 |
COSATU Submission on theLand Transport Transition BillPresented to the Department of Transport, 21 October 1999 |
Table of Contents
The following constitutes COSATU submission on the National Land Transport Transition Bill, 1999 (hereafter the ‘Bill’). It also encapsulates the views of SAMWU, SATAWU and TGWU.
However, a major shortcoming has been the timeframe for comment. Government Gazette No 20445 was only forwarded to us on the 14th October, when written submissions were due to be lodged not later than 15th October. This was clearly impossible and officials of the Department of Transport accepted that the submission date would be extended to 20th October. Even this date has made it impossible to provide a detailed written response.
Ideally we believe that the process should also have included a referral to NEDLAC for proper sectoral discussion and input. NEDLAC provides a platform for negotiation between government, labour and business on major socio-economic legislation and policies. For this reason, it is important that such legislation and policy be referred to NEDLAC for discussion. Our preference remains is for the Bill to be tabled at NEDLAC for discussion.
Notwithstanding the above limitations, COSATU wishes to present this preliminary response to the bill. Some or all of the issues raised will require further discussion and clarification with the DoT. Many of the points raised will also require drafting into legal proposals for amendments to the Bill. We therefore propose a meeting with the Department to discuss the issues raised in this submission and any related matter. Further, we will revert to the Department with proposed legal amendments to address our concerns. However, we reserve the right to raise further issues, due to the time constraints within which we have to make this initial submission.
We have inherited a public transport system geared to meet the needs of a racial minority. Coupled with this skewed transport system is the legacy of the grotesque apartheid spatial planning. Consequently, we are confronted with settlements that are inefficient, dispersed and which impose costs to workers and their families. Most of our members spend a greater proportion of their time commuting to and from work as they live far away from their workplaces. The inefficient to non-existent transport system exacerbates the situating confronting workers. For this reason, public transport policy will play a pivotal role in overcoming this apartheid geography. The provision of public transport also constitutes part of the social wage for workers, which lessens the burden on their incomes.
The state must play a leading and instrumental role in building an efficient public transport system. This should entail:
Extending the public transport system, particularly in previously under-served communities;
Expanding investment to rehabilitate transport infrastructure and provide new infrastructure;
A regulatory framework to ensure maintenance of standards, including the regulation of private sector provision of public transport.
COSATU firmly believes in public provision of essential service, including transport. We are guided by the resolutions of the COSATU Policy Conference held in 1997, the Central Committee held in 1998 and the Special Congress held in 1999. These Resolutions reaffirm COSATU’s support for the need for a state-led and not market-driven transport system. Further, these forums resolved to oppose privatisation, including the privatisation of public transport.
While we recognise the role of the private sector in providing transport, a market-driven approach has its limitations. The private sector operates on a profit motive and is likely to cherry-pick areas where there is effective demand – i.e. demand for transport backed by ability to pay. On the other hand unregulated competition will exert downward pressure on standards including safety standards. For these and many other reasons, we prefer public provision of transport. Moreover the lines of accountability between public entities and communities are clear. Public entities are obliged in terms of section 195(1) of the constitution to be accountable, transparent, and so forth.
The major limitation of the bill is that it focuses more the role of the private sector transport and on the regulatory function of the public sector, and less on direct public provision of public transport, in spite of claims to the contrary. The bill seems to be driven by the imperative to create an ‘enabling environment’ for the private sector to increase its role in public transport. The role of the public sector is construed to be purely regulatory rather than directly providing transport services. We are opposed to this position and believe that the public sector, i.e. parastatals, provincial government and municipalities have an important role to play in directly providing transport services. Therefore, the public sector has both a regulatory and a service delivery role to play in transport.
The principle commitment to the provision of public transport in the Bill, including the clear obligation of the Minister to promote public transport. Further, the fact that public transport should be made safe, affordable and environmentally friendly.
The emphasis on integrated planning and the devolution of specific powers to provincial and local government in the interests of accountability.
Further in regard to planning, the emphasis placed on discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the development of high density transport corridors.
The emphasis throughout the Bill on regulation and law enforcement.
The various additional obligations of the Minister to ensure that public transport is energy efficient, that it is safe, and that education and training is provided in the industry in keeping with other relevant legislation.
The numerous references to the need to provide for passengers with special needs.
The proposed close link between the Minister and the nine MEC's concerning transport policy development.
The obligation on the part of MEC's and specified provincial and local structures to provide the Minister with information on transport use.
Statements of intent made in the policy documents concerning the needs of particular groups of passengers – including the very poor, passengers with special needs including the elderly and those with reduced physical mobility, and rural people.
The Department’s attempt to reduce violence in the taxi industry as well as the Minister’s latest efforts at reducing road fatalities.
Government’s view that transport planning must be closed linked to economic development initiatives and spatial planning as this will contribute to overcome apartheid geography.
COSATU is committed to the provision of public transport by the state and not for profit. While the private sector will continue to play an important role in public transport provision, we are of the view that where services are already in government hands (local or provincial), the status quo should remain. In fact, given the advantages these services have in terms of existing infrastructure as well as structures of accountability, these services should be encouraged to expand.
The Bill states in section 42(4) that any municipality may continue to operate a municipal public transport service at its own cost. However, if a municipality wishes to draw on the national subsidy for certain routes, it will have to comply with certain provisions. First, in terms of section 41(2), it will have to be financially ring-fenced. Second it will have to tender for routes. The parties believe that such provisions will invariably result in the break-up of municipal bus services and the undermining of what the stated intention of the Bill is i.e. to enhance planning and accountability. Municipal bus services are in the unique position of already operating within a framework of planning and accountability. This is where the advantage of public ownership lies. Passengers know exactly who to complain to when service is poor (their councillor). Where this advantage already exists, it would be wrong to take it away.
The Bill needs to find a mechanism for linking the planning and other functions of the Transport Authorities to the planning and service delivery functions of municipal owned services, without forcing municipal services into the tendering system. While the tendering system may be a way of regulating private operators and forcing them to take social issues seriously (safety, reliability etc.) if a service is already in public ownership, then by definition it must gear itself to meet the policy priorities set out by the DoT, or face the sanction which flow from being a public entity. If the DoT is concerned that some municipal services could be more effective and efficient, then this is a matter to be addressed from a different angle.
Whilst the Bill does not deal extensively with rail as a mode of public transport (in fact all references to the establishment of a rail safety regulator have been taken out of the Bill and referred to future comprehensive rail legislation), COSATU is obliged to comment on the question of concessioning of commuter rail services. The parties are opposed to a strategy which separates the management of track and signal maintenance from the operation of a passenger service. This separation is known to have resulted in a deterioration of safety standards in countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, Argentina, Canada and Zimbabwe. The reason for the deterioration in safety standards appears to be the weakening of lines of communication within the service as well as corners being cut by the operator in order to maximise profits. COSATU is also opposed to the principle of concessioning of the operation of rail on the grounds that it invariably leads to a process of "cherry picking" of profitable routes and the abandonment of social responsibility in relation to public transport provision. We believe this in turn will undermine the stated objectives of the DoT in expanding and enhancing public transport provision.
Section 41 of the Bill sets out what is required of an operator to qualify as a tenderer. COSATU believe that these requirements are inadequate and should be added to.
Clause 41(1)(c) on financial sustainability should be elaborated on. An operator must be able to show that there is sufficient capital available to properly maintain and replace vehicles. Such a provision is essential to preserve safety and service standards
There must be an additional clause which requires a tenderer to make a commitment to adhere to all labour legislation and relevant industry agreements and where relevant evidence that the tenderer complied with labour law and relevant industrial agreements. This is essential to prevent a situation where a tenderer's costs are based on undercutting industry minimum labour standards.
A further clause must be added concerning proof of compliance with minimum road safety standards, including regulations pertaining to driving hours. (Clause 80(1)(b) which provides for proof of roadworthy certification is not sufficient.)
There must be a commitment to ensure job security for workers
There should also be an obligation on the part of a tenderer to show how the operator intends adding value to the service and in what ways the policy objectives of the DoT will be met. For instance the operator should show how he/she will serve non-commuters. Further, the operator should indicate how s/he will cater for passengers with reduced mobility. In addition the operator should indicate what steps are taken to move towards using clean fuel.
Tendering procedure should also provide for affirmative procurement as provided in section 217 of the Constitution.1 National legislation in terms of section 217(3) of the Constitution must "prescribe a framework within which the policy" of affirmative procurement will be implemented. Such legislation still has to be tabled in parliament.
The Bill makes provision for the appointing of inspectors and has an entire section on law enforcement (Part 18). However there is no apparent provision for a more comprehensive review process during the currency of a tendered contract.
We propose that clear provision should be made for a mechanism whereby passenger bodies, trade unions, environmentalists, taxi associations, disability groups and other interest groups can make representations on the operations of a contractor. Interest groups should be actively encouraged to assist in monitoring whether contractors are meeting the objectives set out in the Bill and also in the DOT's various policy documents. For example, is the contractor operating safe and environmentally clean vehicles? Is the contractor meeting the needs of passengers with reduced mobility? Is a more comprehensive service being offered?
The above point is in line with discussions that have already begun to take place between TGWU and the DoT concerning the negative impact the tendering system is already having on service delivery and on labour standards
We have strong concerns with section 118(1)(m).2 COSATU's impression of this clause is that it bans passengers suffering from notifiable diseases from using public transport. The formulation at first sight appears clumsy and unenforceable. It needs to be redrafted in a way that it meets the public health concerns while at the same time take into account the constitutional rights of individuals.
COSATU supports the initiative to build an efficient, cost effective public transport system to overcome apartheid geography, which continues to impose a strain on workers and their families. This submission has recorded the areas that we support in the bill and underlined areas of concern. It is an initial submission, which will be complemented by proposed legal amendments. As stated above, we would like to have an opportunity to discuss with the Department issues raised in the submission and any related matter. We hope that our request will be heeded. In addition, we hope that the bill will accordingly be amended to address our concerns.
Footnotes:
Section 217(2) empowers the state to implement affirmative procurement policy
Provide that it is a criminal offence "if a person while suffering from a notifiable medical condition contemplated in section 28 of the Health Act, 1977 (Act No. 63 of 1977), being aware of that fact, has boarded a vehicle while being used in operating a public transport service or travels, therein,"
