implement the BRT project on the date said, contrary to the inconclusive negotiation process of the National Joint Working Group (NJWG).  But even more frightfully, the City does this despite the flaws that exist in the business model of the BRT project as entailed in its presentation. This situation provoked by the government in speaking with ambiguity is preceded by its milieu which is the basis of SANTACO’s argument.

 

 

Background information

President Jacob Zuma who at the time was President of the ANC, broke the impasse filled with friction between the taxi and government over the implementation of the BRT when he called for all processes on the BRT “to be put on hold” until new administration was appointed.

After he was appointed Minister of Transport, Honourable Sbu Ndebele met SANTACO expressing his intention to ensure that the commitment made by the State President was realized through a coordinated effort between government and the taxi industry.  In his State of the Nation Address, President Zuma reminded the nation and his parliament that prior to the national elections, he made a commitment to the taxi industry that, negotiations over the BRT will start in earnest to enable a conducive environment for participation of the taxi industry.  Consequently, he deferred the process going forward to the Minister of Transport when he announced the meeting between the taxi and government on June 11, 2009.

Transport Minister then introduced his responsibility in the June 11, 2009 meeting as symbolic of President Jacob Zuma’s commitment to ensure a coordinated negotiation process over the BRT project.  In his speech, the Minister further underlined commitment on the side of government to empower this black owned business.  It was there where he pronounced the establishment of the National Joint Working Group (NJWG) that will serve as the overarching body to decisions of all varied work-streams affecting the taxi industry; namely, BRT, TRP and subsidy, Licensing, legislation, regulation & enforcement, Communication and Enterprise development.  The NJWG was to comprise of the equal representation from both government and the taxi industry.  In his emphatic words; the Minister said but representatives negotiating on behalf of the parties…”must have the authority” to take decisions because the NJWG will be a body of authority.

Having embraced this, during the inaugural meeting, SANTACO presented a draft Memorandum of Agreement to government which served as a precursor for taxi industry participation in the NJWG process ironically for the dubiousness that today has played out as government reneges from resolutions of the NJWG.  Owning to BRT being the pressing issue, the inaugural meeting resolved to have the MOA to be finalized, signed and sealed in seven days from the day of meeting.  Past the seventh day as resolved, SANTACO again wrote the Director General a letter of reminder of the pending MOA that had then withheld processes of the NJWG.  Equally SANTACO advised government that media statements made about the NJWG progress and developments in the City of Johannesburg by these tiers of government were not only misleading, but being contrary to decisions of the NJWG, also provocative to the taxi industry that had already lobbied and ensured its representation in the NJWG.

Concerns by SANTACO following the launch of the NJWG

• Despite the announcement by the President Jacob Zuma for government to “Put on hold” all processes about BRT subject to a coordinated negotiation process, between government and the taxi industry, government pressed ahead with BRT work.

• SANTACO’s consistently expressed concern on government’s habits to renege on agreements is the very impediment to an open, transparent and speedy conclusion of the NJWG negotiation processes.  Hence the Memorandum of Agreement as a precondition.  Their inability to have signed the Memorandum of Agreement to date is testimony to SANTACO of this unethical conduct of negotiations in bad faith by government.  The MOA was intended to govern principles of engagement, timelines, negotiation process between national and local spheres of government and the taxi industry particularly as it relates to BRT.  In the absence of signing the MOA, the climate of negotiation is imprecise providing opportunism to the City speaking to the illegitimate people against the will of those who must ultimately surrender their permits and operating licenses to the BRT.

• In terms of the inaugural meeting, the NJWG was meant to streamline the negotiation processes of BRT informed by a national framework as had been initially proposed by SANTACO even during the then Minister of Transport, Honourable Jeff Radebe.  To SANTACO, this would enable uniformity in approach and most importantly empower the affected Associations at local level to engage from a source of guiding document that would also protect them from exploitation they presently suffer (a national framework they can always revert to for intervention).

• But most importantly, the NJWG requires as the Minister announced during its inaugural meeting, “people with authority to take decisions on behalf of their constituency” true representation.  The City of Johannesburg continues to engage and recognize as its Steering Committee people who affected Associations have consistently called for their withdrawal in favour of those who have been given written mandate to speak on behalf of such affected operators.  This as another impediment to the negotiation process that continues despite request for the National Department of Transport to intervene and advise the City to oblige with the views of operators directly affected by the system.  Why choose to continue with people who’ve earned themselves definition of traitors over the choice and decision of the general masses only strengthens the suspicions of selfish opportunism.

• That the Minister of Transport assures SANTACO that the NJWG is the only body principally charged to guide processes of among others, the BRT on one hand but authorizes the City of Johannesburg to press ahead with implementation of the BRT on the other, reduces the NJWG to a deceptive and meaningless entity which delays constructive engagement while BRT implementation moves at high speed. The Minister is not playing open cards with the taxi leadership, a recipe that certainly strains relations within the taxi industry structure.

• Government has not been able to produce a funding model of the BRT project that outlines its sustainability and its ability to consume the current operators who should surrender their business into its fold.  The guarantees made by government like among others; “No loss of legitimate income” is reminiscent to the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme (TRP) where the same promises were made and the contrary is the reality.  Taxi operators have been pushed out of business as result of scrapping allowances that could not be processed, operating licenses that could not be issued, and the subsidy regime that would be concurrently be implemented with the TRP, empowerment of the taxi industry, to mention a few.

• Presentation of government on the business model of BRT in Johannesburg is frightening.  Government does not have the money to run the BRT project and is actually reliant on sourcing funding from the IDC/DBSA to kickstart.  But more so, the City is suffering serious pressure on August 30, 2009 as the date of compliance from its present lender, otherwise the loan lapses.  The same lender has been charged with the responsibility to setting up this already indebted business venture of BRT.  The BRT project is indebted to billions that will be carried over to parties to the venture excusing government of any repayment responsibilities.

• This being the case, procurement processes have been conducted under the auspices of the new company (Special Purpose Vehicles or SPV) for a service period of six months and this includes fuel, security, depots.  The SPV has already signed contracts on fuel, management, etc.  This then impacts the value chain negation which has been central to SANTACO concerns on why the taxi industry finds it difficult if not impossible to participate in the BRT project.  The question of ownership is, in the present BRT model hugely absent and is only addressed through the taxi industry negotiating on what is readily available. The fundamental concern is that the latter condition relegates the taxi business to a passive player regardless of it being a needed partner to make BRT work.

• These concluded processes therefore constrain the taxi industry to effectively participate in the in the negotiation processes.  The strike intends to realize the “Put on hold” processes as was initially announced by the State President. The nationwide strike is a necessity to express these challenges government has for some unknown reason applied to deliberately frustrate the processes agreed to at the inaugural meeting of July 30, 2009.

• This view should not be interpreted to perceive the taxi industry as opposed to change. This is just a war in business of protecting one’s interests.

 

Issued by SANTACO

For more information:

Call Philip Taaibosch at 0845588885 or Thabisho Molelekwa at 0833760509