1. NATIONAL LAND TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILL, 2016 Response on the NLTA Bill Public Submissions
25 October 2016

2. Contents Background Main reasons for the Amendment Bill
Comments and responses:
3.1 South African Metered Taxi Association (SAMTA)
3.2 Transport for Cape Town (TCT)
3.3UBER South Africa Technology (Pty) Ltd
3.4 Mr Paul Browning
3.5 South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
3.6 South African Metered Taxi Forum (SAMTF)
3.7 Uber Drivers CT Guild
3.8 Greater Taung United Taxi Association
3.9 Naledi Municipality Taxi Association
3.10 Schweizer-Reneke United Taxi Association
3.11 Kagiso Taxi Association
3.12 Molefi William Kgatlhane
3.13 MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng

3. 1. Background
The National Land Transport Act 5 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 (NLTTA)
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, e.g. consolidating transport functions at the local level
There are also some technical issues that have required amendment of the Act

4. 2. Main reasons for the Amendment Bill
Provision is 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 of the Act, e.g. while contracting arrangements are put in place
Consequential amendments are made and errors are corrected

5. 3.1 South African Metered Taxi Association (SAMTA)
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response 38
66(4)(cA)
We object to the proposed amendments of the NLTA … which relate to metered taxis and refer to e-hailing applications without a physical meter
It is considered necessary to regulate e-hailing services which are seen as a sub-category of metered taxi services. Currently they fall into the category of chartered services and there are no detailed provisions in the legislation to regulate them. The Bill provides that the regulations may require meters or e-hailing applications, or both
1(d) 1
An electronic hailing application using a smart phone is NOT a taxi meter in terms of International and National Standards for the following reason: … A smart phone app cannot be sealed, therefore the km price can be increased and decreased at a whim, and this is evident in the surge pricing Uber applies during peak periods. Surge pricing in the metered taxi industry is an illegal business practice
Metered taxi and e-hailing fares will not be set by government, as to do so would be in conflict with the Constitution and the Competition Act. Meters are sealed so that once the fare is determined the meter will reflect that fare correctly. This problem is overcome with e-hailing apps by the fact that the app shows the fare to the passenger on his/her smart phone

6. 3.1 SAMTA continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
We recommend that e-hailing applications are required to be used together with a sealed meter, within a regulated metered taxi industry which limits the number of cabs operating under each company banner … An e-hailing app can never take the place of a physical meter … no country has defined a smart phone application as a taxi meter
The amendments will allow the Minister to make regulations providing for this. It is interesting to note that the applicable by-laws in New York in the USA require a meter in all taxis using e-hailing. However, it is not known at this stage whether the South African regulations will have the same provisions. Agreed that e-hailing apps are not meters, but the app performs the same functions so that a meter may then be unnecessary.
The Act allows regulatory entities to limit vehicle numbers if the planning authority so directs based on its ITP
38(b)
66(4)(cA)
We also object to the amendment to section paragraph (c) [“standards or requirements for meters or electronic hailing applications …”
The Department is of the opinion that such standards are needed for uniformity and approval by SABS.

7. 3.2 Transport for Cape Town (TCT)
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response
1(c) 1
The IPTN definition is agreed to except for the words [if road based] when referring to dedicated rights of way. It should not just be road based but also rail. The definition should be amended to make it clear that the IPTN includes road and rail
The definition already deals with road and rail as it refers to “by integrating public transport services between modes ...”. See the definition of “public transport services” which includes rail. To make it clearer it is suggested that the words “have a dedicated right of way if road based” be replaced with “and may or may not have a dedicated right of way”
1(f)
Def. of “non-motorised transport” should state … and both non-motorised and motorised wheelchairs and/or other similar modes”
The Department agrees that the definition should be amended to state “motorised and non-motorised wheelchairs”. However to add “and/or other similar modes” would be too vague
3(c)
8(1)(h)
The Act should also make it clear that Municipalities can also have their own branding as it relates to their public transport system, as is the case at the moment
The Act does not prevent municipalities from having their own branding which can be done through their by-laws.
7(l)
11(6)
This proposed amendment is not agreed to – the statement [unless that function is assigned to a Municipality by the Minister] cannot be deleted but rather after Minister the words [and/or] can be added. This deletion contradicts section 11(4) as well as the new 11(8) et al.
This amendment was agreed to with COGTA .The Bill will do away with the assignment of the contracting function as it is not necessary to have an assignment. Municipalities already have original contracting powers in terms of section 11(1)(c)(xxvi) of the principal Act. Municipalities and provinces must apply section 46 to either conclude new contracts when the provincially managed contracts run out, or continue to manage the contracts in areas where municipalities lack capacity or fail to take over the contracts in terms of the new section 11(1)(b)(viiA).

8. 3.2 TCT continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 7(m)
11(10)(d)(ii)
It would be useful if more clarity as to what is expected by municipalities [is provided] in relation to “necessary capacity”. It is recommended that Chapter 6 of the CITP’s of each municipality should elaborate on their capacity
The capacity in question relates both to the capacity to do the necessary transport planning and prepare Integrated Transport Plans (ITPs), as well as capacity to put out tenders or negotiate contracts, and to manage the contracts once concluded. The capacity issues will be dealt with in the Regulations.
11(a)
18(1)
The amendments proposed are not agreed to. The amendment should rather state “A Municipal Regulatory Entity must receive and decide on applications relating to operating licences for services wholly within or emanating from the area of jurisdiction of the municipality concerned as long as it does not go outside of the boundaries of the Province. This also relates to section 24(1)(b). It is also recommended that this also relates to charter services (section 67)
The Department disagrees with this suggestion. It has been agreed in consultation with the Provincial Regulatory Entities (PREs) that Municipal Regulatory Entities (MREs) will only be responsible for services wholly within their areas and that PREs will be responsible for inter-municipal services. Section 12 read with section 19 of the principal Act allows PREs and MREs to reach agreement on the joint exercise of functions, so it could be agreed, for example, that the City of Cape Town could exercise the OL function on behalf of Cape Winelands/Stellenbosch Municipalities if the City becomes an MRE 12
20 & 24
Section 20 prescribes the National Public Transport Regulator function and section 23 & 24 prescribe the PRE but there are no clauses that prescribe the MRE
The qualifications for members of MREs are covered by section 17(1) of the principal Act. It is proposed that regulations will be made in terms of section 17(2) providing for the qualifications of MRE members

9. 3.2 TCT continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
39(3)
Section 39(3): the planning authority cannot take steps to cancel OLs and permits – it should rather state that, upon recommendation/request of the planning authority the regulatory entity shall take steps/measures to cancel
The intention of the proposed new section 39(3) is that the planning authority should take steps to advise the regulatory entity and then, as correctly stated the Regulatory Entity must cancel the permit. However the wording will be amended to make this clearer to read “and where appropriate the relevant regulatory entity must take measures …” 36
62(1)(f)
Section 62: The deletion of paragraph (f) of section 62(1) is questioned – if there is no proof of insurance cover there will be a potential increase in liabilities and safety risk. This deletion is not agreed to
Section 21 (1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 provides that it is no longer permissible to sue an operator or driver where persons are killed or injured in a motor accident, except in very exceptional circumstances, e.g. where the Road Accident Fund is unable to pay the compensation or in the case of emotional shock. For this reason there is no longer any need to require proof of insurance when an OL is issued.

10. 3.2 TCT continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 26
47(1)
The amendments proposed to section 47 have the following implications:
The principal Act said 7 years from the commencement of that Act which is 2016 – the current year
If this amendment goes through it will mean that this time period is moved from 2016 – 5 years on to 2020
This will have serious financial and operational consequences
It is rather recommended to change it to 2 years, unless already concluded
In terms of section 47(1) of the principal Act all permits that have not been converted to operating licences (OLs) will lapse 7 years after the Act came into operation, i..e on 8 December Because some of the PREs have not completed the conversion process, the amendment is proposed to extend this period for a further 5 years from the date that the amendment to section 47 comes into operation. This provision is vital to prevent the lapsing of permits and certain OLs that have not been converted or renewed by 8 December Some of the PREs as well as TCT are opposed to the extension of the cut-off date because it will leave the door open for the appearance of permits where there is no effective way to verify them. In any event, if the Amendment Act comes into force after 8 December 2016 the amendment in its current form will be of no use and the Bill will have to be changed to provide for alternative arrangements, which will have to be discussed
If the Amendment Bill including the provisions extending the cut-off date by 5 years is not promulgated before 8 December 2016 the above-mentioned permits and OLs will lapse and the operators will not be legally empowered to operate until they obtain new OLs by means of the above-mentioned process. This will create an untenable situation and expose the Minister and the Department to considerate critism. A flood of applications for new OLs will overwhelm the PREs who are already struggling to cope.
The Bill is currently before the Portfolio Committee on Transport and being a section 76 Bill, must be referred to the National Council of Provinces, which will be time consuming. It is thus highly recommended in order to avoid the above-mentioned problems, that the Amendment Bill be expedited and that all efforts should be made to finalise it before the cut-off date.

11. 3.3 UBER South Africa Technology (Pty) Ltd
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response 1
The Bill contains a gap (lacuna): there is no definition of “e-hailing”. This means that the definition must be discerned from a reading of the definition of “metered taxi service” and from section 66… We propose adding a definition of “e-hailing” into section 1 of the Act as follows:
“electronic hailing” or “e-hailing” means hailing or pre-booking a motor vehicle operated by the holder of an operating licence or permit issued in terms of section 50(1) or section 84(2) by means of an e-hailing technology-enabled application service which−
enables the hailing or pre-booking of a vehicle electronically;
has the facility to estimate fares and electronically communicate the estimate to passengers in advance;
communicate the final fare to passengers at the conclusion of the trip, and
provides the prescribed details of the driver of the vehicle to the passenger or passengers.
The inclusion of this new definition will have a number of advantages:
Firstly, it broadens the e-hailing option beyond just cases involving metered taxi permits. In our view e-hailing should be an option open to any operator, provided the permit can accommodate e-hailing. It seems fairly discriminatory to limit the option to one category of operators. Thus, for example, there is no good reason why an operator accredited as a tourist transport service, charter service cannot use an e-hailing application with an existing OL.
Secondly, a clear description of e-hailing will be very beneficial as the market expands … other organisations like taxify … are entering the market. This is something Uber welcomes. Competition can only be productive. But when entering the market new organisations will need to comply with the requirements for e-haling set out in the Act
The Department agrees that a definition of “e-hailing” should be inserted but disagrees that the definition should also be applied to other modes of public transport, as this would not be appropriate. Instead of saying “an operating licence or permit issued in terms of section 50(1) or section 84(2)” the proposed definition should read “contemplated in section 66”, i.e. be confined to e-hailing services. The reason is because the proposed amendments to section 66 will empower the Minister to make regulations to regulate e-hailing services. If other modes of public transport (PT) wish to use electronic applications this will be acceptable as long as they comply with the requirements of the Act applying to the particular type of service
Noted
This is correct

12. 3.3 UBER continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
Principal Act
18(3) & 39(1)(b)
Both section 18(3) and 39(1)(b) empower municipalities to impose moratoria in respect of the issue of new OLs in certain circumstances. We recognise the need for this power … Our concern is simply that municipalities should be obliged to follow a public consultation process before taking a decision to impose a moratorium, given the very serious implications of a moratorium, particularly with regard to empowerment and other job opportunities… sections 18(3) and 39(1)(b) should be drafted in such a way that they can be seen to be aligned with the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 1 [3] of 2000 (PAJA) … In our view a municipality’s decision … adversely affects the rights of transport providers and drivers as well as riders, and has the capacity to affect legal rights… we propose an amendment to section 18(3) as follows:
“(3) Subject to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Act No. 3 of 2000) such a municipality may ….”
A similar amendment should be made to section 39(1)(b) …
PAJA applies anyway so that planning authorities would have to undertake either a “notice and comment” procedure or hold public hearings where the rights of persons could be prejudicially affected. The abovementioned Minimum Requirements for ITPs also require stakeholder consultation in the planning process. However the Department has no objection if the proposed wording is added

13. 3.3 UBER continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
Principal Act
8(2) & 10
Section 8(2) of the Act rightly obliges the Minister, before making regulations, to publish a draft for comment … The same obligations are not explicitly required of MECs when making regulations in terms of section 10 … We therefore propose that a new section 10(2) be added as follows:
“(2) Before making any regulations … the MEC must publish a draft …”
Since the principal Act came into operation the Courts have held that making regulations is “administrative action” as contemplated in PAJA and that they must be published for comment. However the Department has no objection if the proposed wording is added
54(5)
Section 54(5) of the Act sets out the requirements for applications for operating licences. One of these in para. (e) is that the applicant must “specify the vehicle or exact type of vehicle to be used for providing the services …” In some instances it is not possible for the applicant to specify the exact type of vehicle when making an application, because the applicant may not own the vehicle at the time… We therefore propose that this provision be amended to read as follows:
“(e) specify the vehicle or category of vehicle …”
The Department agrees that this proposed amendment is necessary
59(3)
Section 59(3) of the Act allows the relevant regulatory entity when no relevant or substantial objections are received in respect of an application, to dispose of that application summarily… to avoid significant waste of time and money this provision should be mandatory rather than permissive… We therefore propose that section 59(3) be reworded to read as follows:
“Where no relevant and substantial objections … it must be disposed of summarily …”
The Department disagrees with this proposal because regulatory entities should still have a discretion to refuse the application for various reasons, e.g. based on the relevant ITP

14. 3.4 Mr Paul Browning Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 4479
Section 79 – withdrawal, suspension or amendment of OL or permit. Section 79(2) provides for withdrawal or suspension of an OL where the holder has not complied with conditions on which the Licence was issued, and sec 79(3) similarly provides for withdrawal where wrong information was given in the application.
Sec 62 describes the information which must be provided …However sec 62[(1)](c) merely requires the applicant to sign a statement to the effect that he/she will comply with labour laws and the sectoral determination … of the Dept. of Labour. This statement is routinely … ignored by the holders of OLs for taxis.
I suggest an amendment to … sec 79(3) of the … Act in the form of the addition of the words “supplied to it” if the wording “or where it can be shown that the statement made by the applicant in terms of section 62(1)(c) is not being complied with”.
I also suggest an addition to sec 79(2)(a) of the … Act after the words “regulation of traffic” of the wording “with particular reference to sec 90(3) of this Act …”. Sec 90(3) makes the holder of an OL equally responsible for acts or omissions of his driver, unless the holder can show that he/she took reasonable measures to prevent the act or omission. It is important that the owner of the vehicle (the holder of the OL) should be held accountable for the driving practices of his/her driver. Bus companies accept this …
This is a function of the Department of Labour and the regulatory entities cannot be expected to police it. If it is reported to the regulatory entity (e.g. by the Department of Labour) the regulatory entity may be able to act against the holder/operator on the basis that he/she “has been convicted of an offence … under a law relating to … labour relations” in terms of section 79(2)(a) of the Act. The Department’s view is that no change is required
Section 93(3) of the principal Act provides that operators can be held liable for criminal acts of their drivers. This means that contraventions by drivers of the principal Act or the National Road Traffic Act will amount to contraventions by the operator. The regulatory entity will then be able to act against the operator under section 79. The Department’s view is that no change is necessary

15. 3.5 South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response
1(a) 1
The definition of an association … needs to clarify the legal standing of the association, particularly in relation to their members. The BRT negotiations are forcing all municipalities implementing BRT to acknowledge associations.
The Department is of the view that the definition is adequate as is
1(d)
The extension of the meter taxi service definition in para (c) [(d)] to include services like “Uber” needs to be reworked so that the outcome is that the fee payable must be determined up front
This aspect will be covered in the proposed regulations – see clause 38 which proposes amendments to section 66
1(f)
The definition of “non-motorised transport” should state “and both non-motorised wheelchairs and/or other similar modes. If it needs to be more specific, the … definition must also include electric bikes, pedicabs and sedgeways [Sedgeways]. However an additional problem with a pedicab is that it carries passengers but is non-motorised
The Department’s policy at present is to control only motorised vehicles. Segway scooters are motorised, but may currently not be used either on roadways or sidewalks in terms of the National Road Traffic Regulations. However pedicabs are not motorised and are not subject to OLs. If it becomes necessary in future to regulate them the Act will be amended at a later date to do so
1(k)
The definition of targeted categories of passengers in bullet (ii) when it refers to movements is unclear as it is too inclusive
The Department’s view is that the proposed definition is clear enough 2 5
The functions of the Minister in section 5 need to also refer to the Road Traffic Act and associated functions …
Such a reference is not necessary because the Minister must comply with the National Road Traffic Act and other applicable legislation in any event

16. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response8
Regulations by the Minister … should also include those regulations that deal with the provision of public transport (PT) to all categories
It is the duty of the Minister and Department in terms of the Constitution to monitor public transport and to promote the provision of PT to all categories of users within budgetary constraints. It is not clear how regulations could assist in that regard. The National Public Transport Regulator (NPTR) has the function of monitoring PT in the country and taking steps where there are gaps in the provision of PT. The definition of “public transport service” in the principal Act covers all modes
3(b)
8(1)(fA)
Subsection (fA) needs to make provision for a consultation process so that the recurring violent protests by taxi operator can be avoided
The Department consults with stakeholders before fixing fees. This was done for example when the fees were determined in the National Land Transport Regulations, 2009
3(c)
8(1)(h)
Subsection 8(1)(h) assumes that this amendment enables branding per Municipality and takes into account the amendment to allow for alternative branding of 6m vehicles – this needs to be confirmed
These issues will be taken into account if and when such regulations are made
3(e)
8(1)(y)
Paragraph (y) refers to universal access plans. This term is not clear and should be defined …
The term is clearly understood by planners and persons in the industry

17. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response4
9(2)(d)
Minister has the powers to receive an annual report on the state of transport affairs in the province. This report includes reports from MREs. To compile this report municipalities will need to increase capacity so that they have a dedicated resource to execute the mandate
Noted. This aspect should be taken into account by the relevant province when requiring information from the MREs
7(b)
11(1)(b)(viiA)
The proposed section 11(b)(viiA) is unclear especially in terms of services provided by the province. It needs to be well defined. In addition the part about … municipalities not meeting the requirements or criteria prescribed by the Minister is not clear. What criteria are referred to?
This aspect has been agreed with COGTA and the Department’s view is that it is clear enough. Such criteria may include the capacity of the municipality in terms of personnel and financial resources as indicated above. The criteria could also relate to a “category, type or budgetary size” of the municipality – see section 177(1)(b)(ii) of the Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 (MFMA)
11(1)(b)(viiB)
In subsection [para] viiB the function of concluding contracts for dedicated services for … scholars is allocated to provinces. Please clarify why this is a provincial function alone? Most scholar transport services are within municipal boundaries. Secondly why are scholar services not part of the IPTN?
This is a policy issue. The Minister may direct otherwise. All such services are within municipal boundaries, but the provinces have been responsible for them: many of them cross municipal boundaries. Scholar services should be included in IPTNs in terms of the Minimum Requirements

18. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
11(1)(c)(v) & 11(1)(c)(xix)
In subsection 11(1)(c)(v) the amendment is contrary to the Rail Management Green Paper. There is agreement with the consultation until … devolution is affected. Due consideration needs to be given to this potential long term conflict. The same apples to section 11(1)(c)(xix)
The Department disagrees that the amendment is contrary to the draft rail policy which was published for comment on 22 September Rail is a national function in terms of the Constitution and municipalities must perform rail-related functions in consultation with PRASA and any other state-owned rail entities
7(i)
11(2)
The substitution of subsection (2) to assigning functions contemplated in subsection 1(a). Why is the assignment limited to item vii and not the whole section 1(a) as stipulated in the principal Act?
It is no longer necessary to assign the contracting function – see the responses to this comment by TCT in relation to clause 7(l).
7(k)
11(4)
The substitution for subsection (4) to include a part of an “acceptable” ITP is vague and needs to be defined as this section lacks clarity as to what is expected
The word acceptable means that the ITP must comply with the principal Act and the published Minimum Requirements for ITPs
7(l)
11(6)
The proposed amendment to section 11(6) is not agreed to. The statement “unless the function is assigned to a municipality by the Minister” cannot be deleted. Rather … the words and/or can be added. The deletion contradicts section 11(4) as well as the new 11(8) et al. The amendment appears to only focus on the contracting function where everything else (e.g. the function … in … 1(a) is reduced to the contracting function
It is no longer necessary for the contracting function to be assigned, as agreed with COGTA.

19. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
11(9)(b) and 36(1)
Subsection (9)(b) needs to clarify what is meant by “capacity building” and what is meant by … “acceptable”. The ITPs … should be extended to every 10 years and be reviewed every 5 years
As regards capacity and “acceptable ITP”. If ITPs are to be done only once every 10 years this will mean that outdated information will be used. However, ITPs are expensive to prepare and the proposal should be discussed with the Committee
11(10(d)
Subsection 10(d) indicates that the Minister may prescribe requirements and criteria with which municipalities must comply in order to conclude contracts … Organised local government does not support this clause. The function of contracting should remain as stipulated in the current … Act. In this regard the National Department … in addition to provinces needs to capacitate municipalities … since leaving the capacitation of municipalities to provinces has not worked to date. Capacitation … should be a joint effort …
The clause, as agreed with COGTA, is necessary. The Department agrees that joint capacitation by the national government and provinces is needed 9
15(2)
Please clarify under subsection (2) of section 15 which modes are being referred to in terms of the function of intermodal planning committee to coordinate and integrate PT between modes
All PT modes are being referred to

20. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response15
24(1)(c)
Subsection 24(1)(c) refers to “operating licence”. Other modes need OLs and do not belong to associations also need to be addressed
The provision applies to all modes. The proposed regulations will make this aspect clearer 18
36(1) & (4)
Section 36(1) and (4) state that “integrated transport plans need to be prepared, submitted and approved by the MEC”. Municipal Councils are responsible for approval of these plans and thus the reference to the MEC must be removed. ITPs are shared with the province in line with the IGR Act
The Department disagrees with this view: the MEC must approve the plan in relation to the aspects referred to in section 36(4) which only relate to provincial competencies 19
39(3)
The addition of subsection (3) does not cater for situations where no licences have existed. Furthermore, the planning authority cannot take steps to cancel OLs and permits. The text should read “upon recommendation/request of the planning authority, the regulatory entity shall take steps …”
The Department agrees to the suggested. 22
42(6)(b)
The clause about “substantive provision” in section 42(b) is vague. In the context of negotiations this can be very long and cumbersome. There is a need to identify the problem that this clause is seeking to address. The amendment to section 42 brings in a new dynamic … where MINMEC agreement of initial negotiation has been excluded and the subsidised service is put out to tender
It appears that the provision is being misunderstood. It refers to the power of the Minister to prescribe Model Tender and Contract Documents for contracting for PT services and provides that contracting authorities may not leave out substantive provisions of the model documents. The word “substantive” could be replaced by “material”

21. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response27
48(2)(a)
Section 48: The scheduled non-contracted service indicated in section 48(2)(a) must be defined as part of the definitions as there is no clarity in the Act as to what these services are
These terms are already defined 38
66(4)(cA)
Section 66: there is use of a term “prescribed” in para (cA). It would be better in the Act
Prescriptions on meters would be too detailed for the Act and should be in the regulations
Principal Act 70
We propose the following amendment to section 70: “planning authorities to develop guidelines on how tuk-tuks can be integrated in their areas of jurisdiction and prescribe the services for which they can be used, and how those services can be operated. The guidelines should address the scope and range of operations, and prescribe for example not more than a 5km radius. The criteria and conditions must address the following critical issues …
A section on 4+1/ 7 seater vehicles doing last mile services should be added as a mode of transport … These should be included in ITPs. The service is similar to minibus. Such services need to be defined …
Municipalities can make by-laws on these issues, and the City of Tshwane for example is currently doing so. This aspect is also covered in the Minimum Requirements for ITPs
Sedan vehicles (4+1s) can be used for minibus taxi-type services if the regulatory entity approves. They must be included in ITPs in terms of the Minimum Requirements 72
Section 72 must be clearly defined especially for non-subsidised scholar transport to be regulated
The NLT Regulations, 2009 currently deal with this aspect in detail, and will be revised if necessary once the Amendment Bill is passed

22. 3.5 SALGA continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
Organised local government is particularly concerned with the continuous referral … to criteria and requirements prescribed by the Minister under subsection 10(d) that a municipality must meet to conclude subsidised service contracts, negotiated contracts and stopgap contracts … The nature of these criteria is unclear … The current Act gives this function to municipalities … At no point should this function be given to provinces …
The Bill will do away with the assignment of the contracting function as it is not necessary to have an assignment. Municipalities already have original contracting powers in terms of section 11(1)(c)(xxvi) of the principal Act. Municipalities and provinces must apply section 46 to either conclude new contracts when the provincially managed contracts run out, or continue to manage the contracts in areas where municipalities lack capacity or fail to take over the contracts in terms of the new section 11(1)(b)(viiA).

23. 3.6 South African Metered Taxi Forum (SAMTF)
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response
1(a) 1
The association definition should also cater for metered taxi services that have been incorporated as companies.
There must be a distinction between shuttle services and metered taxi services
The Department is of the view that the definition is adequate as is.
The definition applies to all types of PT services 2
5(4)(k)
Section 2 of the amendments (i) to be in italic
Agree – will correct
3(c)
8(1)(h)
Parliament must find a way to ensure compulsory branding as it is part of security. It must be specifically mentioned as currently metered taxis are not easily identifiable
Parliament must also provide for roadworthiness of all modes of transportation to ensure the overarching principle of safety
This aspect will be considered when the proposed regulations are drafted. This could also be provided for in municipal by-laws
Roadworthiness is covered in the National Road Traffic Act
Section 8: Operators’ applications must be linked to security clearances. Local and foreigners bear the costs of acquiring such security
Compliance with targeted categories at national level must take place
When a would-be operator applies for an OL the regulatory entity must screen him/her/it – see section 57(1)(e) and (f) and 57(2)(b)(iv) and (v) of the principal Act. Foreign operators are screened by the authorities in their countries of origin in terms of the various cross-border agreements.
Noted

24. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
Principal Act 70
The forum also objects to the presence of “3 wheelers” and “tuk-tuks” as being incorporated within the Act as they do not conform to safety regulations
It is up to planning authorities to decide in terms of their ITPs whether and to what extent tuk-tuks should be allowed. They may also make by-laws to supplement section 70 of the principal Act. For example, the City of Tshwane is in the process of doing so. Tuk-tuks must comply with the safety requirements of the National Road Traffic Act and the National Road Traffic Regulations
3(b)
8(1)(fB)
The code of conduct for foreign drivers needs to be catered for as the current PDP only addresses the situation in South Africa. It does not cater for any international background checks. The situation needs to be addressed
Permits for foreign operators are issued by their own authorities in terms of the various cross-border agreements, read with the Cross-Border Road Transport Act 4 of Those authorities are also required to perform background checks
3(c)
8(1)(h)
The SAMTF requests that colour coding of metered taxis can to address [sic] the challenging of uber and other e-hailing apps.
Branding is to be compulsory and should not only be in instances of national uniformity so accordingly, there should be a removal of the national uniformity requirement
There is a need for branding so as to ensure security and safety and so that law enforcement can identify public transport providers through branding
Branding should be compulsory not only at provincial level but must apply to all PT vehicles nationally. The branding is to be registered with the Regulator. So there cannot be instances where branding is identical. In instances where someone is seen with an unregistered vehicle it will be a criminal offence
Branding of metered taxis is essentially a municipal issue, but the comment is noted for possible national regulations. The proposed regulations on e-hailing services may also provide for compulsory branding, if the Minister so decides.
As regards national uniformity, the MECs may also make such regulations – see clause 5 of the Bill and the proposed section 10(1)(eA) of the principal Act.
Municipalities may also make by-laws on branding

25. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 5
10(1)(eA)
All of the above must apply at provincial and national levels. This is because the current function is limited to only provincial level
The Act does not prevent municipalities from having their own branding which can be done through by-laws.
7(d)
11(1)(c)(xiv)
In catering for persons with disabilities, this gives rise to the point that this should apply across the board to all modes of transport
It does apply to all modes. Naturally, different considerations apply in the case of each mode. More emphasis will be placed on subsidised services rather than commercial services because of the cost implications
7(f)
11(1)(c)(xxii)
It must be comprehensive travel demand management to cover all modes of transport, as metered taxis are not part of ITPs
Travel demand management (TDM) covers all PT modes. The Minimum Requirements for ITPs require that metered taxis must be included in the transport registers of comprehensive ITPs (CITPs) and state that “This plan [i.e. the CITP] must also cover non-regular modes of transport such as metered taxis, electronic hailing services, two- or three-wheeler vehicles such as tuk tuks, and long-distance services”. The comment on TDM is noted
7(g)
11(1)(c)(xxiv)
Concessionary fares are to apply across the board and to all modes of transport.
These fares must be clearly defined as well as the inclusion of midi and minibuses.
It is at municipal level and must apply at provincial and national levels
They do apply to all PT modes
See the responses above relating to the setting and displaying of fares
Noted. This is a municipal function in terms of the principal Act and national government and provinces are not responsible for setting consessionary fares except where they are provided for in subsidised contracts

26. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 915
The intermodal planning committee (IPC) must include metered taxis; they must feature in planning ad their rights are affected
Metered taxis should be involved in the land transport advisory boards that are established under section 16 of the principal Act. The IPCs are committees of officials as is being clarified in the amendment to section 15(1) 11
18(1)(a)
Implication for metered taxis as they always fall outside a municipality. There is a need to clarify if this amendment so as to provide jurisdiction to operate in different areas.
This is because of the nature of the business which requires the metered taxis to travel across the country
If municipality cannot issue [an] OL and the metered taxis are not afforded the benefit of applying for an OL closer to home or the metered taxis may want to be treated as vehicles for tourism transport (accredited by NPTR)
A possible suggestion is that metered taxis should be treated as tourism transport so as to enjoy the benefits associated with such vehicles
Metered taxi operators can apply to the NPTR for interprovincial services or to the PRE for inter-municipal services, and those regulatory entities have discretion to grant or refuse the application.
Metered taxis and tourist transport services are two distinct types of services. Tourism transport does not enjoy more benefits: it is just a different form of regulation

27. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
20(2)
Section 20: Further clarity is required with regards to the eligibility requirements for members of the NPTR
The requirements are clearly stated in section 20 of the principal Act and the proposed amendments
13(b)
21(1)(e)
Section 21 “invite complaints”: This must include metered taxis as information collected by government is to be available to metered taxis
This provision also applies to metered taxis
13(c)
21(2)
The process of producing the standardised manual must include the public participation so that operators can comment on the processes involved
The procedures are set out in the Act and Regulations, which have been or will be subjected to public participation. The standardised procedure manual merely explains and elaborates these procedures 15
24(1)(a)
Section 24 “monitor and oversee”: The PRE function (a) is a problem as it was the function of the public transport registrar which is not being done
The NPTR must monitor and oversee PT in the country in terms of section 21(1)(a) of the principal Act. The NPTR has only recently been established and commenced performing its functions in relation to tourist transport services on 29 July It will implement its other functions in a phased manner. PREs have been expected to undertake the function of monitoring PT in the relevant province as from the inception of the Act 24
There is also a need for the current PRE function to be independent from government
The PRE regulatory committee must take decisions independently, which is a principle of administrative law. See also the proposed amendment to section 23(2). The PRE is only part of the Provincial Department in respect of administrative matters, such as salaries and leave

28. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response
23(2)
There must be more detail in terms of how this needs to be done. If this is a separate function, it must be clear if there is a specific person dealing with it
The PRE must have a regulatory committee consisting of the members contemplated in section 20(2) of the principal Act
19(c)
39(3)
Section 39: In (c) the process of rationalising PT vehicles will be considered as 4 plus 1 (minibus taxi) should they not have a meter. Metered taxis must have meters
Correct. The rationalisation process will also take into account “4+1s”, i.e. sedan vehicles that have permits or OLs for minibus taxi-type services
19(a)
39(1)(a)
All metered taxis must make use of both the sealed meters as well as technology available to the app-based taxis should they be dependent on the latter only
The words “legally operated services” will not include metered taxis without meters, as they would be illegal. The proposed regulations could provide that taxis using apps must also have meters, depending on research and investigations undertaken, but this will only be so if apps are not able to provide the information and facilities that can be provided by a meter
20(b)
41(1A)
This amendment does not apply to metered taxis although the Act does not specifically state this hence clarity is sought as to what modes of PT this applies to
Negotiated contracts can be concluded with any PT operators, including metered taxis, e.g. for feeder services that form part of an IPTN 20 41
Will metered taxis be subsidised, which ordinarily cannot be as the contracts mentioned herein do not apply to singular metered taxis
The Act does not prevent metered taxis from being subsidised in appropriate cases. In the case of a contracted service the service could be subsidised

29. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 2849
The SAMTF also raises a separate objection to the popularization of the “uber” name as it has been identified as not the only taxi hailing provider. It would be best to refer to the taxis as app-based taxis
The Amendment Bill does not use the name “uber” but refers generally to electronic hailing services. The Department is aware that there are other e-hailing service providers as was stated during the public hearings 31
54(2)
Section 54: Members are to always apply to NPTR
In terms of the principal Act metered taxis must apply to the MRE if an MRE has been established and if the services will take place wholly within the relevant municipal area. If the operator wants to operate inter-municipal services he/she must apply to the PRE and must apply to the NPTR only if he/she wishes to provide interprovincial services
The OLs are to be as wide as possible
This is up to the relevant regulatory entity. As regards inter-municipal and interprovincial services, see the response above
Clarity is sought as to why metered taxis are not properly covered and this needs to be specifically addressed. Specific categories or reference must be made to enable OLs across the board. Metered taxis must be given the opportunity to choose where to travel without being prejudiced
They are covered in section 66 of the principal Act and clause 38.

30. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 37
Metered taxis must be included in this benefit. The SAMTF insist on benefit of tourist transport service and business model that does not require ownership of the vehicles branding can/may still be done
In terms of this amendment where a tourist transport operator has been accredited by the NPTR, he/she may use rented vehicles or vehicles operated by another accredited operator, as long as the vehicles comply with the requirements of the Act. The accreditation model is in its early stages as the NPTR only started the process on 29 July If the model works well it can be extended later to metered taxis if so decided by a later amendment to the Act
38(c)
66(5) & (6)
The SAMTF insists that every metered taxi must have a meter
The Act already provides for this – see paragraph (c) of the definition of “metered taxi service” in section 1
38(b)
66(4)(cA)
E-hailing applications must be continually connected if there is an area with no continuous network then the passenger will be disadvantaged. Meter is mechanical thus passengers will not be prejudiced
This is noted for the proposed regulations. E-hailing operators can only operate in areas where the app is available. It will be possible, depending on the regulations to be drafted, for operators to have dual authorisations on their OLs in terms of section 50(2) of the Act, i.e. a metered taxi authorisation as well as an e-hailing authorisation
Map books must be used as a fall back in areas where GPS is not functional
Noted for the regulations
66(6)
What is the criteria to determine “function optimally” – other operators operate on private networks
This is a technical matter to be considered when the proposed regulations are drafted

31. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 38
66(4)(cA)(iv)
In (iv) has double cc on electronic – must be rectified
Typing error - will be corrected 40 68
Section 68: A provision needs to be added to enable metered taxis to operate at all times. If external operators are to compete in areas, they must get an OL
Hours of operation may be regulated in the OL, but usually in the case of metered taxis there is no such restriction. Any operator providing competing PT services must have an OL
68(4)
Section 68(4) – all operators must be subject to same scrutiny – PDP, security, safety requirements must be met
All operators are subject to the same scrutiny when lodging an application relating to an OL. The PrDP (professional driving permit) is a requirement of the National Road Traffic Act and applies to all drivers of PT vehicles 41
73(2)(c)
Section 73(2)(c) must be qualified because the “properly licensed” may be interpreted limitedly [sic]
The reference is to the requirement that vehicles must be properly licensed in terms of the National Road Traffic Act. The provision applies to all PT services 73
Government needs to provide for all public passenger road transport to be registered as PT
All OLs are included and “registered” in the OLAS system. Some permits issued a considerable time ago are not on the system and hence the requirement for all permits to be converted to OLs 42
74(1)(a)
In 42(1) [section 74(1)] “of” must be removed as the current paragraph does not make sense grammatically
The clause seems correct as is

32. 3.6 SAMTF continued… Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment Response 44
Section 79: The opinion spoken of must be subject to PAJA with specific reference to the audi alteram partem rule
PAJA and the common law relating to administrative justice will apply, which includes the audi alteram partem (hear the other side) rule. This is provided for in section 79(4) in terms of which the regulatory entity must give the operator notice of its intention to withdraw or suspend the OL and an opportunity to comment 46 84
Vehicles used for tourist transport: metered taxis must also get this benefit, they should be allowed to rent and operate based on the needs of the government as they also target the same market. Part of the issue is how government has continuously indulged the illegal operation of app-based taxis such as uber, thus far and we further request reasons for the continued presence of same
The accreditation system may be extended to other modes of PT by later amendments to the principal Act
App-based services require OLs and the intention of government is not to “indulge” any particular operator

33. 3.7 Uber Drivers CT Guild Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment
Response
2 & 7
1, 5(4)(k), 11 & 66
The Minister should set up a task team to assess the figures from Uber and its partners to ascertain a fair model based and with respect of our labour relations act … and constitutional rights … The “baseless” fare model should be removed and should not be used as “predatory pricing” to eliminate the metered taxi industry. .. failure to protect our metered taxi brothers and sisters will result in continued violence … The unprofitable R7 per km on uber vs the R10 per km should be investigated by the task team. … the number of cars to be limited as per case study … Also for fairness all e-hailing operators to be restricted to EFT .. Uber not to decide tariffs unilaterally… Government should nationally regulate Uber and other European based operators
Noted for the regulations. It is not government policy to set fares, except in the case of subsidised services, and e-hailing services are not subsidised.
It is also not government policy to limit vehicle numbers unless there is a properly approved ITP that indicates that numbers should be limited.
The purpose of the amendments to section 66 of the principal Act is to empower the Minister to make regulations to regulate all e-hailing services, not just Uber

34. 3.8 Greater Taung United Taxi Association
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response
General
Taxis operating within Greater-Taung Local Municipality are allowed to use three routes whereas taxi owners in other provinces are allowed to use more than 3 routes e.g. Gauteng Province can transport passengers even in Taung
This is not an issue for the Bill. The Department will refer the matter to the PRE for North West Province
Cross-border Permit is done only in Pretoria which is more than 500 km from Ganyesa … have a satellite office within North-West … Furthermore these permits take a very long time 3 months. Request Parliament to assist …
These are not issues for the Bill and it will be refer to the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency
… When mine workers come home they use Bojanala Transport which is a challenge to Taxi Association financially … Request Parliament to protect Kagisano Taxi Association
This is not an issue for the Bill. This matter will be refer to the relevant provincial Department.
When Kagisano Taxi transport passengers to Bojanala they have to purchase Rustenburg Municipality stickers which also affect them financially
This is not an issue for the Bill. This matter will be refer to the relevant provincial Department. 36
62(1)(f)
Insurance cover only cover the passengers the driver is not covered should he be involved in an accident
Operators and drivers can insure themselves if they so wish.

35. 3.9 Naledi Municipality Taxi Association
Same comments as Greater Taung United Taxi Association

36. 3.10 Schweizer-Reneke United Taxi Association
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response
General
Taxis operating within Schweizer-Reneke are allowed to use only one route to Taung whereas other taxi owners in other provinces are allowed to use many routes e.g. Gauteng
This is not an issue for the Bill and it will be refer to the PRE for North West Province.
Private cars are given permits to transport passengers whereas they do not have OL
Anyone transporting passengers for reward requires an OL in terms of section 50(1) of the principal Act.
Cross-border Permit is done only in Pretoria which is more than 500 km from Ganyesa … have a satellite office within North-West … Furthermore these permits take a very long time 3 months. Request Parliament to assist …
This issue will be taken up with the PRE for North West Province.

37. 3.11 Kagiso Taxi Association
Same comments as Greater Taung United Taxi Association

38. 3.12 Molefi William Kgatlhane
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response
General
Lack of co-operation from the departments. The departments, transport included, award tenders to the same people. My quotation books are never finished because I keep on submitting, but never considered even though I have reconsidered my quotes
The principal Act requires restructuring of the current contracting system
… The Government took our permits converted them to OLs which have an expiry date. They reduced our routes
Conversion of permits to route-based OLs was decided on as national policy at the time when the principal Act was drafted in 2008 to facilitate proper regulation and planning of PT 49
They took our fully paid taxis for recapitalisation and gave us only R50 000. They made an agreement with SA Taxi Finance to give us taxis at a very high price and Government never made an effort to check whether we can afford to honour that debt … They have repossessed our taxis …
These are not issues for the Bill. The Taxi Recapitalisation Process is voluntary.

39. 3.13 MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng
Clause of Bill
Section of Act
Comment
Response 5
10(1)
Amend section 10 by adding para (1)(h): “(h) the provincial entity as contemplated in section 12(1)”
The suggestion is to empower the MECs to make regulations on the more detailed structure of the PREs. The Department has no objection to this insertion, but the suggested wording will have to be expanded
Principal Act
12(1)
Amend section 12(1) as follows:
“(1) A province may pass legislation or enter into an agreement with one or more municipalities …”
The province already has this power, but the Department has no objection to the suggested insertion

40. 3.13 GDRT MEC continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment
Response
Principal Act
12(4) to (8)
Add the following subsections to section 12:
“(4) Where the provincial entity as contemplated in subsection (1) is not established, two or more municipalities may enter into agreements for the joint exercise or performance of their respective powers and functions contemplated in this Act, subject to the Constitution and this Act.
(5) A provincial entity contemplated in subsection (1) must at least be responsible for-
(a) the functions as set out in section 11(1)(b)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) (vii) and 11(1)(c) (vi), (ix), (xi), (xii), (xix), (xx), (xxii) and (xxvii);
(b) the promotion and support of non-motorised transport, and
(c) any other function which may be agreed upon by the members of the provincial entity.
(6) A provincial entity contemplated in subsection (1) may perform its functions in a municipality outside of or adjacent to the province, in agreement with the relevant municipalities and the other relevant province or provinces.
(7) The agreement contemplated in subsection (1) must provide for governance, institutional mechanisms and funding for the functioning of the provincial entity.
(8) The MEC must publish in the Provincial Gazette the agreement contemplated in subsection (1) and any subsequent amendment.”
The Department agrees in principle to these suggested insertions. The exact functions that will be allocated to such provincial transport authorities and the wording of the provisions should be discussed

41. 3.13 GDRT MEC continued... Clause of Bill Section of Act Comment
Response 9
15(3)
Add subsection (3) to section 15:
“(3) Where a provincial entity is established as contemplated in section 12(1), it must perform the functions of the intermodal planning committee as contemplated in subsection (1) and perform such functions as set out in section 11(1)(c)(xix) and subsection (2).”
The Department agrees to this insertion

42. The End
Thank You