Transport Appeal Tribunal A/B & Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) A/B: deliberations

Meeting report

The Chairperson announced the formal opening of the meeting at 9:00 and welcomed all Members, Committee staff, and guests. He suggested starting with the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill B5-2022 and confirmed the presence of a quorum.

Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill [B5—2022]: further deliberation

The Chairperson summarised previous briefings by the Parliamentary Legal Advisor and the Department [of Transport], mentioning feedback received from Members and a request to share the advice provided by Mr Andile Tetyana, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor. Finally, he proposed displaying the key points of the advice on screen for Members' reference.

The Chairperson stated that deliberation concerned the matter the Committee was addressing, including international conventions. He highlighted convergence between parliamentary legal advancements and departmental perspectives on what is feasible. He emphasised certain limitations beyond the Committee’s control, indicating Committee’s efforts to integrate Annexures four and six into laws. Importantly, he noted SA’s existing domestic legislation on marine pollution and raised concerns about unaddressed issues such as noise pollution, particularly underwater noise, and its implications for industries and the ocean economy. He underscored the absence of instruments covering this area and stressed the need for action.

He mentioned agreement between the parliamentary legal adviser, the Department, and the proposal put forward to the Committee. He recommended acceptance of the report to be sent to the provinces without amendments to the Bill. He then invited feedback from Committee Members regarding their views on last week's engagement, opening the floor for discussion.

Discussion

Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape) greeted the Members and staff and acknowledged the negotiating mandates received from the provinces. He said that the Bill primarily focuses on seven sections, with limited scope for amendments due to the nature of the Convention, which can only be amended through the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). He mentioned that the received mandates mainly concerned these seven clauses, with unanimous agreement on issues such as definitions, while some provinces sought clarification on certain aspects related to the Convention itself.

He highlighted those other matters, such as the advisory committee and timeframes, were addressed satisfactorily. He affirmed alignment with the Chairperson's remarks and the legal advisor's advice, both of which supported the Department of Transport's position. He proposed a motion to vote and adopt the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill.

The Chairperson expressed gratitude for the input and invited any further points or opposing views. He requested those in support to indicate by raising their hands, confirming the acceptance of the negotiating mandate and the decision not to amend the seven clauses.

Six provinces voted in favour: Eastern Cape, Free State, Northern Cape, North West and Gauteng, Mpumalanga.

[Other provinces did not vote]

The Chairperson stated that the matter had been settled. He confirmed that the consensus was reached regarding the majority support. It was agreed that no amendments would be made to the seven clauses as they did not deviate from the essence of the Bill. Further, there was alignment on the majority vote. Consequently, he proposed forwarding the recommendation to the provinces for the final mandate.

Transport Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill [B8B—2022]: Further Deliberations

Moving on to the next agenda item, which was the Transport Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill, following the previous week's procedure. Members were urged to consider the mandates from the provinces. Additionally, the Department [of Transport] was given the opportunity to address the negotiating mandates from the provinces. Subsequently, a meeting was convened to seek advice from the parliamentary legal advisor.

Mr C Dodovu (ANC, North West) expressed gratitude to the Chairperson. He inquired about the number of provinces expected to submit negotiating mandates, as he observed five provinces but wondered about the remaining four. He explained this query arose due to his involvement in a related matter within the Committee he chairs.

The Chairperson clarified that there were actually nine provinces and all the provinces voted in favour of the Bill.

Ms Phumelele Ngema, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, began by thanking the Chairperson and extending greetings to the Members. She proceeded to discuss the parameters of the negotiating mandate concerning the Transport Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill [B8B—2022].

Clause 1

Ms Ngema noted that several concerns were raised during discussions. Regarding clause one, a province suggested including permits related to action decisions addressed by the Appeal Tribunal. However, considering the move towards operating licenses in future legislation, Ms Ngema proposed no changes to clause one.

Clause 4

She then addressed concerns raised about clause 4, which sought to amend Section 9 and relate to Section 16. The Western Cape had raised issues regarding the Tribunal's independence. Ms Ngema clarified that the Department's response aimed to ensure operational functionality while maintaining the Tribunal's independence. A proposal was made to amend clause four subsection one to address these concerns.

Clause 6

Ms Ngema moved on to clause 6, where she proposed adding "decisions" to empower the Tribunal.

Clause 7

Clause 7, which dealt with automatic suspension, raised concerns about fairness. A suggestion was made to address applications opposing automatic suspension.

Clause 9

Regarding clause 9, Ms Ngema explained that it related to Section 16, concerning administrative assistance to the Tribunal. She proposed an amendment to ensure consultation with the Tribunal and specified investigations necessary for appeal cases.

Ms Ngema concluded by discussing amendments to the long title and short title of the Bill, aiming for editorial clarity and updating the year of introduction. She presented these proposals to assist the Committee in their deliberations on the Bill.

(see attached)

Discussion

The Chairperson expressed gratitude towards Ms Ngema for her detailed presentation. He then invited other Members to seek clarification or ask questions, if needed, regarding Ms Ngema's presentation of the C-list.

Mr Rayi thanked the Chairperson and Ms Ngema for their contributions. He admitted confusion regarding the Department's response to the proposed amendment regarding permits in the definition. Initially, he misunderstood the Department's stance as agreeing with the proposed amendment from the province. However, Ms Ngema clarified that the Department intended to retain the current definition.

Mr Rayi then raised a concern about the order of clauses in the Bill, questioning why the issue of permits was not addressed in clause one. He mentioned reviewing the Amended Bill but encountered difficulties accessing it. He referred to a section related to the appointment process and oversight by provincial stakeholders in Gauteng, which the Department allegedly removed from the Amended Bill, reverting it to the principal Act.

He sought clarification on whether the section in question was originally part of the Amended Bill and subsequently removed by the Department. If so, he suggested the need for clarity in the Bill's language to reflect the changes accurately. He emphasised the importance of aligning with the Amended Bill's content rather than reverting to the principal Act. He sought clarity on which version of the Bill was under consideration to address his confusion.

Responses

Ms Ngema acknowledged the need to address Mr Rayi's query by referencing the B version of the Bill. However, she encountered technical difficulties accessing it and requested assistance displaying clause two of the Bill. She then proceeded to explain the background of the issue raised by Mr Rayi.

Ms Ngema clarified that the concern regarding Section 4 of the existing Act was previously raised during discussions in the National Assembly. This section pertained to the establishment of the Transport Appeal Tribunal and the consultation process between the Minister and the Executive Council Member.

She pointed out that the original proposal in the introduced Bill sought to remove the requirement for consultation. However, after considering submissions and public hearings, the National Assembly decided to retain this consultation process to uphold cooperative governance principles between provincial and national structures.

Ms Ngema clarified that clause two of the B version of the Bill only addresses specific aspects related to public transport and financial matters, while retaining the requirement for consultation as outlined in the principal Sct. She emphasised that the concerns raised by the Gauteng province were considered and addressed during the National Assembly stage, leading to the formulation of the B version that aligns with Gauteng’s interests.

Ms Ngema indicated that the B version of the Bill reflects the outcome desired by the Gauteng province, as it retains the consultation requirement outlined in the principal Act.

Voting on the C-list of the Bill

Voted in favour: Eastern Cape, Free State, Limpopo, Gauteng, Northern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga.

Seven provinces were in support.

Voted against:  There were no provinces voting against/abstaining.

The Chairperson expressed gratitude for the support shown towards the C-list, which was voted in favour of as tabled. Consequently, the report will be forwarded to the provinces, anticipating their approval.

He took the opportunity to extend thanks to the Department and the parliamentary legal advisor, Ms Ngema, for their invaluable guidance throughout the proceedings.

The Committee Secretariat responded, suggesting that perhaps the Department should remain for the upcoming discussion.

The Chairperson agreed, instructing the Committee to address the issue before moving on to the minutes. He outlined the agenda for the following day, which included three items: the final mandate on the Railway Safety Bill, and discussions on two conventions. However, due to time constraints and pressure from political principals, the Committee decided to defer the discussions on the conventions to the next administration. He apologised to the Department for any inconvenience caused and confirmed that the Committee would only be dealing with the Railway Safety Bill the following day.

He instructed the Committee to proceed with discussing the minutes.

Committee Minutes

Minutes dated 30 April 2024

With no objections raised, the Chairperson sought a motion for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Moshodi (ANC, Free State) moved for adoption, which was seconded by Mr Rayi.

The minutes were then duly adopted.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson expressed his gratitude to all Members for their dedication and commitment despite the challenges they faced as Members are busy with door-to-door campaigns. He acknowledged the effort everyone put in, highlighting their determination to conclude the Committee’s work effectively. He emphasised the importance of meeting the expectations set by their political principals and assured that both the 9th and 16th reports of the Committee would be adopted soon. He extended his thanks to the Committee staff, guests, media team, and the public for their contributions and attendance.

The meeting was adjourned.