Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Amendment Bill [B38B-2015]: OUTA & Western Cape Provincial Department Input

Meeting report

The Chairperson proceeded to speak to the pieces of legislation that were to be dealt with by the Committee in the near future. There were three labour related bills to consider. He pointed out that in 2017 much discussion had taken place on National Minimum Wage legislation. He explained that National Minimum Wage legislation would necessitate changes to the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The National Minimum Wage Bill had to be implemented as an Act of government by 1 May 2018. The Department of Labour had already briefed the National Assembly on the National Minimum Wage Bill. After the National Assembly had dealt with the Bill it would be referred to the National Council of Provinces. The Committee would follow processes on the Bill and adopt it. However the Committee would not wait for the National Assembly to complete its processes on the Bill but would ask to be briefed whilst the National Assembly processes were ongoing. The National Assembly would first have to pass the Bill before the National Council of Provinces could. The Committee was at present dealing with the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Amendment Bill. Given the limited time that the Committee had to process the Bills he pointed out that perhaps the Committee would have to meet on Fridays. The Committee also needed to make time to consider the Annual Performance Plans (APPs) of departments that the Committee did oversight on.

Mr W Faber (DA) agreed that the Committee could meet on Fridays in order to complete its work. He was however concerned about the issue regarding President Jacob Zuma’s political future that was playing itself out in parliament. He felt that perhaps in the next 60 days South Africa might have an election. Where would this leave the Committee on completing its work?

Mr E Makue (ANC, Gauteng) stressed that the National Minimum Wage Bill had to be implemented by 1 May 2018.He had looked at the Draft Programme of the Committee from February to March 2018 and had not seen any public hearings scheduled for the provinces. If the National Minimum Wage Bill was a section 75 bill then there was no need to go to the provinces. He noted that the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces Ms Thandi Modise had emphasised the point that the National Council of Provinces should not allow a lack of planning in the National Assembly to create a crisis in the National Council of Provinces. The concern was that the Committee basically only had the months of February and March to complete its work as April 2018 was constituency period. Why did the APPs of departments have to be dealt with as they were set out in the Committee’s Programme?

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC, Mpumalanga) stated that the AARTO Bill was a section 76 bill. He asked whether there would be a public participation process on the AARTO Bill. Was there to be public participation on the labour bills since they were section 75 bills?

The Chairperson stated that the Draft Programme of the Committee had to be revised. He pointed out that the Department of Labour had briefed the National Assembly on the three labour bills. Once the National Assembly advertised the bills and public hearings commenced then the Committee would start its process.

Mr Makue pointed out that it was unlikely that would be new submissions on the National Minimum Wage Bill.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would not pass comment on the issue of President Jacob Zuma that Mr Faber had raised. The Committee would rather wait and see what parliament decided. The Committee would continue with business as usual.

Draft Committee Programme January 2018 – March 2018

The Chairperson placed the Draft Programme before the Committee for consideration.

The Draft Programme was adopted as amended.

The Department of Transport was represented in the meeting by amongst others Mr Sello Mokubyane Senior Legal Administration Officer and Advocate Khathutshelo Mafuraha Deputy Director.

Presentation by the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) on the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Amendment Bill

The delegation comprised of Mr Rudie Heyneke OUTA Portfolio Manager: Transport, Adv Stefanie Fick OUTA Head of Legal Affairs and Mr Rashaad Pandor OUTA Litigation Manager. Mr Heyneke kicked off the presentation by providing brief background on OUTA which was a non-profit civil action organisation. The purpose of the presentation was to inform the Committee that the OUTA supported the purpose of the AARTO legislation and to embrace road safety efforts. On road safety from 2012 to 2016 fatalities had increased from 1261 to 1500. Pilot projects on the AARTO had been implemented in Johannesburg and Tshwane but had not been successful. Statistics showed that there was an increase in the number of vehicles and an increase in the number of accidents. The pilots had shown that the AARTO had not reduced fatalities. Something more was needed. The OUTA suggested that visible policing was the solution. The 2017 State of the Nation Address (SONA) had stated that visible policing in SA would increase. The reality was that there was a shortage of traffic officers on the roads. 2014 Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) figures showed that there were 17 000 officers deployed but only 4250 were active at any given point in time. The Amendment Bill made provision for service of AARTO notices by personal means, registered post and electronic means. The concern was that South African Post Office figures for 2016/17 showed that only 73% of standard post was delivered. Electronic service via email was also a problem as not all people had internet access. Bribery and corruption in the traffic environment was a problem in SA. Traffic officers were either being offered bribes or were demanding bribes. On whether the Amendment Bill prioritised income generation or road safety, one of the questions asked was why the Amendment Bill allowed for 50% discount for infringers. OUTA felt that the Amendment Bill was more concerned with income generation than road safety. It would seem that administration fees were a higher priority than meting out punishment. The Annual Report of the RTIA had stated that of the 79 122 cases only 314 were guilty verdicts. The OUTA was also concerned about the administration of the AARTO system. The AARTO system relied on eNaTIS for the latest information on infringers.

Advocate Frick continued by speaking to some of the legal challenges attached to the Amendment Bill. She reiterated that the pilot projects in Johannesburg and Tshwane on the AARTO system had failed. Now the plan was for a national rollout of the AARTO Act and the Amendment Bill. The demerit points system was not even implemented in the pilots. The issue was whether the amendments being proposed were ones of convenience or of necessity. There were financial challenges as well. The RTIA could not follow the AARTO Act as it stands. Even the courts had said that the AARTO system was an elaborate scheme of steps. How was the public to benefit from the Amendment Bill? She felt that the amendments were those of convenience. The burden was being shifted from government to the public. The onus was on the public to follow the required steps. What was the need for the Amendment Bill? She felt that the AARTO Act could be made to work. The Act made provision for personal service and also allowed the Criminal Procedure Act to come into play. The amendments wished to take the infringer out of the criminal justice system. There was thus a change in processes from criminal to administrative if the amendments came into play. Why could the infringer not be given the choice to choose between criminal or administrative processes? The infringer should have the right to go to court if he/she wishes to do so. She asked how the Tribunal consisting of nine members was to cover 12m road users. What was the purpose of the Tribunal? Provision was made for the decision of the Tribunal to be appealed to the High Court but this was a costly process and stringent rules came into play. The RTIA could simply be given additional funds to make the AARTO Act work. She too was sceptical about service by electronic means. She considered personal service to be the best option. Another major concern was that the Amendment Bill created legal uncertainty around service. If the Amendment Bill was read in its current form it required all three forms of service to be complied with ie personal, registered post and electronic. One could not choose one form of service you had to do all three. On accounting and good governance the RTIA benefitted revenue wise where fines were collected. It ought to be that justice must be seen to be done. Did the ordinary person understand that his/her rights were limited by the Amendment Bill? She pointed out that the President and the Minister of Transport made appointments. To whom were they accountable? The amendments said that you were guilty until you had proven your innocence. In court you were innocent until proven guilty. She added that some of the provisions of the Amendment Bill were irrational. For instance even pilots could lose their licences. It was noble for the Amendment Bill to with to provide for rehabilitation. The only problem was that the RTIA could not even afford to send out infringement notices where the funds for rehabilitation were to come from.

Discussion

Mr L Magwebu (DA, Eastern Cape) pointed out that he appreciated the input by OUTA but did not see it offering any solutions to the issues that it had pointed out. OUTA had stated instead of the Amendment Bill that the AARTO Act could rather be strengthened. He asked what was wrong with maintaining the status quo. What was the need for the Amendment Bill? The situation at present was that traffic infringers went to local courts and made representations to prosecutors. The courts were already dealing with traffic infringers. What was the need for the Tribunal? If the traffic infringer felt that he wished to go to court he should be allowed to do so. Why was the traffic infringer being compelled to use the Tribunal? The system as it were was working. If prosecutors at courts lacked capacity why did the Department of Justice not appoint more prosecutors? The courts were already dealing with administrative issues. It was only capacity that needed to be beefed up. He asked whether there was sufficient budget and competent people for the Tribunal. OUTA was asked how it felt about the issue.

Mr B Nthebe (ANC, North West) pointed out that the OUTA presentation seemed to come back to the issue of visible policing being a solution to make roads safer. How would the public sector wage bill be impacted with the increase in officers? OUTA was of the view that the pilot projects that had been done in Johannesburg and Tshwane had failed dismally. He asked whether the failure was due perhaps to a lack of visible policing. OUTA also interpreted the Amendment Bill to require that service be done in person, by registered mail and by electronic means. If indeed OUTA was correct then it was a huge administrative burden. He asked what aspect of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) was taken away from section 33. The justification for the Amendment Bill was that there was a huge administrative burden on the criminal justice system. Apparently the courts were unable to cope. If capacity was lacking could regional offices not be roped in. What was so unconstitutional about section 33 and section 34? The world was moving towards artificial intelligence. Electronic service would be the way of the future. He asked how gaps could be closed. The AARTO Act was about rehabilitative justice and not about revenue collection. OUTA needed to make suggestions to the Committee. If the Amendment Bill could not be improved then what other options were there.

Mr Faber asked what amendments to the current Amendment Bill OUTA suggested would improve road safety in SA. He felt that the Amendment Bill should be introduced as a new bill. He added that three quarters of the Amendment Bill was a new bill and was not merely adjustments. He pointed out that during the pilot projects the demerit system had not been implemented. Capacity was not present for the demerit system to work. Neither did the courts have the time to deal with demerits. SA simply did not have the infrastructure for tribunals to be effective. What would tribunals consist of? Where the experts on road safety issues sitting on the Tribunal would be sourced from? He felt that the more challenges seemed to be surfacing.

Mr Tsoletsane on the failure of the pilot projects in Johannesburg and Tshwane explained that the aim of the pilots were not to reduce fatalities. The pilots were introduced to see how the systems worked. Due to the outcomes of the pilots the Amendment Bill was drafted. The demerit system would work if people could get to court.

Mr J Londt (DA, Western Cape) asked whether projections on costing had been done on the implementation of the Amendment Bill. It was the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) that was after all tasked with implementation. The problem was that implementing agencies usually come back to parliament requesting additional funding. He asked whether funds would not be better spent if it was rather used to bolster the judicial system so that it managed road offences better. Funds could also be used to increase visible policing. The point was that funds could be used to better equip existing entities rather than setting up new ones. He asked why a pilot project could not be done to compare a rollout of the AARTO System fully with an increase in visible policing. Thereafter a comparison could be made on which had a greater impact on road safety.

Mr Makue agreed that the intention was to have an Act that was unchallengeable. The purpose of the Amendment Bill needed to be looked at. How many supporters did OUTA have? He asked what OUTA’s opinion was on the delivery of notices to infringers was. The OUTA had in its legal comments raised some critical issues. He asked that the Committee be provided with the PowerPoint presentation that had been made.

Mr Reynecke responded that the OUTA had about 50 000 supporters. These supporters assisted the OUTA financially as well as with implementing programmes. He apologised for not providing the PowerPoint presentation to the Committee but ensured that it would be forwarded as soon as possible. On service of notices on infringers he referred to section 19(4) of the Electronic Communications Act. He added that the authority would rely on the South African Post Office (SAPO) when it came to service. He said that studies had shown that greater visible policing did make an impact on the roads. The OUTA however could not speak to where the funding for more traffic officers would come from. He added that the harsher the penalties the more careful the driver would be. Why were infringers being offered 50% discounts if they paid their fines within a prescribed time? Perpetrators who did wrong had to be punished.

Advocate Fick said that the AARTO Act made provision for when a person was served with an infringement notice. The person could opt to pay the fine, make a representation or to go to court. However the Amendment Bill was taking away the option of going to court. Why? At present the infringer had the option to pay the fine, make a representation or go to court. Why was the option to go to court taken away? The infringer was being placed on an administrative journey. The infringer should have the right to choose between an administrative system and the criminal justice system. She suggested building onto the current AARTO Act. She added why one could not use personal service at the time of the infringement. Give the infringer the notice on the spot. She felt that a tribunal in isolation was not a problem. Why could funds rather not be used to prop up the existing system? The AARTO Act could be improved upon. Why implement new and more things? She felt that the Amendment Bill would not improve road safety. She believed that if the public believed that the AARTO Act worked for them then there would be less civil disobedience. She proposed that the image of road safety be worked on and also that communication on what the AARTO Act could do take place. As the AARTO Act stood it spoke about how a legal document should be served.

The Chairperson asked whether there were tribunals out there where persons no longer had the option of going to court.

RTIA response to the OUTA input

Mr Tsoletsane in response to the OUTA submission said that the RTIA had received it and had attempted to respond to the issues raised. He conceded that there were weaknesses in road traffic management. There were various issues to deal with. There was the need for more officers on the roads and also the problem of bribery. The RTIA was hugely concerned about bribery. From October 2017 to January 2018 a total of 178 officers had been arrested for bribery. He pointed out that the AARTO Act did not spell out three electives but that there were five. Firstly the infringer could choose to pay the fine in full. Secondly the fine could be paid in instalments. Thirdly the infringer could nominate a driver. Fourthly the infringer could choose to make a representation and fifthly the infringer had the option of going to court. There was good reason why the option of going to court had been taken away. The courts lacked the capacity to deal with the issue. Cases became stagnant because of huge backlogs. After two years the Director of Public Prosecutions scrapped the cases. As a result infringers chose the court option because they knew that in the end the cases would be thrown out. Service by registered mail was expensive and there was no guarantee that the person would receive the notice. Hence alternatives like electronic service were considered. Service could be improved if done by electronic means. He pointed out that 80% of infringements were by company vehicles. Companies hired people to go to court for them. He explained that whatever processes were started under AARTO legislation it would be because someone had contravened the law. He agreed with the OUTA that the use of “must” required service to be done by all three means ie in person, registered mail and electronically. Legal drafters would have to look at a reformulation. He added that renewal licences could also be sent via email. On the OUTA’s comment that the Amendment Bill focussed on revenue generation he responded that the mandate of the RTIA was to ensure the collection of outstanding penalties. The RTIA was for the most part self funding. The RTIA in the next financial year was expected to receive R8m from government. When infringers paid their fines the RTIA received 50% of the money collected. The RTIA followed up on people who contravened the law. On offering discounts to infringers he conceded that it might look as though the RTIA was encouraging people. Perhaps the 50% discount could be done away with. He said that it was however easier just to double the fine than to scrap the 50% discount. At present the highest fine was R1500. The demerit point system had not been implemented. On whether the Amendment Bill was being introduced as a convenience he emphatically stated the answer to be no. The RTIA had engaged with issuing authorities. On the OUTA’s assertion that the law was ambiguous and that it impacted upon pilots of aircraft he said that the definition of an infringer said nothing about pilots. He was not sure where the issue of pilots were engaged. He conceded the eNaTIS system had problems but that the intention was to improve administration. The public was not updating their addresses on eNaTIS and hence were not receiving notices. The pilot projects in Johannesburg and Tshwane had shown what impediments there were and efforts were being made to deal with it. More officers could be put on the road but without enforcement nothing would be achieved. The RTIA on the use of personal service alone did not believe that personal service would get the desired result. Personal service had been tried and it was found to be a costly exercise. The RTIA felt that electronic and registered post should be options of service as well. Sections 21 and 22 of the AARTO Act were being repealed. The sections provided for sheriffs to serve warrants of execution. There was no need for sheriffs as infringement notices should not be served by sheriffs of the court.

The Chairperson asked when persons made representations were personal circumstances taken into consideration.

Mr Tsoletsane responded that everyone needed to be treated equally before the law. The RTIA could therefore not look at personal circumstances. Matters would be dealt with by independent, qualified people. Things to take into consideration could be sickness, where the officer made a mistake or that there was a road issue. He noted that the RTIA Board reported to the Minister of Transport. The Director General of the Department of Transport was supposed to establish organisations. The provisions had to be changed as they were reflected in the Amendment Bill due to a change in circumstances. On rehabilitation he explained that if demerit points were implemented there would be persons that were suspended so there needed to be a programme of rehabilitation.

The Chairperson asked the State Law Advisers Office to comment on inputs made.

State Law Adviser Mr Kweta Mongomeli proceeded to read out section 34 of the constitution to the Committee. It spoke about the establishment of tribunals. Hence the establishment of a tribunal by the RTIA was constitutional. On the OUTA’s input regarding the presumption of innocence he said that section 35 of the constitution did not apply to the Amendment Bill. The Amendment Bill did not envisage criminal processes, it dealt with administrative processes. The OUTA also pointed out that the person’s right to go to court was being taken away. The person’s right to go to court was entrenched in section 34 of the constitution. The person was required to exhaust all internal processes first. The Amendment Bill did give the person the right to approach the High Court so the constitutional rights of persons were upheld. On the issue of the use of ‘must” in section 30 of the AARTO Act he agreed with the OUTA and the RTIA that the provision should perhaps be amended. It was something that the Committee could consider in order to prevent unintended consequences. He also stated that the AARTO Act provided that a representing officer “may” inform an infringer to go to court. The Committee should also consider changing the “may” to “must” to make it obligatory for the representing officer to inform the infringer.

Presentation by the Western Cape Provincial Government on the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Amendment Bill

The delegation comprsed of Mr Pat Curran Western Cape Department of Transport and Mr Kyle Reinecke Deputy Director General: Transport Management, Western Cape Department of Transport. Mr Curran undertook the presentation and said he would focus on major issues.

Clause 3: Amendment of section 11 of Act 46 of 1998

The deletion in Clause 3 of section 11(2) of the AARTO Act was not supported as concurrence between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance should be retained to ensure that financial mismanagement did not take place.

Clause 13: Amendment of section 25 of Act 46 of 1998, as amended by Act 72 of 2002

In Clause 13(a) the Western Cape Department of Transport felt that the wording was confusing and needed to be reviewed. It does not clearly state at which point a person was disqualified from driving.

On Clause 13(c) and 13 (d) it was also felt that the wording should be reviewed.

Clause 15, proposed section 29A: Establishment and constitution of Tribunal

Section 29A(5) referred to “appointment or designation” of a member. Proposed subsection (4) stated that the President “appoints” the Chairperson, other members and persons to fill vacancies. The Western Cape Department of Transport felt that the reference to “designation” as a member should be deleted. In addition proposed section 29A(5)(b)(ii) referred to “interests referred to in subsection (6)(b)” which the Western Cape Department of Transport felt was an error and that reference should be made to (6)(a) which pertains to financial and business interests. Subsection (6)(b) referred to insolvency.

Clause 15, proposed section 29B: Functions of Tribunal

Section 29B referred to the Tribunal as an “Appeals Tribunal”. It was felt that the functions of the Tribunal extended beyond hearing appeals and that its name must reflect its functions. Clause 15, proposed

Clause 15, proposed section 29E: Vacancies of Tribunal & proposed section 29F: Deputy Chairperson of Tribunal

The Western Cape Department of Transport felt that clarity was required on the filling of vacancies on the Tribunal.

Clause 15, proposed section 29I: Appeal against decision of Tribunal

The provision stated that an infringer may appeal a decision by the Tribunal to the High Court. Previously section 22(1) of the AARTO Act had given the infinger the right to hear his matter in court. The Amendment Bill was repealing section 22 and so the infringer no longer had the option. The Western Cape Department of Transport submitted that going to High Court was expensive and also impractical. Mr Curran stated that all spheres of government supported the decision to move infringements to the administrative sphere away from the courts. However it was felt that the Appeals Tribunal would not have the desired effect. The High Court issue was a major concern. In general on Clause 15 the Western Cape Department of Transport felt that the introduction of an Appeals Tribunal was unworkable. How could a single Appeals Tribunal deal with all those who were dissatisfied with the outcomes of representations made to representation officers. The City of Cape Town alone in 2016 issued 2m fines. If just a small portion of penalties issued around SA were taken on appeal to the Appeals Tribunal it would paralyse the system. The idea of an Appeals Tribunal should be reconsidered.

Discussion

Mr Nthebe asked Mr Mongomeli to look at page 6 of the Amendment Bill regarding the provisions around permits and asked him to get back to the Committee on it.

Mr Faber asked how the Department of Transport intended to fund the Amendment Bill. It was an administrative nightmare. Government did not have the funds to start new ventures. The budget was not sufficient to make the Amendment Bill work. Staff, systems etc were all needed. He felt that there was no way financially that things could work.

Mr Tsoletsane said that the Tribunal would be financed by the fiscus. If the RTIA was to fund the Tribunal then there would be a conflict of interest. The tribunal needed to be independent and would be appointed by the President.

Mr Londt once again asked what the projected cost would be.

Mr Magwebu pointed out that what was permissible in law was not necessarily the right thing to do. The RTIA had conceded that the pilots in Johannesburg and Tshwane had not worked. Why not strengthen what was already in place instead of starting something new. If eNaTIS was weak why not fix it. Even though provision was made for access to High Court it was still out of reach for the average person. High Court was expensive. How was the RTIA to be self funded when it already experienced challenges. He suggested that the AARTO Act be beefed up. The Amendment Bill was unnecessary. He agreed that it was bad drafting regarding the provision on service having to be done by all three means. On the input by the State Law Adviser’s Office that the Committee should consider changing the “may” to “must” making it obligatory upon the representing officer to inform the infringer that he had the right to go to court. He asked why was it placed in the hands of the Committee, the drafters should fix things.

Mr Tsoletsane said that the two pilot projects had identified nine areas to be looked at. Some of the areas were that legislation was weak, systems were weak, funding was a problem and that there was a lack of communication. The intention was to have a national rollout of the AARTO but only if the Amendment Bill was passed. He said that it was up to parliament to decide on whether the status quo should remain. Whether it was better to beef up the courts and to scrap the Amendment Bill? The RTIA was meeting with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on a quarterly basis. He added that eNaTIS was being fixed.

He conceded that High Court was expensive but that in all likelihood matters would not reach that point. 80% of representations were successful.

Mr Makue pointed out that the Western Cape Provincial Government in its submission often stated that there were provisions that required, “wording to be reviewed”. He said that it would assist if the Western Cape Provincial Government could provide such wording. The proposal by the Western Cape Provincial Government was also in Clause 29(A) to remove the word “designation”. The presentation had also spoken about the Cape Town City Metro having 2m fines and that only 10% would be processed. He stated that in Johannesburg there were special courts to deal with traffic offences. He asked the Department of Transport why the Tribunal only had nine members.

RTIA response to Western Cape Department of Transport input

Mr Tsoletsane on the removal of the word “designation” said that the RTIA would look at the possibility taking into consideration possible inputs by the State Law Advisers Office. He felt that on financing the Minister of Finance together with parliament would give the RTIA its share of funds. The accounting authority of the RTIA would ensure that the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) was adhered to. The Minister of Finance did not come in on accountability. He stressed the importance of reading the AARTO Act together with the National Road Traffic Act. The regulations attached to the AARTO Act stipulated that when an infringer was suspended then the person must submit his/her drivers licence. The RTIA was working on the matter. He pointed out that there were 7m registered penalties in two districts. A total of 150 000 representations were done by representation officers per annum. There could not be more than 25 representation officers nationally. He noted that people would try to test the system. He acknowledged the fact that resources needed to be beefed up. There were issues attached to eNaTIS as well. The operating budget for the RTIA was R100m. Income from the Department of Transport was R8m. The rest of the income was generated from 50% of proceeds of fines collected. He pointed out that Ms Moalusi was doing a review of the funding model of the RTIA.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mongomeli if he had anything to add.

Mr Mongomeli on the removal of the word “designation” said that it was a policy decision to be made.

Counter response by Western Cape Department of Transport

Mr Curran on the removal of the word “designation” explained that when the President appointed someone it was not a designation. The 2m fines was only for the City of Cape Town Metro the figure was much higher for the rest of the Western Cape. He explained that if there was to be an appeals tribunal then people should be given a voice. Actual physical hearings would have to take place. It took a great deal of time. Having a total of 25 persons for the Appeals Tribunal nationally was inadequate. He felt that the Amendment Bill in its current form would be counterproductive.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would deliberate on issues raised and take matters from there.

Mr Faber reiterated what the cost of implementing the Tribunal would be. How many people would be on the tribunal? He asked that the response be provided in writing to the Committee.

The Chairperson also asked that the RTIA share its financing model with the Committee. The RTIA was further asked to provide the Committee with written responses to issues that the OUTA and the Western Cape Provincial Government had raised. There were two other submissions received on the Amendment Bill which the RTIA had to respond to as well. The Committee would draft its own report on the submissions that had been received.

The meeting was adjourned.