Transport Budget Vote Report; Outstanding Committee Reports

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting and welcomed everyone in attendance. He began with thanking the Portfolio Committee Members who debated on the previous day. He said that they displayed a good working relationship, hegemony and unity of the Committee at the plenary. It was heart-warming for him as the Chairperson to see even those political parties who are not part of the Committee recognising its hard work in processing legislation. He thanked them all, including those who did not participate, stating that he is extremely honoured to work with Members of their calibre.  He admonished them to keep up the good work, noting that it is not always easy to work together but they should still continue to talk to one another and make compromises for the good of the people of South Africa.

The Chairperson then made an inquiry to check how many of the Committee Members would be present for their meeting on Friday, 14 May and plan a sure way forward.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) asked for clarification on the exact date of the meeting.

Ms V Carelse, Committee Secretary, confirmed that it was scheduled for Friday, May 14. 

Mr Hunsinger excused himself for the Friday meeting, stating that Fridays generally do not work for him, as he has other commitments then.

Mr I Seitlholo (DA) said that he also would not be available on Friday for the meeting as he has a constituency-based oversight visit on the same day, as well as many other Fridays.

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

The Chairperson said they will have to come back to the issue of the meeting on 14 May later and proceeded to suggest consideration and adoption of the 2021/2022 Annual Performance Plan (APP) Committee Report on the Department of Transport and its entities.

Mr Hunsinger said that he found the report to be in line with the suggestions made by himself and Mr Mangcu (ANC) the previous day. He thus proposed that the report be accepted and adopted.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) seconded the adoption of the report, stating that it is a true reflection of the work they have done.

There were no objections and the report was adopted.

Committee Report on Public Hearings on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill.

Adv Alma Nel, Committee Content Advisor, stated that the public hearing report just cover and indicate the hearings and the submissions received and the comments made thereto.  She said this will not materially affect the continuation on the Bills, but is just so they have records on the deliberations on the Bill as complete as possible.

She took Members through the report. She then said that any further input was welcome from Members on the fifth paragraph and if not, Members could proceed with recommendations and adoption.

Mr Hunsinger suggested that the report should mention the seven possible appointments from the shortlist that will be done by the Parliament, as it says in the Bill. He also said to mention how the appointment of the Bill will be constituted.  Otherwise, he felt that it was a good report.

Mr McDonald pointed out that it was the first time such a report was done and finds it out of place because the Bill was passed on the previous day and he has never seen such a report in the past seven years. He felt that it should have been included in the Portfolio Committee’s report. He asked what was the purpose of this report was. Who demanded such a report? In what manner is this report significant, since recordings and minutes are already made of all the proceedings?

Ms Carelse said that Mr McDonald is correct about their keeping of meticulous records of meetings and proceedings. She clarified that this report is not something adopted by the Committee but rather a comprehensive compilation of all submissions and responses from the Department, with the aim of keeping all information in one package for anyone who needs easy access to it.

Mr Hunsinger demanded an explanation, stating that a decision needs to be made as to whether they want to have such a report because it came unannounced and yet was presented as a standard thing. 

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Hunsinger’s concern and accepted blame for not informing the Committee earlier about this report.  He said that he was informed about the report and had consented to it because he felt that “information is information” but was unable to raise the matter earlier and come to a logical conclusion due to the challenges he had at the beginning of the meeting, with his internet connection.

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) asked on point number 5.7 in the report, which was a proposal added to the report. She asked why it was added after the debates had already taken place the previous day. 

The Chairperson said that Mr McDonald would be in a position to answer that better as it was an issue that was part of the debate on the previous day, following deliberations on this Bill.

Mr McDonald said that it was one of the main key points of the Bill that was deliberated specifically by Mr Mangcu and Mr Hunsinger, on the establishment of the board through interviews in Parliament, which was agreed by all parties and adopted. He confirmed that it was just an oversight that point 5.7 was just not included in the report previously, which is why it was being added now.

The Chairperson repeated that this report is here only to serve an informative purpose for anyone who needs a summarised version and that if there are no further comments, the Committee may proceed to pass it.

Mr Hunsinger said he was still concerned about this report because it has not been collectively decided by the Committee what its function and role is. He was uncomfortable with it because the matter was not brought to its logical conclusion. He was mainly concerned with the manner in which the new report was handled without full concession from the Committee and yet was going to be made available to the public. He firmly proposed that they hold back on the report until further discussion by the Committee to avoid complications and negative comebacks.

The Chairperson asked the other Committee Members of their thoughts on Mr Hunsinger’s views and comments.

Ms Ramadwa was in support of Mr Hunsinger and suggested that the Committee deliberate on the status of the report as well.

Another Member seconded the deliberation of the report as well.

Mr McDonald asked the Chairperson that they schedule another meeting to further discuss the document, in the interest of time.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on the 2020/21 Second and Third Quarter Expenditure of the Department of Transport

Adv. Nel took Members through the report.

The Chairperson then asked Members for consideration and adoption.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said that he did not see findings and recommendations on scholar transport in the report.

Adv. Nel said that they have asked for a breakdown for expenditure on scholar transport per province because that was a discussion that was had during the expenditure reports, and that there were no recommendations and suggestions that were made on that report.  However, recommendations for scholar transport, et al., as Mr Sithole mentioned, were included in the budget report, which was done the previous day when quarterly reports were being discussed and considered by the Department.

Mr McDonald moved for the adoption of the report.

Mr Hunsinger seconded the adoption of report.

There were no objections and the report was adopted.

Committee report on oversight to Mangaung

Adv. Nel presented to Members the Oversight Report on Mangaung indicating that she and Ms Carelse did not physically attend the oversight.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF) said that when they went to Mangaung, they found the buses immobile – referring to the busses looking like “white elephants”. He is concerned that the bus depot was still in the foundation stage even after so many years and the roads for the buses were not yet concluded by the relevant stakeholders. The buses were purchased at a very expensive price, almost twice their actual value. He said a further oversight must be conducted by the Committee to see the progress that is done.

Mr McDonald said that the City of Mangaung never sent any of its senior leadership, such as the Head of Department for transport to meet them and even the MMC for transport did not attend the any of the Portfolio Committee’s when they were there. He also said that there was a lot of contention concerning the buses and he suggested that the Committee asks for the number plates and registration numbers for the buses bought because he was not sure it was five or ten buses that were purchased. He added that there was confusion as to how many buses were bought. Therefore, that information would be very important.

Mr Seitlholo said that he was not sure of where to start from because of the exorbitant amount of R5.5 million per bus. He said that when Mr Mangcu and himself had deliberated concerning the oversight and whether the amount would really come to R5.5m for a bus, it was nowhere near that. He said that they asked during the briefing on the 14th, to the city manager that was there; they did not get an answer. They also did not get an answer on how the buses were purchased and they noticed that one of the officials they met on Friday mentioned that they used funds linked to the Waste Department but that also did not make sense. He added that they later found out that the buses were bought through a lease agreement with Standard Bank. He was of the view that the money that was meant to be used to get the buses was from the National Department, so hearing that the buses were purchased using a lease agreement from the Waste Removal Directorate of the city that remains unanswered. He then said that Committee did not have an answer of why this was the amount a bus was purchased at. They also wanted a breakdown of if they wanted to put a staircase for the disabled to use a wheelchair, for example. He said that there are a lot of discretions that the city of Mangaung need to answer for. 

Mr Seithlolo also confirmed that the Brandwag route that was set to be operational by 2020 was no longer operational. Firstly, because it was an illegal route that was not considered for Hauweng buses. He is not sure to what extent the illegality of the route is but said that the city needs to provide a report on that particular route. The City said that the route would be operational by 2020 but Mr Seithlolo confidently confirmed that it is not operational as was proven at the oversight visit. He was also concerned about the storage of the buses. The officials also left the Committee and did not take them to the sites, which makes him question whether the routes were completed.

Another matter was the completion report issued by the city on 13 November, which he felt was very unrealistic. For example, regarding the completion of Fort Hare Part A, where they said 43% completion of work in a month, when it was rainy season, that was impractical. There were no indicators showing that this would be possible, especially considering the rains that fell and the time frame given. There was also no specific number of times the contractor had asked for an extension in the construction of the main depot. The city gave a date in March whilst the contractor gave the Committee the month of December as their extension dateline.

As for the storage of the buses, he did not understand why the city bought them when they did not have a place to store them. He brought up the issue of the City of Cape Town buying out all the taxis at R1 billion and later making them commuter buses, though he did not understand if the city had such amounts of money to do that. He also shared with the Committee that this might also be the case with this city.

Ms Ramadwa suggested that the Committee goes back for the oversight, as there were many things that were not clear. She continued to say that the Portfolio Committee for the legislature on transport should also be present when they go back to the city.

The Chairperson asked Adv. Nel if the gaps had been filled, as the Members were sharing what they experienced when they went to Mangaung.

Mr Seithlolo said that Adv. Nel had asked for a clarification on the licensing testing centre, and that it did not form part of the deliberation on the 14th. He said that it was the senior officials of the licensing testing centres who were not available, hence the decision was made for the meeting not to proceed until the senior leadership make themselves available to the Portfolio Committee.

Adv. Nel said that she had noted the things the Members had raised and also the officials that were not present, and she would make the amendments. She then asked if the Members wanted to see the final report before adoption or if they would adopt the report then and then move on to another oversight report.

The Chairperson asked the Members if they would adopt the amended report.

Mr McDonald moved for the adoption of the report, with amendments.

Ms Ramadwa also seconded the motion.

The report was adopted.

Committee report on oversight visit to Gauteng and Mpumalanga

Adv. Nel presented the oversight report on Gauteng and Mpumalanga to the Committee.

The Chairperson started by reminding the Committee that it had made a decision to revisit Mpumalanga on the issue of Moloto corridor, during the third term, but since then a lot of developments had taken place. He reported that the community members had taken to radio to say that the Committee was visiting them to give them feedback in March. He asked the Committee to rethink its earlier decision to visit Moloto later, as some Ministers had already gone when they were sorting out other issues. He suggested that a meeting be organised, even if it be on Zoom – that they contact the Committee at Moloto and they be briefed so that they are not left hanging. The Chairperson said that the meeting would help to not create anarchy, which he thought was already starting to take place. He also mentioned to the Committee that when they went there, there was a lot of chaos. Things were falling apart and the lines of the railway were stolen. Then he asked the Members who attend the Gauteng oversight to make their input.

Mr McDonald thanked the Chairperson and that he had summed up the issues but just wanted to add that only three board members from the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) attended the meeting. The ‘3 900 new security officers’ that the media reported was not true, as there were only 741 security officers hired. He also pointed out that the inability of PRASA to know the number appointments done, and how many officers are armed, has brought about serious confusion about the safety of PRASA, when they continually assured the Committee in meetings that they were on top of their game in stopping of looting and destruction of infrastructure. He said that during the visit, it could be easily seen that the entity has lost control. He also agreed with the Chairperson that the revisits to the two cities to be done as quickly as possible.

Mr L Mangcu (ANC) added that there was no reliable train at PRASA and the diesel train they said was available was not there and did not know when it was coming. The other issue was train tickets that are costly, and that the train station does not have the money to purchase the tickets. The train does not go where most people want to go, which leads to people walking.

On the surrounding of the PRASA station, he could not recall which station had long grass around it, making it unsafe to walk. He was also informed of the cut-offs that happen when the train arrives, because of ticket queues, which leads to people failing to buy tickets even though they arrived at the station on time.

The Chairperson added that the station the Minister was talking about was the station next to Silverton. The Chairperson then asked if the report could then be adopted with those amendments.

Mr McDonald commented that he had been reminded by Mr Mangcu that none of the security cameras were working at any of the PRASA stations.

Ms Ramadwa also added that it was observed at Mamelodi station that families had built houses next to the station, which was a challenge to the railway lines. She then proposed to adopt the report, with amendments.

The Chairperson asked for anyone else in agreement.

Mr McDonald seconded the adoption.

The Chairperson asked the Adv. Nel if they were done with that report and if there was any other report that they had overlooked.

Adv. Nel asked if the Committee would be looking at the annual budget report for the previous year and if it would be adopted.

The Chairperson said that that had been overlooked. Therefore, it would be the last meeting agenda for the day. He then asked Adv. Nel if she had the annual budget report with her.

Adv. Nel checked with Ms Carelse to see if she had the latest report. She then said that she had the report amended on 15 March and needed the Chairperson to confirm if that was the latest report, after which the report was then adopted.

Ms Carelse confirmed that the version Adv. Nel had of the report was indeed the latest one.

Committee Annual Report Framework PresentationAdv. Nel presented the Committee’s Annual Report for last year.

Mr Hunsinger thanked the Chairperson for the effort that went in the preparation of the report and stated that it was clear and so was the purpose of the report. He proposed the adoption of the report.

Mr McDonald seconded the adoption of the report.

The Chairperson then asked if there was any Member who was against the adoption and their reasons thereof.

There were no objections.

The report was then adopted.

The Chairperson asked Adv. Nel if that was the last report

Adv. Nel replied that she sent the report to the Committee. That was it from her side, in terms of the reports.

The Chairperson advised the Committee to set the date and address the issue at Moloto. He also brought up two final issues. One was the availability of some Members for the oversight meeting during the constituency period and the other issue was to remind people that Mr Hunsinger would not be available. He asked the Committee if there was anyone else that was not going to be available.

Mr Seithlolo said that he was also unavailable.

The Chairperson also informed the Committee that Mr Seithlolo also said he may be in and out depending on his schedule. He then appealed to the Members to consider doing constituency work during constituency work period unless sick or otherwise.

Mr McDonald agreed with the Chairperson and said that for the sake of the country and the work that needs to be done, the Members have to sacrifice some weekends as well as weekdays during this period because of the elections in order to do oversight work. He asked the Members that they work sometimes during the weekends and suggested that they also do the work some Mondays and Fridays, although they are constituency days. This was so that they at least do one or two oversights this year.

The Chairperson asked the other Members of their thoughts concerning Mr McDonald’s proposal.

Mr Seithlolo said he thought it was important that the Committee undertook oversights because that is what informs the Members on the Department or its entities and other spheres of local government that depend on the national Department. Therefore, the Committee Members must be available even if it is a Member per political party; it would be necessary to ask the important questions and this will bring about accountability. He agreed with Mr McDonald.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Seithlolo for his input and asked if anyone had a different view.

Ms Ramadwa was also of the view that the Members should balance their work between their constituencies and the oversight as Mr McDonald and Mr Seithlolo had said.

The Chairperson thanked her and reiterated the points made by the Ministers and said that they might have two or three oversight visits during the current constituency period or on one of the Saturdays.

Mr Hunsinger replied that he had a different view from what he heard Mr McDonald said. He explained that Mr McDonald did not refer to the current constituency period but to sacrifice in principle outside of the set period. He further added that he did not mind sacrificing in principle but during this constituency time. Unfortunately, the situation would be different for him and he cannot be interrupted by any Portfolio Committee work.

Mr Seithlolo responded to what Mr Hunsinger said about the oversight, clarifying that he was referring to constituency periods in future, not now.

The Chairperson then repeated that the Members would be unavailable for oversights during the current constituency period. He then went on to talk about the issue of the meeting that was scheduled for Friday 14th May.

Ms Carelse replied that the agenda for the meeting was the deliberation that took place on 18th March, which was postponed to take place on another day for further discussions. So, Friday was the day that was agreed to: 14 May. This was to discuss the matters that were raised, as there were different views on how the Bill should proceed going forward. She also mentioned that there were already apologies made but it was very important that the Members were on board in terms of the quorum and the parties involved for it to continue.

The Chairperson asked which Members had submitted their apologies.

Ms Carelse said from the DA it was Mr Hunsinger, Mr K Sithole (IFP), Mr T Mabhena (DA) and Ms N Nolotshungu (EFF) who sent emails stating their unavailability the whole week. She stressed the importance of Members stating their availability that day, as the requirement was that at least six Members be present for the meeting for quorum.

The Chairperson asked the times the meeting was scheduled.

Ms Carelse said that it was scheduled from nine to one o’clock but she did not see the meeting going beyond 11 o’clock in her estimation because there was only one agenda item.

The Chairperson asked if there was any meeting scheduled the following week.

Ms Carelse agreed with that and said that the current scheduling was because some Members would not be available because of the bi-elections. She also added that during the meeting there was a directive from the House Chairperson that Members participate in the mini plenaries. She said that Committees are being asked to have meetings. This was because the debate of the economic cluster would be taking place, and this is the largest cluster. Therefore, the Committee would be able to meet on the following week.

Mr P Mey (FF+) said that he was in Cape Town at the moment and was returning by car. Therefore, he was not going to be available on Friday.

The Chairperson asked Ms Carelse when the next plausible day for the meeting would be.

Ms Carelse said that the next plausible date was 26 May, since the meetings on that day were on legislation. And in the evening the scheduled meeting was Quarterly expenditure but it was discussed that the matter must be brought forward to a daytime meeting. Ms Carelse asked if the Members could stay a bit longer on 26 May by starting the meeting at nine o’clock in the morning to two o’clock in the afternoon, as another meeting was scheduled for three o’clock. The Members would slot in the meeting on expenditure and then discuss about the Economic Regulation of Transport (ERT) Bill.

The Chairperson asked the Members to make the sacrifice and try to accommodate everybody.

Ms Ramadwa agreed.

Mr Hunsinger said it was an acceptable proposal and he suggested that they start earlier, as nine a.m. was already late in the day. He suggested that they start the meeting at seven in the morning.

Mr McDonald said he was also in agreement that they not break the unity they have in the Committee, by moving the meeting to the 26th. He also agreed with Mr Hunsinger that the meeting starts at 8am to deliberate and do other parliamentary duties. He suggested that the meeting start at 8am and agreed with the proposal.

Ms Ramadwa also agreed with the proposal to start at eight, not seven.

The Chairperson then thanked the Members’ commitment on the 26th and reiterated that the meeting on Friday would no longer take place because it was important that everyone participates. He then thanked all the Members for coming and reminded Ms Carelse to take note of the issue that was to be discussed in the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.