The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act seeks to promote road traffic quality by providing for a scheme that discourages road traffic contraventions and facilitate the efficient adjudication of road traffic infringements. The Act has been in operation without the demerit points system, on a pilot phase in the jurisdictional areas of Tshwane and Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipalities where some challenges and inefficiencies have been identified. These challenges need to be addressed before the national roll-out.
This Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Act to achieve efficiency and financial sustainability of issuing authorities as well as the Road Traffic Infringement Agency, which the Bill renames to the Road Traffic Infringement Authority. The amendments will assist issuing authorities to be financially stable in order to proceed with proper implementation of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO). It also will simplify the manner of service of documents by the introduction of an electronic method of service.
Members were concerned that the replacement of registered post with electronic mail in sending traffic offence letters could be a problem. This was also skewed as only urban areas had proper network access. Members asked how one proves that the email was delivered and what consideration had been made for people without electronic addresses. Members asked about the court challenge involving Tasima which runs the National Administration Traffic Information System (eNatis) and the Department. Implementation of AARTO was dependent on the eNatis system. Members asked for lessons learnt from the pilot and what recommendations from it were incorporated into the Act. As with ENatis, was the direction towards paying fines at retail outlets. Members asked when a person would be considered to have received an electronic mail: when it enters the inbox or when the person opens it. Issuing infringement notices like this was a concern due to the Criminal Procedure Act. One will be end up having many criminals in the country and when a person is looking for a job, he will have a criminal record. Members asked about the sanction of not renewing one's licence disc; how does DoT benchmark itself with the developing world; how would it deal with people living in informal settlements with no fixed address and some rural communities did not have internet and even struggled with the Vodacom, MTN and Cell C network.
The National Land Transport Amendment Bill provides for developments since the 2009 Act came into operation, such as the rolling out the 2007 Public Transport Strategy. The Act met with much success in achieving its objectives such as consolidating transport functions at the local level. The Amendment Bill amended several definitions for clarity and introduced new ones. Some of the contracting arrangements for public transport services are revised. The functions of the different spheres of government are clarified. The administrative arrangements for operating licences are streamlined. Provision is made for electronic hailing (e-hailing) of taxis. The Minister is empowered to delay the implementation while contracting arrangements are put in place.
New definitions of ‘‘accessible transport’’ and ‘‘targeted categories of passengers’’ were inserted to bring those concepts in line with international best practice. A new definition of ‘‘association’’ is inserted because regulatory entities will be required to keep certain information on operator associations and take it into account in managing operating licences. The definition of ‘‘metered taxi service’’ was amended to include electronic hailing or similar technology which may be used along with or instead of a meter, as will be prescribed by the Minister in regulations. A new definition of ‘‘municipal regulatory entity’’ was inserted to make the Act easier to read. A new definition of ‘‘non-motorised transport’’ is inserted to provide more clearly for this concept. The definition of ‘‘integrated public transport network’’ was amended to make clearer that such networks include integrated rapid public transport networks (IRPTNs) and BRT systems.
The Bill has 52 clauses and the Department explained what the purposed of each was.
Due to time constraints, questions on this Bill would be submitted and answered in writing.
The DoT presented a performance report for 1 January 2016-31 March 2016. Based on the performance status reported in quarter three, an Action Plan to address identified red flags was developed and implemented in Quarter 4. A task team was established to focus on all winnable cases highlighted in the Action Plan with Maritime Transport was the key focus. The EXCO sat at frequent intervals to assess progress made on the Red Flags and on key Q4 deliverables. It reported that 92% of its performance indicators were achieved in Quarter 4.
Key achievements were noted for each of its seven programmes.
Members commended the DoT spend 99% of its budget, but they were concerned about vacant posts especially at the level of Deputy Director General. The many acting positions in DoT should not continue. Members asked what the DoT was doing about private jets. Some people have established farms and lodges. Helicopters and jets land on these to the detriment of national security as some do it for dubious reasons. They requested that the Minister brief the Committee about what happened to the DG rather than have them relying on the press for information. Members asked if the DoT had a sense of how much money had been spent by its receiving agencies as PRASA did not spend 80% of the money transferred to it. A member was disappointed with discrepancies between the 2015/16 and 2016/17 strategic and annual performance plans. The Committee was disappointed that the Department did not send the reports it promised the previous month. The Committee must be taken cognizance of otherwise the DoT takes it for granted. It does not want to write to the Speaker about such observations about the DoT as it does not want to work in adversarial manner. The amendments to the aviation and maritime bills have been shifting targets for years and they have not yet come to Parliament All questions had to be replied to in writing by 20 May.
Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill [B38-2015]: briefing
Mr John Motsatsing, Chief Director: Road Transport Regulation, Department of Transport, said the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act promotes road traffic quality by providing for a scheme that discourages road traffic contraventions and facilitates the efficient adjudication of road traffic infringements. The Act has been in operation without the demerit points system, on a pilot phase in the jurisdictional areas of Tshwane and Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipalities where some challenges and inefficiencies have been identified. These challenges need to be addressed before the national roll-out. This Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Act to achieve efficiency and financial sustainability of issuing authorities as well as the Road Traffic Infringement Agency, which the Bill renames to the Road Traffic Infringement Authority. The amendments will assist issuing authorities to be financially stable in order to proceed with proper implementation of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO). It also will simplify the manner of service of documents by the introduction of an electronic method of service.
Objectives of the Bill
To amend the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act 1998 (Act No.46 of 1998)
To provide for financing by empowering the Authority through its Board to open a bank account
To do away with the issuing of warrants by the repeal of section 21
To simplify manner of service of documents by the introduction of electronic method of service
To provide for the apportionment of penalties
To provide for transitional provisions
To provide for general provisions and consequential amendments
Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 1 by adding, deleting and substituting certain definitions.
Amends section 1 of the Act, as follows:
(a) The definition of “acceptable identification” has been qualified to also include the words clear, legible and certified copy;
(b) The definition of “agency” was deleted and replaced with the definition of “Authority”.
(c) the definition of “electronic service” have been inserted to provide for electronic methods of service of documents in addition to other methods of service that may be prescribed ;
(d) The definition of “infringement” was qualified to include any act or omission in contravention of the principal Act or road traffic legislation;
(e) The definitions of “major infringement” and “minor infringement” were deleted as a consequential amendments to the definition of infringement;
(f) The definition of “National Contraventions Register” was replaced by the definition of “National Road Traffic Offences Register” in which details of the infringements and offences of every infringer are recorded.
(h) Definition of “representation officer” was aligned with section 10 of the principal Act.
Clause 2 amends section 4 which provides for the objects and functions of the Authority. Clause 2 mainly deletes section 4(3)(e) which deals with the issuing by the registrar of a warrant against an infringer who has failed to comply with an enforcement order made in terms of the Act. The deletion of this subsection is aligned with the proposed repeal of section 21 which deals with the issuing of warrants by the registrar.
Clause 3 amends section 13, which provides for the financing of the Authority. Clause 3 inserts a new paragraph in section 13 to provide that the finances of the Authority are also derived from penalties issued and collected by or on behalf of an issuing authority. The Act defines an ‘‘issuing authority’’ as a local authority, a provincial administration or the Road Traffic Management Corporation established under section 4 of the Road Traffic Management Corporation Act.
Clause 4 amends section 15, which provides for the banking account of the Authority. Clause 4 provides that the Authority may open and maintain one or more bank accounts with the approval of the Board of the Authority. Currently section 15 requires the approval of the Director-General. The account(s) must be used to deposit monies received by the Authority and money received from issuing authorities, driving licence testing centres and registering authorities.
Clause 5 amends section 19B, which provides for the payment of fines imposed for traffic infringements. Clause 5 seeks to delete subsections (1)(b) and (2)(c) of section 19B. Section 19B (1)(b) provides that if an infringer makes an insufficient payment to the Authority in respect of a fine or if the cheque used for a payment is dishonoured, a notice must be served on the infringer, informing the infringer that failure to comply with the notice will result in a warrant being issued in terms of section 21. Section 19B(2)(c) provides that if an infringer who has made arrangements to pay a fine or monies, in instalments, fails to pay the instalments or makes an insufficient payment or if the cheque used for payment is dishonoured, a notice must be served on the infringer, informing that failure to comply with the notice will result in a warrant in the full amount being issued in terms of section 21. The deletion of these subsections is aligned with the proposed repeal of section 21, which deals with the issuing of warrants by the registrar.
Clause 6 amends section 20 by deleting subsection (3)(b). Section 20 provides for enforcement orders issued by the registrar in respect of failure to pay fines imposed for traffic infringements. Section 20(3)(b) stipulates that an enforcement order must state that a failure to comply with the requirements of the enforcement order not later than 32 days after the date of service of the order will result in a warrant being issued to recover the penalty and fees. The deletion of this paragraph is in line with the repeal of section 21.
Clause 7 repeals section 21. Section 21 empowers the registrar to issue a warrant against a traffic infringer who fails to comply with an infringement notice or an enforcement order which requires payment of a traffic penalty. The proposed repeal means that the consequences of the failure to comply with an enforcement order will be dealt with in terms of section 20(5), which provides that an infringer who does not comply with an enforcement order may not be issued with a driving licence, professional driving permit or licence disc in respect of a motor vehicle registered in the name of an infringer, until such enforcement order has been complied with or has been revoked. In respect of infringement notices, section 19(2)(c) provides that if an infringer fails to comply with an infringement notice, the Authority must issue a courtesy letter and serve it on the infringer, stating that a failure to comply with the requirements of the courtesy letter within the time permitted will result in the registrar issuing an enforcement order in terms of section 20.
Clause 8 amends section 22, which provides for the procedure in respect of a trial of an infringer who does not pay a fine but elects to be tried in court. Clause 8 seeks to delete section 22(1)(b), which provides that if the execution of a warrant produces no movable property to seize and sell or the infringer otherwise fails to comply with the enforcement order after execution of the warrant, the Authority must inform the issuing authority, who must cancel the infringement notice. This deletion corresponds with the proposed repeal of section 21.
Clause 9 amends section 30, which provides for service of documents on an infringer, personally or by registered mail. The proposed amendment provides for service of documents by means of postage and electronic service. The amendment also provides that a document is deemed to have been served on the infringer on the tenth day of postage or of the electronic service, and such electronic service being reflected in the National Road Traffic Offences Register, unless evidence to the contrary is adduced, which evidence may be in the form of an affidavit.
Clause 10 substitutes the whole of section 32, which provides for the apportionment of penalties. The new substitution provides for the apportionment a distribution of penalties received by the Authority to the relevant the issuing authorities, after deduction of an amount equal to the prescribed discount. Penalties collected by or on behalf of an issuing authority in terms must be paid to the Authority. In addition, the Authority may withhold a penalty due to the issuing authority if there is evidence of non-compliance with the Act by that issuing authority, until such time that the issuing authority complies with the Act.
Clause 11 amends section 35 which deals with transitional provisions. Clause 11 provides that a notice issued in terms of section 56 or 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, before the date of commencement of section 17, may be continued and finalised under the Criminal Procedure Act, but the notice may not be issued after that commencement date in respect of an infringement, thus removing the reference to an ‘‘offence’’. Section 17 provides for the issuing of an infringement notice by an authorized officer or a person duly authorised by an issuing authority. It must be noted that currently the only dates for commencement of section 17 are 1 July 2008 in respect of the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, and 1 November 2008 in respect of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. This is in line with section 36(2), which provides that different dates may be determined in respect of different provisions and different areas of the Republic.
Clause 12 generally provides for the substitution of certain expressions. In effect, the name ‘‘Road Traffic Infringement Agency’’ is replaced with ‘‘Road Traffic Infringement Authority’’. The expressions ‘‘major infringement’’ and ‘‘minor infringement’’ are to be replaced with ‘‘infringement’’ throughout the Act. The expression ‘’national contraventions register’’ is replaced with ‘‘National Road Traffic Offences Register’’.
Clause 13 provides for the short title and commencement.
Mr M De Frietas (DA) said the replacement of registered post with electronic mail could a problem. How does it prove that the mail was delivered and what considerations had been made for people without electronic addresses. He asked what a courtesy letter was. He asked why the National Contraventions Register was renamed National Road Traffic Offences Register.
Mr C Hunsinger (DA) asked about the court challenge involving Tasima which runs the National Administration Traffic Information System (eNatis) and the Department. Implementation of AARTO was dependent on the eNatis system which was caught up in a tug of war between Tasima and DoT. He asked for lessons learn from the pilot and how were recommendations from it incorporated into the Act. As with ENatis, he asked if the direction was towards paying fines at retail outlets. He asked for the results of the Learner Driver Education Pilot Project. He asked when a person would be considered to have received an electronic mail; when it enters the inbox or when the person opens it?
Mr G Radebe (ANC) said the new method of issuing infringement notices was bad because in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, we will be having many criminals in the country and then a person was looking for a job, he will be considered a criminal. The board of the authority should open a bank account in consultation with the minister. He asked for the concerns of stakeholders who were consulted.
Mr M Maswanganyi (ANC) asked for a narrative on the successes and challenges in the Gauteng pilot which could be submitted in writing.
Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) said the amendments seek to soften some clauses that were rushed earlier into the Act. He asked how it resolves non renewal of licence discs as this does not mean that the car was without wheels. He asked how rural people without electronic addresses will be catered for and how does the DoT benchmark itself with the developing world.
Mr M Sibande (ANC) said the minister must have a say in the opening of a bank account. There were also issues of people living in informal settlements with no fixed address and the issue had been raised as people move towards elections. He asked if it had consulted thoroughly so that it will not be taken to court. Some rural communities do not have internet and struggle even with Vodacom, MTN and Cell C network.
The Chairperson said the pilot was done in KwaZulu Natal which has vast rural areas.
Mr Chris Hlabisa, Acting Director General, Department of Transport (DoT), replied that the omission of the minister in the opening of bank accounts was an omission and it thought it was unnecessary since the board accounts to the minister. On 24 May, DoT will be in court to hear the outcome of eNatis and it was very optimistic that the judgment will be in its favour. In case something happens, it has a plan B but it cannot discuss it now. Lessons learnt from Gauteng will be sent to the Committee in writing. It will deal heavily with those without licence discs. The DoT, the police, provincial and municipal officers have a good relationship and were mounting joint roadblocks.
Mr Motsatsing replied the key to the pilot project was to address the inefficiencies that arose. Many traffic offences were dealt with by the Justice system and the sentence must be commensurate with the offence. One deficiency with AARTO was sending mail via registered post which was very expensive, as a courtesy letter could also be sent as a reminder. The main objective was not revenue collection, but changing driver behavior on our roads.
Mr Jeff Chuwe, Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) CEO, replied the intention was to introduce efficiencies in road traffic offences. AARTO had three main deficiencies which were: system related deficiencies in the operation of the national traffic register, interaction with law enforcement and legislative challenges. A person issued an enforcement order will not be able to renew a licence disc, licence and operator licence. The electronic service does not do away with the postal service. The Post Office has got a network that stretches into deep rural areas. Electronic mail was moving in line with global technological innovation. The Public Protector came out clearly that issuing authorities need to do some things in line with the law. There were more than 224 issuing authorities in the country. Registered mail was expensive as the city of Johannesburg was paying R10 million a month and the RTIA R5.6 million. There are 2 366 platforms where people can pay fines such as the major retail outlets, banks and the post office. For companies like Avis with over one million cars, electronic mail was to their advantage. It took us to court after renewal of its operating licence was refused because some of its cars had transgressed. With this provision only those cars involved in transgressions will be blocked.
Mr Thabo Tsholetsane, Chief Operating Officer, RTIA, replied that section 57 of the CPA says when one pays a fine, he was included in the conviction register. Infringements will not make one a criminal. Offences of high speeding and drunk driving will be dealt with in terms of the Justice Department. Any unlicenced vehicle in terms of schedule three was an offence. The system that it will use will show that an email was received. Even with the Post Office, people know that a registered letter had arrived but did not go to collect it because they knew it was a traffic offence letter.
Mr Benedict Matinise, Board Member, RTIA, replied that it cannot hold the Post Office accountable when people choose not to collect their letters. When people choose to go to court, it takes time for a case to be resolved. Electronic service also includes an sms. In Australia, a vehicle without a licence disc had the person’s licence cancelled immediately.
National Land Transport Amendment Bill [B7-2016]: briefing
Ms Lusanda Madikizela, Chief Director: Public Transport, DoT, said the National Land Transport of 2009 (NLTA) was passed to further the process of transforming and restructuring the national land transport system that was started by the previous Transition Act. The Amendment Bill provides for developments since 2009, such as rolling out of the 2007 Public Transport Strategy. The Act has met with much success in achieving its objectives like consolidating transport functions at the local level. There are also some technical issues that have required amendment of the Act. Provision was made for non-motorised transport (NMT) and accessible transport – in line with international best practice. Some of the contracting arrangements for public transport services are revised. The functions of the spheres of government are clarified. The administrative arrangements for operating licences (OLs) are streamlined. Provision is made for electronic hailing (e-hailing) of taxis. The Minister is empowered to delay the implementation while contracting arrangements are put in place.
Clause 1 substitutes, deletes and adds certain definitions in section 1 of the Act. New definitions of ‘‘accessible transport’’ and ‘‘targeted categories of passengers’’ were inserted to bring those concepts in line with international best practice. A new definition of ‘‘association’’ was inserted because regulatory entities will be required to keep certain information on operator associations and take it into account in managing operating licences. The definition of ‘‘metered taxi service’’ was amended to include electronic hailing or similar technology which may be used along with or instead of a meter, as will be prescribed by the Minister in regulations. A new definition of ‘‘municipal regulatory entity’’ was inserted to make the Act easier to read. A new definition of ‘‘non-motorised transport’’ was inserted as the Act is amended to provide more clearly for this concept. The definition of ‘‘integrated public transport network’’ was amended to make it clearer that such networks include integrated rapid public transport networks (IRPTNs) and bus rapid transit (BRT) systems.
Clause 2 amends section 5 of Act to require the Minister to promote measures to ensure the safety of pedestrians and passengers by means of regulations, guidelines or other measures.
Clause 3 amends section 8 to empower the Minister to make regulations on a number of additional issues, which include regulations on the process of negotiating with incumbent operators to establish contracts for integrated public transport networks, regulations providing for the needs of targeted categories of passengers, and regulations on codes of conduct for operators and drivers of public transport vehicles. Some consequential amendments are also made to section 8.
Clause 4 amends section 9 to empower the Minister to prescribe the information that must be contained in annual reports submitted by the MECs.
Clause 5 amends section 10 to empower the MECs to make regulations on colour coding and branding of public transport vehicles, subject to any regulations made by the Minister in that regard.
Clause 6 inserts a new section 10A into the principal Act to provide for the promotion of accessible transport and non-motorised transport by the Minister, MECs and planning authorities.
Clause 7 amends section 11 to provide that municipalities may enter into new contracts for public transport services only where they meet criteria that will be prescribed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for local government matters. They must also follow procedures that will be prescribed in regulations. Provisions have also been inserted to empower provinces to intervene, and if necessary, enter into the contracts themselves, where municipalities do not comply with the prescribed requirements or criteria The Department will be empowered to enter into the contracts which it will only do in exceptional circumstances where there are gaps and services are urgently required. The powers of municipalities over financial planning of public transport are amended so that they will be exercised in consultation with state owned rail operators (PRASA and Transnet) in the case of rail matters. The power of the Minister to assign the function of managing the ‘‘old order contracts’’ concluded under the Transition Act to municipalities is amended to provide that provinces will continue to manage them until new contracts are concluded under the principal Act, either by municipalities if they meet the prescribed criteria or by the province. Section 11 is also amended to facilitate the process of converting the public transport contracts concluded under the previous Transition Act into new contracts.
Clause 8 amends section 13 to include members of the SAPS and traffic officers in the list of persons who may not have a financial or business interest in the public transport industry.
Clause 9 amends section 15 to provide that municipal intermodal planning committees must be established by a prescribed date and to clarify the functions of those committees. It is also amended to provide for those committees to facilitate appropriate service level agreements between the municipality and PRASA where there are significant passenger rail services in the area.
Clause 10 effects a consequential amendment to section 17 of the principal Act.
Clause 11 amends section 18 to clarify the functions of municipal regulatory entities (MREs).
Clause 12 amends section 20 to rationalise the appointment of members of the National Public Transport Regulator (NPTR) and to accommodate comments received from the National Treasury.
Clause 13 amends section 21 on the functions of the NPTR, to include additional functions. The NPTR must also keep information on minibus taxi associations and their members in relation to interprovincial transport, and on the routes operated by the various associations. The NPTR is also empowered to issue directives to Provincial Regulatory Entities (PREs), MREs and planning authorities that are not fulfilling their obligations under the Act. The NPTR may also request the Minister to issue directives.
Clause 14 amends section 23 to rationalise the appointment of members of PREs to bring it into line with section 20 on the appointment of NPTR members and to promote standardisation of PRE structures in the country. Also, the period of appointment of PRE members is limited to a maximum of five years.
Clause 15 amends section 24 on the functions of PREs to provide that PREs must keep specified information on minibus taxi associations and their members, and on the routes operated by the various associations. Those routes must correlate with the route descriptions in the relevant integrated transport plans (ITPs) of municipalities. This information must be taken into account in managing the issuing of operating licences.
Clause 16 amends section 27 to delete a redundant reference.
Clause 17 amends section 35 to provide that provincial land transport frameworks must be updated every five years, as opposed to the current two years.
Clause 18 amends section 36 to provide that in checking municipal ITPs, the MEC must ensure that other organs of state involved in provincial planning, such as SANRAL and ACSA, have followed the correct procedures. A paragraph is also deleted to remove duplication.
Clause 19 amends section 39 to provide that planning authorities must, before rationalising services on routes, first apply law enforcement measures to prevent illegal operations and take steps under section 78 to cancel operating licences and permits that are not in use. At the request of Nedlac, the options for planning authorities to take have been broadened so as not to be limited to the options currently in the Bill. The section is also amended to require that the planning authority must first consult with affected operators before taking those actions.
Clause 20 amends section 41 to insert various provisions that are currently found in the Regulations on Contracting for Public Transport Services, 2009 that were made under the Act. With reference to the requirement that negotiated contracts may be concluded ‘‘once only’’, the amendment clarifies that one or more such contracts or a combination thereof may be concluded. Different contracts may be concluded with different operators on different routes, and the services may be increased or amended in a phased manner. They may also enter into stopgap contracts — see the notes on the new section 41A below. Procedures on making offers to incumbent operators that are contained in the regulations are inserted in the Act to avoid possible disputes and court challenges. The power of the Minister in section 42 to prescribe requirements and provide model tender and contract documents for public transport service contracts is also extended to negotiated contracts under section 41.
Clause 21 inserts a new section on stopgap contracts which may be concluded to ensure continuity of service while the municipality or province is negotiating with incumbent operators, or to cover situations where an incumbent operator ceases to operate. These contracts will be for a maximum of three years, which will not eat into the 12 year period allowed for the negotiated contracts that will be concluded.
Clause 22 amends section 42 to make the tendering requirement subject to section 80(1)(a) of the Municipal Systems Act, which provides that where a municipality has established a municipal entity (ME) to provide services, it is not required to put the services out to tender but may conclude a negotiated contract with the ME. The power of the Minister to prescribe requirements and provide model tender and contract documents for public transport service contracts is amended to provide that the Minister may make them binding on contracting authorities.
Clause 23 amends section 43 on commercial services contracts to make the tendering requirement subject to section 80(1)(a) of the Municipal Systems Act
Clause 24 repeals section 45 of the principal Act. The requirements and restrictions regarding municipal operators are no longer relevant because the Municipal Systems Act (MSA) allows a municipality to contract with MEs established by it and the issue is adequately regulated by the MSA and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA). Also, municipalities and municipal entities may not tender for services in areas outside of the area of jurisdiction of the municipality except in limited circumstances that are regulated by other legislation.
Clause 25 amends section 46 to provide that provinces or municipalities may negotiate with incumbent operators in the case of existing interim bus contracts, according to which of them is the contracting authority as determined by section 11 and regulations to be prescribed by the Minister. The requirement to refer disputes in respect of interim contracts to mediation or arbitration is deleted, because court actions have shown that it is better to resolve disputes by normal court procedures. The parties to a dispute are free in any event to subject the matter to mediation or arbitration if they both agree. Also, the issue is dealt with by the terms and conditions of the relevant contract.
Clause 26 amends section 47 to extend the provisions on the conversion of permits to operating licences (OLs) that were issued under the Transition Act. The section is also amended to make it clearer that when an operator applies for renewal, amendment or transfer of a permit, there must be a simultaneous application for conversion of the permit. New provisions are inserted to empower the Minister to make regulations on procedures for conversion. Subsection (5) which prohibits the payment of subsidies to operators whose permits have not been converted is deleted, because of delays being experienced with the conversion process (the subsection was never brought into operation).
Clause 27 amends section 48 to remove the requirement that where the Minister makes regulations to integrate non-contracted scheduled services and convert them to commercial service contracts this must be done within two years. The process of doing so is expected to take much longer.
Clause 28 amends section 49 to clarify its provisions. The requirements that the planning authority must approve and that the replacing vehicle may not be more than 20% larger have been removed because these aspects are already covered by the Department’s requirements for recapitalisation. Subsection (3) is deleted because its provisions are already covered by section 47 and have been creating some confusion.
Clause 29 effects a consequential amendment to section 51 of the principal Act.
Clause 30 amends section 53 to make it clearer that staff services, as well as other types of public transport services, are exempt where no consideration or fare is charged, and to bring the exemption for farmers carrying their own workers into line with the other exemptions. It should be noted that the carrying of workers in goods compartments of goods vehicles and LDVs is covered in the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2000. A consequential amendment is also made to subsection (2).
Clause 31 amends section 54 to limit applications made to MREs to services that will be provided entirely within the area of jurisdiction of the relevant municipality.
Clause 32 amends section 56 to provide that where a stopgap contract referred to above has been concluded, OLs must be issued to the operator to enable him/her to implement the contract, as is the case with other contracts concluded with contracting authorities.
Clause 33 amends section 57 to include two paragraphs that should have been included in the principal Act and to provide that regulatory entities must also take into account the fact that the applicant for an OL may have infringed codes of conduct that are prescribed by the Minister.
Clause 34 amends section 59 to correct the heading and to provide more clearly for types of applications that do not have to be advertised in the Government Gazette.
Clause 35 amends section 60 on temporary OLs to clarify that they can be obtained ‘‘over the counter’’ by a shortened procedure from an official or member of the regulatory entity delegated by that entity.
Clause 36 amends section 62 to delete the requirement that proof of insurance must be provided when an OL is issued, due to the 2008 amendment of section 21 of the Road Accident Fund Act providing that claims can no longer be brought against the owner or driver of a motor vehicle for death or personal injury.
Clause 37 amends section 64 to create an exception to the rule that an OL may only be issued to the registered owner or operator of the relevant vehicle, in the case of accredited tourist operators where they hire or use vehicles that comply with section 84.
Clause 38 amends section 66 to provide that the Minister may prescribe requirements and standards for meters to be installed in metered taxis, and that the Minister may prescribe that electronic hailing applications or similar technology may be used either in tandem with or instead of a meter. The Minister may also prescribe requirements and standards for meters and electronic hailing and similar technology.
Clause 39 amends section 67 at the request of some PREs to provide measures to prevent the abuse of charter services.
Clause 40 amends section 68 to clarify the position in relation to staff services.
Clause 41 amends section 73 to clarify that the shortened process that applies on application to replace the vehicle specified in an OL will also apply where the replacing vehicle has the same capacity or is smaller than the replaced vehicle or does not exceed the capacity of the replaced vehicle by more than 40%.
Clause 42 amends section 74 to provide that an operator can replace a vehicle temporarily under an OL or permit also where the vehicle has been sold, stolen or destroyed and the operator is in the process of obtaining a replacement vehicle.
Clause 43 amends section 75 to delete subsection (3), as this provision should more appropriately be included in the Cross-Border Road Transport Act, 1998.
Clause 44 amends section 79 to correct an omission and to provide that a regulatory entity may also withdraw, amend or suspend an OL or permit where the operator has contravened the Act or the National Road Traffic Act or has infringed codes of conduct that are prescribed by the Minister.
Clause 45 amends section 81 to provide that applications for accreditation by tourist transport operators must be published for comment in the Government Gazette.
Clause 46 substitutes section 84 to make it clearer that operating licences are only issued to accredited tourist transport operators and that they may use any vehicle for the tourist service as long as an OL is obtained and the vehicle complies with the requirements of that section. The process of certifying vehicles for use by such operators has been removed to clarify the position.
Clause 47 effects a consequential amendment to section 86 of the principal Act. 2.48 Clause 48: Amendment of section 92 of Act 5 of 2009 Clause 48 amends section 92 to provide that persons may also appeal to the Transport Appeal Tribunal in connection with applications relating to permits or to accreditation of tourist transport operators. The interrelationship between section 92 and section 62 of the MSA, which deals with inter-municipality appeals, is also clarified.
Clause 49 amends section 93 to make it clear that transport authorities established under the Transition Act (the eThekwini Transport Authority is the only one) must take steps in the meantime to incorporate that authority into the City’s administration.
Clause 50 inserts a new section 93A into the principal Act to provide that the Minister may delay the implementation of certain provisions where practicalities require it. Similar provisions are found in section 177 of the MFMA. It also inserts a new section 93B to provide that arrangements for public transport under section 84(1)(g) of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, 1998, will be subject to the principal Act and any regulations or arrangements made under the principal Act.
Clause 51 amends section 23 of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, 1989 to provide that PRASA must provide passenger rail services at the request of municipalities, as well as at the request of the Department, subject to agreements to be concluded between PRASA and the relevant municipality. The aim of the amendment is to bring the Legal succession to the South African Transport Services Act in line with this Act.
Clause 52 repeals sections 26, 26A and 27 of the Road Transportation Act, 1977. These sections are an overhang of the situation when that Act was assigned to the provinces in 1996 and have become redundant. The aim of the repeal is to bring the Road Transportation Act in line with this Act.
Clause 53 provides the short title of the Bill.
Mr De Frietas said there was no time to give enough questions.
Members agreed to this proposal
The Chairperson said the questions will be given to the committee secretary in writing and the Department responses will also be in writing.
Department of Transport Fourth Quarter 2015/16 performance
Mr Chris Hlabisa, DOT Acting Director General, said the report focused on the progress made with the implementation of programmes and projects in the period 1 January 2016 – 31 March 2016. Based on the performance status reported in Quarter 3, an Action Plan to address identified red flags was developed and implemented in Quarter 4. A task team was established to focus on all winnable cases highlighted in the Action Plan, with Maritime Transport the key focus. The EXCO sat at frequent intervals to assess progress made on the red flags and on key Q4 deliverables. It reported that 92% of its performance indicators were achieved in Quarter 4 and DoT spent 99% of its budget.
He noted the key achievements for each of the seven programmes: 53 interns were appointed and placed with effect from April 2016 translating in 7.6% of staff establishment. Induction is currently in progress. 98% of Presidential Hotline cases were resolved as at the end of Quarter 4. The Road Freight Strategy was completed and submitted for approval in Quarter 4.
The Single Transport Economic Regulator (STER) Bill was submitted to Cabinet and consultations on subsidiary regulations conducted with the Ports Regulator. The Private Sector Participation Framework was successfully developed and is being transferred to the National Treasury for inclusion (as a chapter) in the overarching Private Sector Participation (PSP) Framework Plan currently being developed by the National Treasury. The draft of the Green Transport Strategy has been successfully developed as targeted during the period under review. The draft White Paper on National Rail Transport Policy has been finalized. Guidelines for submission of rail economic regulatory information were completed and approved. The Branchline Strategy has been finalised and will be presented at the next sitting of the Economic Sectors, Employment and Infrastructure Development Cluster (ESEID) Cluster. The Draft National Railway Safety Regulator Bill has been successfully developed. The draft National Railway Safety Strategy has been completed and consultations on the draft strategy conducted with PRASA and RSR. The draft Green Paper on the Roads Policy has been completed and submission to Cabinet has been approved. An Annual Monitoring Report has also been compiled and submitted for quality assurance.
The Status Quo Analysis Report for the development of the Access Road Development Plan has been completed and submitted for quality assurance. The AARTO Amendment Bill was submitted and approved by Cabinet during the period under review. The Bill was presented today. Negotiations on air services arrangements were held with Denmark, Norway and Sweden in March 2016. A draft Civil Aviation Amendment Bill was completed during Quarter 4 and submitted for quality assurance. A monitoring report on the upgrade of Mthatha Airport was completed and recommendations on the transfer of the asset to the Eastern Cape Provincial Government were duly approved. The Green Paper on the National Maritime Transport Policy was completed and presented to the International Cooperation, Trade and Security (ICTS) Cabinet Cluster in March 2016. Drafts of the Cabotage Strategy and Cabotage Bill were completed and submitted for quality assurance. The Inland Waterway Strategy was completed and approved. The African Maritime Charter was presented to the National Assembly and NCOP. The Reviewed Rural Transport Strategy has been completed and submission to Cabinet has been approved. The National Learner Transport Policy was approved by Cabinet and subsequently published for implementation as targeted during the period under review. 811 old taxi vehicles were scrapped due to the increase in demand by operators; and the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme (TRP) Review Document was developed and submission of the report to Cabinet has been approved. Final draft of the Integrated Public Transport Turnaround Plan was completed and submitted for quality assurance. No vacant positions were filled due to budget cuts on compensation of employees and a moratorium placed by National Treasury on the filling of vacant posts. NATMAP 2050 was not re-submitted to Cabinet due to non-conclusion of the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC) consultation process. The development of the Harrismith Hub Framework was not completed
Mr Maswanganyi said it was commendable that the DoT spend 99% of its budget. He asked what the DoT was doing in terms of civil aviation on private jets. Some people have established farms and lodges. Helicopters and jets land detrimental to national security as some do it for dubious reasons. He thought that positions of Deputy Director Generals were budgeted for. The Minister must brief the Committee on what happened to the DG than relying on the press. The issue of acting in DoT should not continue any longer.
Mr Ramatlakane asked if the executive met and cleared the report that was promised last month. Seven DDGs were acting and some had been acting for longer periods. He asked if they were getting allowances for acting in those positions. He asked if the DoT has a sense of money spent by receiving agencies. PRASA did not even spend 80% of the money transferred to it.
Mr Sibande said Twala, Mawethu and one other had been suspended with salary and this was a concern. He asked why integrated transport planning was not completed. He asked why it did not mention M4 which links Shaka airport as part of its achievements. Do not give media space as they only report on negative on you yet it charges you R250 000 for an advert.
Mr Hunsinger was disappointed with discrepancies between the 2015/16 and 2016/17 strategic plans and performance plans.
The Chairperson said the BRRR had certain recommendations which had been repeated for years. The Committee must be taken cognizance of or the DoT takes it for granted. It does not want to write to the speaker on the observation it sees in DoT as it does not want to work in adversarial way but take South Africa forward in terms of the NDP. It must go and look on questions sent before tabling of the budget. She asked how long it takes for quality assurance to approve. The amendment to the aviation and maritime bills have been shifting targets for years and it has not yet come to parliament by now. DoT must know that the life of a politician was that of a butterfly. All questions must be responded in writing by Friday.
Mr Hlabisa replied that notes were taken on the questions. It will take stock of all legislation and give an update. It will give a report on what happened with regards to vacant posts before the moratorium was issued. He was under the impression that the reports were received and did not seek to undermine the committee and tendered a humble apology. DoT takes parliament seriously. The Committee can engage the minister directly on vacant posts.
The meeting was 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.