The Committee noted that it had previously discussed the National Land Transport Bill, and there was some debate as to whether a submission by Mr Munton was to be regarded as part of the negotiating mandate for the Western Cape, as it had been submitted as a separate document and not incorporated into the formal negotiating mandate. Members held a caucus during which it was apparently decided that the negotiating mandate would not be regarded as incorporating those comments. The
The Department of Transport then took the Committee through the document it had prepared with the responses to the proposals made in the Negotiating Mandates. The Committee agreed in broad principle with the comments. The Committee passed the Motion of Desirability but would continue with another meeting in the following week to finalise the Bill once a document incorporating the agreed changes was received.
Election of Acting Chairperson
The secretary announced that the chairperson, Mr R Tau (ANC), could not be present, and asked the committee to elect an acting chair. Reverend P Moatshe (ANC, North-West) was duly elected.
The Acting Chairperson requested that this Committee proceed to consider the National Land Transport Bill (the Bill).
Mr A Watson (DA,
Rev Moatshe replied that the Provinces had submitted their negotiating mandates. He thought it would be in order that the Department of Transport take the Committee through its responses to the comments made in the negotiating mandates.
Mr Watson stated that the meeting held in Queenstown, which had been considering this matter, had been abruptly adjourned. There was a list of responses from the Department, but submissions were still required from the
The Committee Secretary responded that the State Law Adviser had brought amendments to the meeting, which had to be gone through clause by clause.
Mr V Windvoel (ANC,
The Committee Secretary insisted that there were cross-referenced amendments, and that Members could go through these.
The Acting Chairperson drew the attention of the Committee to a letter from the
Mr Windvoel pointed out that eight provinces had submitted mandates. He did, however, understand the
Mr F Adams (ANC,
Ms B Dlulane (ANC,
Ms D Tsotetsi (ANC,
The Chairperson remarked that since the negotiating mandate was not concluded, no “package” could be sent to the provinces. That was not able to be concluded during previous discussions, and therefore had to be done during this meeting.
Mr Windvoel insisted that the issue concerning the Mr Munton submission constituted a procedural flaw. The negotiating mandate had to come from the provincial legislature.
The Acting Chairperson found it unacceptable for the
Mr Watson remarked that the provinces had been confused. Negotiating mandates had been tabled and read, even before Emalahleni, but the response from the Department at that time was never concluded.
Mr Jits Patel, Acting Chief Director: Integrated Transport Planning, DOT, noted that responses to the matters raised by the provincial legislatures had been submitted to the Secretariat during the previous week, and the Committee had been taken through those. There were written submissions by the provinces and the Department. This included a response to Mr Munton’s submission. He asked if these were sent from the secretariat to the provinces.
Mr Adams suggested that he be given leave to phone the Chairperson of the Standing Committee and the Chief Whip. He had explained that Mr Munton’s submission formed part of the
Mr Patel stated that the Department had no problem with the Munton submission as part of the package.
The Acting Chairperson pointed out that it was not the Committee’s duty to integrate the package. The question remained if the mandate being dealt with was to be regarded as a negotiating or as a final mandate. Mr Tau had referred to “negotiating mandates sent to the provinces”. Those had gone from Emalahleni to the provinces, and back to the Committee. A final mandate was possible.
Mr Windvoel noted that six provinces had sent final mandates. He asked if it was necessary to wait for those who had yet to confer final mandates.
Mr Watson said that he also had a final mandate from
The Acting Chairperson expressed concern about confusing the provinces, saying that he had already considered that this was happening in Emalahleni. Without a concluded negotiating mandate having been received, he reiterated that there was no package to send to the provinces.
Mr Windvoel moved that there be a brief adjournment, during which minutes and records could be obtained. There was also a need to consult with procedural staff of the NCOP.
Mr Watson agreed with Mr Windvoel. He referred to a document received the previous day by e-mail, and asked what had informed this document, and what informed the final mandate about the amendments to the Bill.
Ms Dlulane remarked that the problem had started with the
Rev Moatshe responded that the Committee could not be held hostage by one province. When there was a mandate received from each province, then this would constitute a package to send off to all the provinces for final mandates.
Ms M Oliphant (ANC,
Mr C van Rooyen (ANC,
Mr Windvoel reiterated his call for copies of the minutes. He noted that there had been meetings of the provinces before the Emalahleni meeting. The document before the Committee had not gone to the provinces, as it had been received only the day before.
The Secretary said that she had asked the State Law Adviser to prepare amendments, and to go through clause by clause. This had not been sent to the provinces.
The Acting Chairperson remarked that the person who had sent the package to the provinces had made a mistake. The procedural error had misled the provinces. He asked that the brief adjournment, which Mr Windvoel had requested, now be taken. He wanted the Secretariat to check whether a package had been forwarded to the provinces as this should appear from the minutes of previous meetings.
After the brief adjournment, The Acting Chairperson said that it was possible to correct the procedural mistakes. He asked the Department of Transport (DOT) to take the Committee through the document that had been given to Members. He said that a package could then be sent to the provinces to ask for their final mandate.
Mr Patel pointed out that what was before Members today was the same document that was tabled at the meeting of the previous week.
He then went through the submissions of the
Members were happy with this response.
in respect of the submissions made by
Members indicated their satisfaction with the responses of the Department.
Mr Patel said that the Department had noted the submission that a Zulu version of the Bill be circulated for effective consultation.
The Province had pointed out an incorrect cross-referencing under Clause 6(6), which the Department agreed to correct. It also supported the changes suggested for Clause 49(2)(b), and agreed that in respect of Clause 84(4), the detail of the clause could be deleted, although the general power to impose conditions must be retained.
Other comments had been made to clauses 8(1); 11(2); 13; 13(d); 23(2); 53(1); and 81(1). The Department set out in full its responses to these clauses and reasons why it did not support the proposed changes.
Members indicated their satisfaction with this response.
Mr Patel noted that no submissions had been made at this stage.
Mr Patel noted that, similar to
Mr Patel noted that there had been a submission that lift clubs must be regulated by local traffic officers for roadworthiness of vehicles, and also that Clause 53(c) should be removed. Both these issues were regulated already by the National Road Traffic Act. Other submissions related to issues that could not be covered in legislation, or were not appropriate for this Bill, or were already dealt with elsewhere in the Bill (see attached document for details). He noted, however, that a suggestion had been made for changes to the Long Title of the Bill, which the Department did support. Furthermore an incorrect cross-referencing in Clause 77 would be corrected, and the memoranda on the Bill, which this Province indicated did not seem to have been updated, would be corrected accordingly.
Mr Patel noted that the
This province had also made comments on the validity period of the OLs and the comments as set out earlier applied equally here.
Other comments related to clauses 6; 13; 53; and 49. The full responses of the Department, together with the reasons why it did not support the proposals, were set out. Some of the comments were dealt with in other legislation while others could not be included here.
Western Cape submission
Mr Patel noted that the Western Cape submission had made reference to Clause 20, where it suggested the insertion of the phrase “or other appropriate persons selected by the Minister, which conflicted with the National Land Transport Strategy Document which specified officials in the Department, and in respect of Clause 23, where the same response applied.
Mr Patel noted that the document tabled also set out the responses to other submissions by the
Mr van Rooyen pointed out that page 2 of the document, referring to the
The Committee Secretary replied that it was a photocopying error.
Mr Windvoel said that the Committee owed the Department an apology. It was not intended that the Departmental response would go directly to the provinces.
Mr Watson asked what would be sent to the provinces.
The Acting Chairperson replied that it would be the same document. The provinces would like to hear what the Department had commented in relation to the proposals made in the negotiating mandate.
Mr Watson pointed out that that had been done already.
Mr Watson proposed that since the final mandates had already been presented to the Committee, these be regarded as accepted.
Members agreed to the Motion of Desirability.
It was agreed that the Committee would meet again in the following week to go through the final version of the Bill that would incorporate the amendments.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
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.