Economic Regulation of Transport Bill: deliberations; Transport Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill: briefing with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Transport

25 August 2021
Chairperson: Mr M Zwane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

In a virtual meeting, the Committee received a briefing from the Department of Transport on the Transport Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill. The Bill sought to amend the Transport Appeal Tribunal Act of 1998 to give the tribunal the necessary authority and tools to enforce its rulings, to streamline the process of appointing its officials, and to ensure that it included officials with public transport experience.

The Committee approved a motion of desirability on the Bill.

With regard to the Economic Regulation of Transport Bill, the Committee confirmed the decision taken on 26 May 2021 that the Minister of Transport would be empowered to appoint the board of directors of the single transport economic regulator.

The Committee discussed its oversight programme.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Deputy Minister of Transport, Ms Sindisiwe Chikunga, and other officials from the Department of Transport (DoT) to the virtual meeting. He accepted apologies from Minister of Transport, Mr Fikile Mbalula, and Mr I Seitlholo (DA) and Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF).

Deliberations on the Economic Regulation of Transport (ERT) Bill
Mr L Mangcu (ANC) drew attention to the minutes of the Committee’s meeting on 26 May 2021, which reflected the Committee’s decision that Parliament would be involved in the appointment of the board of the single transport economic regulator. He proposed that the Committee proceed with its deliberations on the basis of this decision.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) agreed with Mr Mangcu’s proposal. He voiced a general concern about the lack of a detailed final plan for the implementation of the Bill. There were inconsistencies in the financial information presented by the Department and no clarity on its implications for the staff of existing regulatory entities. He supported moving forward with the Bill but cautioned that these issues still needed to be addressed in detail.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) also supported Mr Mangcu’s proposal. The Bill should be advanced to the next stage of processing.

The Chairperson pointed out to the Deputy Minister the reasons given by Mr Hunsinger for the slow progress on the ERT Bill and requested that she take note of them.

Deputy Minister Chikunga took note of the issues raised.

DoT presentation on the Transport Appeal Tribunal Amendment (TATA) Bill
Deputy Minister Chikunga said that a recent survey had revealed changes in the pattern of public transport usage since 2013. There had been an increase in the number of households using taxis as their preferred mode of transport from 9.8m to 11.4m, while the number of households preferring buses and trains had decreased from 2.9m to 2.1m and from 1.4m to 500 000 respectively. Public transport regulation was an important part of providing transport that was efficient, safe and affordable. The TATA Bill aimed to address issues faced by the Transport Appeals Tribunal Act of 1998. For example, decisions of the Transport Appeals Tribunal (TAT), established by the Act, were often simply ignored, resulting in a situation in which regulatory entities were effectively a law unto themselves. In this situation, public transport operators were forced to approach the courts to enforce their rights. The TATA Bill would give the TAT the necessary authority and tools to enforce its rulings, streamline the process of appointing its officials, and ensure that it included officials with public transport experience.

Adv Mongezi Matebese, Head, TAT Secretariat, provided some of the background for the TATA Bill and a summary of its contents. The changes the Bill proposed to introduce included:

- The Minister of Transport would no longer be required to consult with provincial transport authorities when appointing members of the TAT. This arrangement had proven to be unworkable and unnecessary. The Minister would also be allowed to extend the three-year period of office for TAT members by up to 12 months.

- TAT members would need to possess public transport experience.

- The Director-General of DoT would be responsible for setting the time and date of TAT hearings.

- The TAT would be empowered to set timeframes for the implementation of its decisions, to issue directives to regulatory entities that failed to comply with its decisions, and to investigate frivolous actions by parties to an appeal.

- Decisions appealed to the TAT within 30 days would be automatically suspended pending the outcome of the TAT hearing.

- The TAT would be able to conduct investigations and would be provided with the staff and means to do so.

Adv Matebese provided a list of consequential amendments and the stakeholders consulted, and requested that the portfolio committee approve the desirability of the Bill.

Motion of desirability of the TATA Bill
The Chairperson read the motion of desirability of the TATA Bill.

Mr Hunsinger supported the motion. It did not appear to contain any major issues. He wondered whether the phrasing of the statement that ‘the Bill referred to the Committee be taken as a basis’ could be improved. He also asked whether it was a Section 76 bill.

Ms Valerie Carelse, Committee Secretary, explained that this was a standard phrase which meant that a Bill was ready for deliberation. She also confirmed that it was a Section 76 bill.

Mr Hunsinger still thought that it could be made clearer and he proposed an alternative phrase.

Mr McDonald seconded the motion.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) observed that the removal of consultation provisions would have to be considered, but he also supported the motion.

Consideration of Committee oversight programme
The Chairperson proposed that the Committee visit Kwazulu-Natal on 17-18 September and Gauteng on 1-2 October 2021. Dates for visits to Mpumalanga, the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape would be set when dates became available.

Mr Sithole proposed that the first visit should be to the Eastern Cape.

Mr Hunsinger asked whether a visit to the Moloto Road could be incorporated into the Gauteng visit.

The Chairperson agreed with this suggestion.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) also agreed. The problems on the Moloto Road should not be kicked down the road.

Mr Sithole was doubtful that it would be practical to combine a visit to the Moloto Road with the Gauteng oversight visit.

Ms Carelse recalled that the previous Mpumalanga oversight visit had included a Gauteng leg. She did not think it would be a problem to visit the Moloto Road this time.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Share this page: