation, law enforcement, facilitation and advisory. These functions are delivered through key divisions such as Regulatory Services, Research and Development, Stakeholder Relations. This approach was pivotal to address key challenges and to deliver on the mandate of the Agency.

The Committee was told that South Africa’s economy shrank by a quarter earlier in annualised terms at the outset of the year, highlighting the economic hurdles the country was facing. Weaker mining and manufacturing output, along with a sharp decline in agricultural output, contributed to the slowdown the sharpest contraction since the depths of the financial crisis. As it stands, Mr Letsoala said confidence remains high, but both consumers and firms are facing headwinds. Inflation rose in April on the recent VAT hike, while the emerging-market selloff has bruised the rand and is set to swell the cost of imports. Meanwhile, manufacturing had been shaky in recent months and business conditions stagnated in May as the output suffered from product shortages.

Performance Delivery Environment

The Committee was informed that due to the migration of the law enforcement functions, the Agency faced a great risk of increased illegal operations and some operators conducting commercial cross-border operations without valid cross-border permits. In considering the risk identified, the Agency had enhanced its focus on the Profiling function which would provide intelligence that will assist in focused deployments of law enforcement by the NTP. The developments in the region and the need for enhanced harmonsation of transport systems and processes in the region required the Agency to enhance its stakeholder collaboration efforts with a view to facilitating the unimpeded flow of goods and people.

Strategic Objectives and Key Performance Indicators

The Committee was taken through the Agency’s strategic objectives, performance targets, reconciling performance targets and certain protocols (i.e. the SADC Protocols). These strategic objectives and performance indicators addressed various programmes such as the following:

• Administration
• Regulatory services
• Profiling Services
• Stakeholder Management
• Research and Advisory Services

(Please see document for more details) 

Overview of 2019 Budget

Mr Nchaupe Maepa Chief Operations Officer of C-BRTA took the Committee through the 2019 budget and the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) estimates which included: Revenue estimates (including surplus and deficits)

• Expenditure estimates
• Operational expenditure per programme
• Statement of financial performance

Discussion

Mr Mangcu said that he had just two comments before he asked any questions. He wanted to know why the Honourable Hunsinger was so quiet. He made a suggestion about asking the Minister about opening a position for an Acting DDG or a DDG with no portfolio as it seemed that the C-BRTA was doing quite well in fire-fighting where there were gaps. He asked about the whereabouts of the permanent CEO.

Mr Ramathe responded by saying that he had no idea about the CEO’s whereabouts

Mr Mangcu expressed that he needed a response as many of his questions were linked to that answer. He wanted to know whether he was on suspension or if the position was vacant.

Mr Ramathe responded by stating that the permanent CEO was indeed on special leave.

Mr Mangcu expressed that he was not sure about how truthful that response was, thus he questioned everything else that had been presented by the organisation. He expressed that he wanted to know why was the CEO on special leave and for how long would he be on special leave. He urged the organisation to provide a response to those questions in writing. He then expressed that he felt like the ACEO was contradicting himself a lot when he was talking about the law enforcement matter. He thought that they outsourced law enforcement to the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) for the reasons outlined by the ACEO. He needed clarity on what was really happening with that particular matter. He asked if it was possible for the entity to inform the Committee on how they were able to apportion the time that the RTMC used for the entity’s enforcement in order to reconcile when they were transferring the money to them for the services they had rendered. He wanted to see how they were going to breakdown and monitor this. He also wanted to know if the Executive structure was fully complemented, if not he wanted to know the challenges or the gaps that there were prevalent.

He said that there was a slight downplay of the role of the Audit-General South Africa (AGSA) reports. He asked what the audit and remedial findings were, but mentioned that the response should be in writing. Lastly, he asked if the entity had considered contracting some of the mentioned authorities to execute law enforcement on their behalf whether locally or internationally.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) expressed that he wanted to address the issue of attacks on trucks. He argued that this was a national crisis. He recommended that all agencies should play a huge role in addressing the current assault and attacks on trucks. Even though the C-BRTA presented this problem as a labour issue, to him it was a whole range of issues according to the information he got. They were aware that there were long queues in the borders. Therefore, due to those long queues, the cargo or assets in the trucks were exposed and threatened. He also mentioned that the truck-park facilities offered by C-BTRA were appreciated because they were a way of dealing with the congestion caused by the long queues. However, he argued that those long queues were caused by inefficiencies at the borders due to complicated procedures. Essentially, he was asking what immediate safety and security measures had been employed in knowing that there was a crisis due to the attacks and strikes. He also asked how was the entity treating or attending to this problem on a day-to-day basis.

Ms Ramadwa wanted to know where the other Board Members were, as they were in charge of the Sub-Committees within the entity. Secondly, she wanted to know who the stake-holders that held the forum that were mentioned by the ACEO during the presentation. She mentioned that she was asking this question based the C-BTRA was not the only entity in the Department. ‘Therefore, who was managing the other entities within the Department’? Thirdly, she asked for clarity on what the ‘bottlenecks’ were. She asked that the response to that question be done so in writing. Lastly, she mentioned that as the ACEO had indicated that the C-BRTA reports to the DoT, she wanted to know what relationships the entity had with other provinces through the DoT as there were other DoT branches provincially.

Mr Ramathe mentioned that in 2014 the C-BTRA had a Court Judgement that resulted in the entity having to refund the target that was charged. The total amount of debt was R318 million which was way above their annual turn-over. He mentioned that in the process such as this, it was clear that unless the Government chipped in, the C-BRTA would remain legally insolvent. The then Minister and Board had decided that it would be ideal to transfer law enforcement to one entity. They had a service level agreement with the RTMC who had been experiencing problems due to people being constantly transferred. It would not be ideal to hold one specific item to the lowering of the entity’s permit or permit income. There were fraudulent activities taking place where people would duplicate the C-BRTA permits illegally. There had been instances where some law enforcement entities would corruptly target foreign trucks and vehicles in order to get bribes out of them. He argued that as far as they were concerned, they were supposed to facilitate the free flow of goods and passengers through the borders. It was those types of delays that had an impact on the economy and the performance of the operators.

He then stated that there may be instances where a truck in Durban would be stopped 49 times in between its departure and its arrival. He urged the Committee that those were the things that they needed to bear in mind when talking about law enforcement. As far as the transfer of penalty was concerned, that penalty income did not cover the salaries of people that they transferred out. Thus, that measure of collecting it and transferring it back was one of those measures that they had to implement in terms of the law as the function of the law enforcement still remained with the C-BRTA. Until the Government decided to change the law, that function still remained with the C-BRTA.

About the filling in of vacant positions, he mentioned that the only position that was vacant was that of CFO as the former CFO had resigned in May this year. He confirmed that the audit findings will be provided in writing. On the suggestion made by the Mr Mangcu on the contracting of authorities, he mentioned that they would look into contracting with the Metro Police so that they could check if people have the valid permits. For them to maintain that, they would have to upgrade their systems in order to scan and confirm valid permits. On the long queues at the border, he said that they came up with the solution of developing a cross-border calculator. The inter-continental trade in Africa was about 14.7% in comparison to other countries which pointed out that South Africa was far behind.

About the absence of other Board Members, he said that from his understanding these meetings were only limited to the Chairperson, the CEO and the CFO. He did mention that they had one other Committee that were Chaired by one of the Board Members, which was the Human Resources Committee. He further mentioned that he chaired the Regulatory Committee in terms of the Act. The Auditory Committee was chaired by an independent person who was not a Board Member. He assured Members of the Committee that in the future they would make sure that everyone was present for all meetings. On the question about the Stakeholder Forums, he stated that the entity’s stakeholders included passenger transport stakeholders who were toll operators, bus operators, truck operators, municipalities, the Department of Home Affairs, the South African Police, the South African Defence Force, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health therefore, anyone who was crossing the borders for trade purpose fell under the entity’s stakeholders. They had put a forum in place that dealt with any problems regarding that particular area. He also said that the control of border areas was under the Department of Home Affairs (one of the major stakeholders). Therefore, the entity had no say in how the Department of Home Affairs should do things regardless of them being able to participate in those forums. He assured the Committee that they would give a more detailed response in writing.

On the question about the bottlenecks, he said that they usually had to do with the processing of documents and other things at the borders. He emphasised the importance of trucks being scanned in order to ensure that they were not bringing in or taking out any illegal goods in and out of the country. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) was also one of the major stakeholders at the border posts. Regarding the question of having relationships with other provinces, he confirmed that they do establish relationships with other provinces. Usually they would communicate with the Head of Department or Directors for each of those departments.

Mr Letsaola added on the issue of forums by saying that they had a Freight Operators Forum, Bus Operators Forum, Tour Operators Forum, Taxi Operators Forum and the National Consultative Forum. He mentioned that various entities sit in those forums such as the SARS, provinces, municipalities, and etcetera. He also commented on the national crisis of the attacks on trucks by arguing that in reality it started as a labour dispute that has now evolved into something else. He also argued that it was very clear that people had been taking advantage of it. He mentioned that as the meeting was a public forum, there were certain things that he could not disclose. He confirmed that they had been working very closely with some security agencies. He then mentioned that the entity was in discussion with the SARS on the issue of long queues at the borders on what could possibly be done in order to deal with the matter. He argued that those long queues were due to regulatory problems as some people that would want to cross borders would not want to adhere to the SARS requirements. He did confirm that it was something that they were currently working on.

Ms Ramadwa questioned how and why they could imply that the Beit Bridge Border Post was busy when it only had one scanner? Therefore, having only one scanner to scan documents could be the reason behind those long queues. She urged the Department to ensure that more scanners were being provided at those border posts in order to reduce the long queues. Secondly, she said that when she asked the question about the forums, she expected the entity to inform the Committee about any Awareness Campaigns that they may be working on in communities as those communities were also part of the challenges that the entity spoke about. 

The Chairperson asked the C-BRTA to respond to all the questions they could not respond to in this meeting in writing within seven days. Based on what the entity presented to the Committee, he noticed that nothing was said on how the goods and services that the entity receives benefitted previously disadvantaged communities. In the APP nothing was said about gender equality as it was only males that were present in the meeting from the Agency. He argued that it was not a good look as South Africans.

He wanted to know how the entity spent their money on the purchasing of goods and services. He also wanted to know which companies were benefitting from that. He argued that as South Africans with radical economic transformation and an active Parliament, it was important that entities made sure that previously disadvantaged communities benefit from all expenditure.

He thanked the C-BRTA for their presentation. That was just an introduction and they had five years to grow with one another. He proposed that the third item on the agenda be transferred to the next meeting as they had run out of time.

The meeting was adjourned.