Hon Speaker, hon members, fellow South Africans and ladies and gentlemen, the ANC has mandated me to explain to this august House and fellow South Africans the key aspects of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill, a section 75 Bill. Firstly, I will focus on the integrated transport transformation model of South Africa piloted in Gauteng. Secondly, I will speak about submissions made during the public hearings. Lastly, I will focus on the position of the ANC and the decision of the portfolio committee.
Firstly, with regard to the key aspects of the Bill, it seeks to amend section 4 of Act 4 of 1998, in respect of the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, CBRTA, by extending the mandate of the cross-border agency to collect toll fees on behalf of the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, in terms of an agreement reached between Sanral and the CBRTA.
Secondly, the Bill also seeks to amend the SA National Roads Agency Limited and the National Roads Act of 1998 to allow Sanral to have the means by which the passage of a vehicle between or through a toll plaza is identified and the liability to pay is recorded and the means of payment, including prepayment of toll liability, is determined.
Lastly, the Bill also makes it a requirement for the Minister of Transport to declare an urban road as a toll road, but only after Sanral, together with the affected municipality and province, has conducted an assessment of traffic and socioeconomic impact on declaring a toll road.
The ANC supports the Bill and is asking the National Assembly to pass this Bill. [Applause.] It is unfortunate that each time this House debates the transformation process of transport infrastructure and services, tempers rise and issues are clouded by party politics instead of using the debate to explain key aspects of the Bill and, linked to that, the development agenda so as to make ordinary citizens understand the problems that are being addressed and how the Bill creates an enabling environment for development to take effect.
I just hope that this House will for once afford the people of South Africa an opportunity to understand the integrated transport transformation model, piloted in Gauteng. This model includes: firstly, the upgrading of the old Johannesburg Airport into a world-class international airport, including renaming it after the former president of the ANC, Oliver Reginald Tambo, who mobilised the international community to support the struggle for the liberation of this country. He was the 10th president of the ANC, who led the ANC during the most difficult times of our struggle for liberation, when the ANC had to operate from outside the borders of South Africa. He was the president of the ANC who served the longest period, from 1967 to 1991, and passed on at the dawn of democracy.
Secondly, the model includes introduction of fast-moving trains in South Africa, 46 years after Japan, a milestone that could only be achieved by the ANC-led government, through the building of the first railway line that connects to the airport in South Africa, and I want to repeat this, the building of the first railway line that connects to the airport in South Africa ... [Applause.]
There was the introduction of the bus rapid transit system, together with the taxi feeder system, and the integration of the taxi industry in the mainstream of the economy, a true broad-based black economic empowerment initiative. [Applause.]
The Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, GFIP, addresses the problem of congestion on Gauteng roads, reduces the time of travelling and road accidents, and also reduces carbon emissions and fuel consumption. These are the socioeconomic benefits that are usually overlooked in arguments against the GFIP. A narrow perspective is unfortunately influencing perceptions against urban tolling and tolling of roads in general.
Those with the loudest voices and less of a development perspective have popularised such an important project as e-tolling, reducing it to a form of payment collection that results in a situation that denies people of this country an opportunity to understand an integrated transport system and appreciate the benefits of it. The isolation of the GFIP from the entire integrated transport model of South Africa denies members an opportunity to identify areas of improvement that require their suggestions in moving forward.
I also hope that members of the Portfolio Committee on Transport, from both the ANC and the opposition parties, would be responsible enough this time to speak about the key aspects of the Bill. We are debating an enabling Bill that seeks to create a conducive environment for development to take place. The ANC understands that it is not easy for members of the opposition parties to understand development-oriented programmes and how this Bill relates to them.
We therefore do not expect the opposition parties in the Portfolio Committee on Transport to address developmental issues in this debate because that is the field of the ANC and they would all be found wanting in that area. The opposition is therefore going to focus on the technical aspects of the Bill and its constitutionality, which was addressed by the legal team to the satisfaction of the entire committee, and they would threaten to take the Bill to the Constitutional Court.
We held public hearings and received four written submissions. Three presentations were made by the SA Local Government Association, Salga, Cosatu, and the FF Plus. We also had legal advice from both the parliamentary legal advisers and the state law advisers.
Cosatu did not focus on the objects of the Bill, because their presentation was too general and focused mainly on Cosatu's opposition to the tolling of roads and the user-pay system in general. Cosatu's presentation could not influence any amendment to this Bill as it is related to the user-pay system, which is a policy that was decided in 1995, and it is contained in the Masakhane Campaign document.
The user-pay system of toll roads forms the basis of the SA National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, Act 7 of 1998. That is the Act that gave birth to Sanral and mandates Sanral to borrow money to build, maintain and rehabilitate roads, and also attracts private sector investment for road infrastructure development. That decision was informed by an in-depth understanding of the fact that governments alone do not have the capacity to fund infrastructure development projects. That is an international trend, and the South African government is no different from the rest of the world.
The issue of a funding model could therefore not be addressed in the process of public hearings related to this Bill. Cosatu has never approached the portfolio committee to make a separate presentation that seeks to review the mandate of Sanral in relation to the tolling of roads. Instead, Cosatu used the public hearings on this Bill to question the mandate of Sanral and tolling of roads in South Africa in general. The committee has an open-door policy of engagement that Cosatu could use to raise the issue of road tolling in South Africa.
Salga proposed that Sanral should, together with the affected municipalities and provinces, conduct a study of traffic and the socioeconomic impact of the proposed toll road and report the results of such a study before the Minister of Transport declares an urban toll road.
Salga also proposed that the Minister should, in the impact study report, spell out how the Department of Transport would mitigate the negative impact on traffic and socioeconomic conditions as a result of urban tolling. Salga's proposal is aimed at enabling the affected municipalities and provinces to form part of the planning process and allocate the required resources. The portfolio committee accepted the proposal made by Salga as valid. The committee therefore amended the Bill to include Salga's proposal.
This House would remember that this Bill was scheduled for debate on 23 November 2012. The Bill was withdrawn from the Announcements Tablings and Committee Reports, ATC, on the same day after the FF Plus, which is not part of the portfolio committee, had written a letter to the Speaker asking to make a presentation to the portfolio committee to propose amendments to the Bill. The Speaker acceded to that request.
The portfolio committee allocated two days to process the proposals made by the FF Plus. We want to thank hon Alberts from the FF Plus for the arguments he advanced during the discussions at portfolio committee level.
The FF Plus had raised the following issues: the need for the Minister of Transport and Sanral to consult all the interested parties to present the results of the impact assessment study on traffic and socioeconomic conditions; that the Bill be tagged as a section 76 Bill; and that the payment for using the toll road made through an electronic system, in the view of FF Plus, is a contract or agreement reached between the owner of the vehicle and Sanral, which in the FF Plus's view should be subjected to the National Credit Act.
All proposals presented by the FF Plus were discussed at length by the Portfolio Committee on Transport over two meetings held on 19 and 26 February 2013.
The portfolio committee was advised by both the parliamentary legal adviser and the state law advisers. The Department of Transport was also represented by Adv Masombuka, who gave a legal opinion. The legal team explained to the satisfaction of the portfolio committee why the Bill is tagged as a section 75 Bill and also explained to the satisfaction of the portfolio committee why there was no need for the National Credit Regulator to be part of the Bill. It is an amendment of the Transport Act.
The FF Plus had also raised that this Bill would be brought back to Parliament if subjected to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court. That issue was also discussed, taking into consideration the views of the legal advisers, who all said that any Bill could be taken to the Constitutional Court by any person who has a strong different view, and that does not mean that a committee cannot decide on a Bill because of that. In the end, the committee approved the Bill, with all members supporting the Bill.
However, hon Ollis from the DA indicated that he supports the Bill even if his party may not support the Bill. [Interjections.] Yes, he said so. He also said that he does not entirely support the Bill as there are some aspects in the Bill that he does not support, but he failed to explain which parts of the Bill he did not support.
He also mentioned that the DA was against the funding model, which is not part of this Bill.
The FF Plus said that they were happy with the explanation given by the legal advisers and the processes of the discussion. However, the FF Plus is against the funding model. Again, this was not part of the Bill. Both the DA and the FF Plus were reminded by the ANC that the funding model was not part of the Bill. At the end, the views of the ANC in terms of the Bill were supported by the legal advisers and Cope.
The UDM and the IFP were part of the portfolio committee and did not participate in the process. It was only the FF Plus that made a presentation, out of the smaller parties that are not represented on the portfolio committee. Other parties did not bother themselves about the process. They would stand up here to debate in order to please their voters and justify their salaries. The truth of the matter is that those parties don't understand what was discussed in the portfolio committee and they do not contribute anything to this Bill; they are just posing for the cameras.
In conclusion, the ANC has one issue to raise in relation to the tolling of roads and the electronic system of collecting payment. The ANC believes that South Africa has the capacity to design and patent its own technology that is required to manage transport in South Africa.
The ANC is therefore calling on the Department of Transport to look deeply into the issue of building the internal capacity of the Department of Transport and its entities in terms of technology and engineering and reducing the overreliance of South Africa on other countries, and of the Department of Transport and its entities on consultants. The ANC supports the Bill and is asking the House to pass the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]