E-tolls: DA court application clashes with their parliamentary policy and actions of caucus members
"The DA is dishonest with road users about their e-toll court application in Gauteng. The public's overwhelming opposition to the e-toll system in Gauteng is being exploited in a cheap manner by the DA to draw votes in the 2014 election by turning to the court to have the E-Toll Act declared unconstitutional. This court case is however in direct conflict with the actions and comments of DA caucus members in parliament," Adv. Anton Alberts, the Freedom Front Plus' parliamentary spokesperson on transport says.
The leader of the DA in Gauteng, Musi Mmaimane, has brought a court application in which the court is asked to declare E-Toll Act unconstitutional because the Act was incorrectly classified as a Section 75 Bill and not as a Section 76 Bill. The facts however clearly show that Mmaimane is not expressing his party's policy with this court application.
During a submission of Adv. Alberts in February of this year (minutes of meeting attached) in the parliamentary portfolio committee on transport, he stated for the record that the Act was incorrectly classified. According to Adv. Alberts, the E-Toll Act should have been classified as a Section 76 Act because the Act has a direct impact on the economies of provinces. The Act should therefore according to the Constitution also serve in the national Council of Provinces. The DA caucus member in the portfolio committee, Ian Ollis, clearly stated that he did not agree with Adv. Alberts and that he felt that the Act should not be classified as a Section 76 Bill, because the Bill only aims to deal with the regulation of traffic and does not have an impact on the functions and economy of the provinces.
"The facts show that the DA is not following a clear policy on the e-toll system. What that party's caucus members do in Parliament, is dismissed by the party's leader as mistakes as soon as it is clear that they are acting contrary to the public's interests, as was the case with the DA's support for the Employment Equity Amendment Bill. After the FF Plus's request to the president to send the Act back to parliament had been declined and the party announced that it would be bringing a court application to have the E-Toll Act declared unconstitutional because it was classified incorrectly, the Gauteng DA's launched a legal action which is in direct opposition to that party's parliamentary policy and actions in parliament.
"The question is whether Helen Zille will now again be offering an apology to the public in which she blames her parliamentary caucus for her party's opportunistic change in policy. The DA is trying to to run an election campaign in which the controversial e-toll system is being used to create the impression with voters that the DA is acting in their interests. The truth however shows that the DA in parliament does not represent the interests of voters when laws are made.
"The DA did not intend opposing the e-toll system any further until the FF Plus announced their legal action. Voters can therefore not trust the DA with their votes in next year's elections," Adv. Alberts says.
Extract from PMG report of meeting, February 19 2013:
Transport:Deliberations on the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill [B30-2012] 2 [6]
Summary:
The Freedom Front presented its proposed amendments to Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill [B 30B-2012] together with comments.
South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), for the Department of Transport, responded in detail.
In response to Members' questions, the Parliamentary Legal Advisor and the Principal State Law Advisor clarified the issue of ‘interested parties' and how the information be could be presented, either through the Government Gazette or other papers. It was proposed to proceed with caution around issues as to whether the Bill was a Section 75 or 76 Bill regarding the tagging of legislation. The Parliamentary Legal Advisor expressed surety that the Bill would pass constitutional muster.
A DA Member [DA Shadow Minister of Transport Ian Ollis] felt that the Bill should not be tagged as a Section 76 Bill as it regulated traffic and its intention was as such.
The Principal State Law Advisor replied that tagging was something very new in this country, so she proposed that the legal team could prepare an opinion for the Committee.
Statement issued by Adv. Anton Alberts, FF Plus parliamentary spokesperson: Transport, November 14 2013
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
