Road Accident Fund (Transitional Provisions) Bill [B22-2012]: deliberations

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson apologised for starting the meeting late which was due to the need to ensure that there was a quorum. She outlined the agenda for the meeting- the Committee would consider the proposed amendments to the Road Accident Fund (Transitional Provisions) Bill and thereafter deliberate on Bill. The bill would subsequently be taken for printing in order to incorporate the amendments. The Bill would finally be approved by the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that there were only two days in which Parliament would be focusing on legislation which were 21 & 28 August 2012. It was imperative that the Bill should not miss either of those dates. She therefore requested that a meeting be scheduled for the next day in order to approve the bill as soon as it was back from printing. This would ensure that the Bill would not miss the 21 & 28 August deadline dates.

The Chairperson asked if there were any contrary views to her suggestions.

Mr I Ollis (DA) stated that he had no problem with the suggestion to schedule a meeting for the following day in order to approve the bill. However, he stated that the DA was having a meeting the following which he could not miss and as a result there could be difficulty in finding the right time for the Committee to meet. He therefore suggested that Thursday would be quite ideal for the Committee to meet.

The Chairperson replied that her view was that the Committee could utilise the lunch break during the next day for the quick approval of the Bill. She stated that the process would not take more than an hour.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) suggested that the meeting could be scheduled for the morning of the next day. This was because she had an examination for 1 pm and would not be able to make it in the afternoon if the meeting was scheduled for noon the next day.

The Chairperson asked for suggestions concerning what time the meeting could be held in the morning of the next day.

Mr Ollis stated that the morning would not be convenient for him. This was because there was a Joint sitting as well as the meeting of the DA which he had to attend. He stated that he would be free between 11.30 am and 1 pm.

Ms Dlakude suggested the meeting could take place between 8 & 9 am the next day. This was because the Joint sitting would start at 10 am and would end at 12 pm. She stated that the only other alternative was for the meeting to be scheduled for 12pm.

The Chairperson stated that scheduling the meeting for 12pm was more practical. She stated that the Committee could meet quickly after the Joint sitting adjourned its meeting at 12 pm the next day and deliberate on the Bill before lunch. The Committee would arrange a venue for the meeting. She asked if members were in agreement.

There was no objection from any member.

The Chairperson asked the Department of Transport (DOT) to take the Committee through the amendment made to the Bill.

Proposed Amendments to Road Accident Fund (Transitional Provisions) Bill
Adv Adam Masombuka, Acting Chief Director of legal services, Department of Transport (DOT), stated that the Department’s request was that the Committee should adopt the Bill as it was with one exception which was Clause 2(1) (f). He requested the Committee to accept the amendment to Clause 2(1) (f).Tthe amendment had also been discussed with the State Law adviser. The amended Clause was read out to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked Members to comment on the Bill

Mr L Suka (ANC) stated that he concurred on the amendment done by the DOT, especially since the amendment had taken into consideration the input that had been made by various stakeholders.

The Chairperson asked the State Law Adviser for his comments.

Adv Mongameli Kweta, State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, stated that the amendment reflected the proposals that had been put forward by the various stakeholders in the public hearings on the Bill.

The Chairperson asked if anyone from the DOT had any addition to make.

Adv Masombuka quipped that he was leading the delegation of the DOT and that anyone from the DOT who had any addition to what was in the Bill would have made it to him.

The Chairperson subsequently proceeded to deliberate on the Bill.

Clause-by Clause Deliberations
The Chairperson asked for comments on Clause 1 which contained the definitions of words as used in the Bill. She asked if members were in agreement with the contents of the definitions.

Members were in agreement.

The Chairperson proceeded and asked if Members were in agreement on Clause 2 (1) (a).

Members were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement on Clause 2 (1) (b).

Members were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement on Clause 2 (1) (c).

Members were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if members were in agreement on Clause 2 (1) (d).

Members were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement on Clause 2 (1) (e).

Mr Ollis observed that the form referred to in Clause 2 (1) (e) was yet to be drawn out and asked if this was the position.

Adv Masombuka replied that the forms were usually prescribed by regulations and that they would be in the regulations.

The Chairperson asked Mr Ollis if he was satisfied with the response.

Mr Ollis replied that he was satisfied with the reply.

The Chairperson proceeded to the Clause 2 (1) (f) and asked if Members were in agreement with the amendment made by the DOT.

Mr Ollis commented that a debate had recently come up in the media concerning the content of Clause 2 (1) (g). He took some time to confer with Mr G Krumbock (DA) in respect of the Clause.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Ollis was done with conferring with Mr Krumbock.

Mr Ollis stated that he would raise an objection when clause 2 (1) (g) was to be considered.

The Chairperson once again asked Members if there were in agreement with Clause 2 (1) (f) as amended by the DOT.

Members stated that there were in agreement with the amendment.

The Chairperson asked if members were in agreement with Clause 2 (1) (g).

Mr Ollis stated that the concern of the DA was with Clause 2 (1) (g). The effect of Clause 2 (1) (g) when read with Clause 2 (1) (b) was that a claimant would lose the right to sue the driver of the guilty vehicle and was at the same time limited to only a claim of R25 000. This meant that the right of the claimant had been taken away and it was this issue that had been debated in the media. He stated that he would like to hear the opinion of the State Law Adviser on the matter.

Mr Terrence Gow, Project Manager, Road Accident Fund, sought to reply to Mr Ollis’s question before the state law adviser would reply. He stated that the question of Mr Ollis was more or less a repetition of the issue raised by the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) and which had been dealt with at the last adjourned meeting by the counsel to the DOT.

Mr Gow further stated that the claim for non pecuniary loss was only limited to R25 000 if the claimant did not have a serious injury, however there was no cap on the amount that could be claimed if there was a serious injury. The constitutionality of this position had already been pronounced upon by the Constitutional Court in the case of Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister of Transport and Another. Therefore the right of the claimant was not in anyway infringed upon.

Mr Krumbock stated that the DA was not in disagreement with the fact that there was a cap of R25 000 on the amount that could be claimed for the non pecuniary loss. The DA was contending that the right of the claimant to sue the driver of the guilty vehicle had been taken away by Clause 2(1) (g). A claimant ought to be able to make a claim against a grossly negligent driver in order to recover further damages from such a driver considering the fact that there was a cap on the amount that could be recovered by the claimant under the RAF.

The Chairperson directed the State Law Adviser to reply to Mr Krumbock.

Adv Kweta stated that although the Bill dealt with people who had claims before 1 August 2008, it ought to be noted that the provision in the Bill which absolved the driver of the guilty vehicle was not new in legislation. Section 21 of the principal Act similarly absolved the owner or driver of the guilty vehicle from liability. Therefore Clause 2 (1) (g) was not a new provision in legislation and he did not see any legal problem arising from the clause. As a result there was no conflict between the provision of Clause 2 (1) (b) and Clause 2 (1) (g).

Mr Ollis sought clarity concerning what had been stated by Adv Kweta. He asked if the provisions of the current Act which limited the amount that could be claimed and which also absolved the driver or the owner of the guile vehicle from liability could be said to be the same with the provisions of Clause 2 (1) (g). If this was so, then the Constitutional Court would not reject the Bill if the matter came before it.

Adv Kweta confirmed that the provisions of the current Act was indeed similar to the provisions of Clause 2(1) (g) of the Bill.

Adv Masombuka stated that the RAF would like to elaborate on the clarity sought by Mr Ollis.

Mr Gow stated that he had probably not explained the position correctly when he had earlier spoken in reply to the question by the DA. The provisions of the Bill provided the avenue to claim more money than under the current Act. This was because the R25 000 limit which was provided under the Bill was not provided in the current Act. Under the current Act, if a claimant did not sustain any serious injuries, he would not get any general damages, but under the provisions of the Bill such a claimant would get damages up to R25 000. This was why it had been stated at the last adjourned meeting that the Bill was more generous than the current Act.

Mr Suka stated that he had a question similar to that raised by the DA but everything had been given clarity by the explanation offered by the DOT and RAF.

The Chairperson asked Mr Ollis if he was satisfied with the replies to his questions.

Mr Ollis replied that he was indeed satisfied with the response that had been given.

The Chairperson proceeded to continue the deliberations on the Bill.

The Chairperson asked if Members were now in agreement on Clause 2 (1) (g) in view of the question that had been raised by the DA and the responses that had been given to the question.

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement on Clause 2 (2) .

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement on Clause 3.

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson proceeded to deliberate on the memorandum on the Bill.

Mr Ollis interjected and stated that there was no need to consider each clause in the memorandum and that the clauses in the memorandum could be considered all at once.

The Chairperson agreed and asked if Members were in agreement with all the clauses in the memorandum.

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson if Members were in agreement with the clauses in the objects of the Bill.

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement with the consultation on the bill.

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement with the parliamentary procedure on the bill which was the last item to be deliberated upon concerning the Bill.

Members stated that they were in agreement.

The Chairperson stated that the deliberations on the Bill had been concluded.

She stated that the next step was for the Bill to be taken for printing in order to insert the amendments which had been made by the DOT.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would reconvene the next day immediately after the joint meeting in parliament in order to adopt the Bill.

The Chairperson suggested that a Member should move for the adoption of the amendment on the Bill which had been approved by the Committee.

Mr Suka moved for the adoption of the amendment on the Bill.

Ms Dlakude seconded the motion.

The Chairperson thanked everyone at the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.