National Road Traffic Amendment Bill: deliberations

This premium content has been made freely available

Transport

18 August 2021
Chairperson: Mr M Zwane (ANC); Mr L McDonald (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Portfolio Committee convened virtually to deliberate on clauses seven to fifteen of the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill.

On clause seven, the Committee discussed the inclusion of an explicit reference to the Criminal Procedure Act, which would help traffic officers to prevent impounded vehicles from being released back onto the road.

The Committee accepted clause eight, with the assumption that the references to the Shareholders Committee were reintroduced in Section 3O.

On clause nine, the Committee discussed the possibility of changing this clause to allow private companies to train traffic officers, and the fact that there appeared to be no means for a training centre to appeal the cancellation of its registration.

The Committee did not think clause 10 did enough to address the problem of illegal vehicle conversions. The current division of responsibilities between the Department of Transport and the National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications had allowed unscrupulous actors to put dangerous vehicles on the road, and the problem therefore needed to be addressed explicitly in legislation.

Regarding clause 11, Members discussed the legal status of mobile weighbridges and the division of responsibility for the registration of organisations involved in the provision of number plates, weighbridge facilities and microdots between the Ministry and provincial authorities.

The Committee accepted clause 12 without amendments.

For clause 13, the Committee continued to discuss the division of responsibilities between the Department of Transport and the National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications with particular reference to the inspectorate of motor vehicle manufacturers, builders and importers.

For clause 14, the Committee discussed the grading of driving license testing centres and the replacement of the word ‘municipality’ with the words ‘local authority.’

For clause 15, the Committee drew attention to a possible loophole that would allow a provincial department of education to establish a driving license testing centre. They also proposed stylistic and phrasing changes.

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting, welcoming the Members to the meeting. He accepted apologies from Mr P Mey (FF+) and Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF).

Deliberations on the National Road Traffic Amendment (NRTA) Bill

Clause 7, amending section 3I of the principal Act
Adv. Alma Nel, Committee Content Advisor, suggested that this clause should include an explicit reference to the Criminal Procedure Act. Vehicles impounded in terms of this Act could be retained for criminal proceedings. An explicit reference would help traffic officers to prevent vehicles impounded for the reasons listed in the clause from being released back onto the road.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) supported the change but asked for clarification of the relevance of whether the driver of a vehicle to be impounded had a valid license.

Adv. Nel explained that the clause provided for the vehicle of an unlicensed driver to be impounded. In the past, the car would usually just be locked and left at the side of the road but this was no longer considered appropriate.

Adv. Johannes Makgatho, Chief Director: Road Regulation, Department of Transport (DoT), added that the intention of the provisions was to augment the powers of traffic officers and avoid the need to leave a vehicle at the side of the road.

Mr Hunsinger was satisfied with the explanation and moved to support the suggested changes to the clause.

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) seconded.

Clause 8, amending section 3L of the principal Act
Adv. Nel explained that, although this clause removed references to the Shareholders Committee, these references were replaced in the proposed new section 3O.

Mr Hunsinger was concerned that the clause described circumstances in which a training centre would be prohibited from offering traffic officer training but did not describe the circumstances in which it would be allowed to offer such training.

The Committee accepted the clause on the assumption that the references to the Shareholders Committee were reintroduced in 3O.

Clause 9, inserting sections 3M, 3N and 3O into the principal Act
Mr Mangcu L (ANC) asked for confirmation that only local authorities and provincial departments would be authorised to provide traffic officer training.

Adv. Makgatho confirmed this. These new sections were intended to amplify section 3L.

Mr Mangcu replied that this was not in line with what was actually happening in the country and he did not see a reason that private colleges should be prohibited from training traffic officers. He suggested that an addition be made to this effect.

Ms Phumelele Ngema, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, observed that it seemed to be a policy question. There was no legal reason why private colleges could or could not train traffic officers.

Ms Raksha Haricharan, State Law Advisor, said that the Department was satisfied with the contents of 3M. It was important to consider whether the Department had the capacity to expand its scope.

Adv. Makgatho added explained that the intention of the clause was to address the proliferation of fly-by-night training institutions.

Mr Mangcu understood the Department’s concerns but said that genuine institutions should be given an opportunity to train officers.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Committee stood by its decision that training should not be restricted to local and provincial government institutions.

Mr Hunsinger was concerned that the prescribed requirements for registering and grading a training centre were referred to only vaguely in 3N and 3O. These references should be more specific, and provisions should be made for a training centre to make changes necessary to avoid closure.

Mr Mangcu asked whether there was any way for a training centre to appeal the cancellation of its registration by the Shareholders Committee in terms of 3O.

Adv Makgatho said that section 51 of the principal Act provided for appeals.

Mr Mangcu pointed out that this section provided for appeals to the Shareholders Committee, but in this case the decision would have been taken by the Shareholders Committee.

Mr Hunsinger added that the appropriate remedial action following a successful was not specified. An appeal process needed to be specified, in a new clause if necessary.

Ms Ngema said that the Committee would require the permission of the House to insert a new clause amending section 51.

Adv Makgatho drew attention to section 93A(e), which stated that any reference to the Shareholders Committee in section 51A would be regarded as a reference to the Minister.

Mr Mangcu observed that this implied that there was effectively no means of appeal. This was not fair on aggrieved parties, who would be forced to approach the courts, which was not ideal. He requested that the legal advisors look into this matter.

Clause 10, amending section 5 of the principal Act
Adv. Nel observed that this clause added ‘body builders’ and removed ‘manufacturers of license plates’ from the list of types of organisations whose registration was governed by section five. The registration of manufacturers of license plates would be provided for in a new subsection.

Mr Mangcu asked the Department to clarify how these changes would help address the problem of illegal vehicle conversions investigated by the Public Protector.

Adv Makgatho explained that section five referred to the ‘prescribed manner’ in which vehicle manufacturers, builders, body builders and importers obtained and retained registration. The actual prescriptions would be specified in regulations. He added that there was a service level agreement (SLA) in place between the Department and the NRCS (National Regulatory for Compulsory Specifications), which specified functions related to the homologation of vehicles that the NRCS had to perform on behalf of the Department. Nevertheless, the Department would welcome suggestions from the Committee on how to tighten the provisions.

Mr Hunsinger thought that the references to the ‘prescribed manner’ in the clause did not adequately address the problem. The current issue was not that illegal conversions were taking place but that the mandate of the NRCS was often in conflict with traffic laws. The clause should stipulate that the mandate of the NRCS must be subject to traffic laws. For example, vehicles with lights that were not accommodated within current traffic laws were allowed to be imported. Similarly, converted vehicles that were illegal according to traffic laws were allowed onto the road. Current traffic laws should determine what vehicles were on the road.

Ms Ngema said that she would study the relevant laws to see whether Mr Hunsinger’s concern was addressed anywhere, and consider his proposal.

Mr Mangcu denied that there was an SLA in place between the DoT and NRCS. When the subcommittee investigating illegal conversions had met with the NRCS, it had emerged that the NRCS did not know what its responsibilities were in this area. The current arrangement according to which the registration was managed had allowed unscrupulous actors to put dangerous vehicles on the road. The problem therefore needed to be addressed explicitly in the act under consideration, as Mr Hunsinger suggested.

Adv. Makgatho replied that there was an SLA. The Minister of Transport was empowered to appoint any person to assist in the enforcement of the Regulation 44 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, which governed the inspection of vehicle manufacturers, importers and builders (MIBs). In this case the NRCS was appointed as the inspector.

The Chairperson warned that the Department should not become defensive towards what the Portfolio Committees wanted to be incorporated into the Bill.

Adv. Makgatho clarified that the Department would welcome the Portfolio Committee’s input in strengthening the Bill.

Mr Hunsinger pointed out that ensuring that any functions performed by the NRCS were subject to traffic laws would give the Department greater initiative in enforcing them.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) said that whether or not an SLA was in place was not the issue. The current arrangement was evidently not working and therefore the need to strengthen legislation remained.

Mr McDonald agreed. The working relationship between the DoT and NRCS was clearly a problem and something needed to change. Entities were shrugging off responsibility, while people continued dying on the roads.

Clause 11, inserting section 5A-L into the principal Act
Adv. Nel observed that these sections governed the registration of organisations involved in the provision of number plates, weighbridge facilities and microdots.

Mr Hunsinger supported all the changes. He drew attention to the recent introduction of mobile weighbridges and devices fixed onto a truck that could determine the weight of its payload. He also suggested that the Committee should consider incorporating these into the clause.

Mr Mangcu said that he understood mobile weighbridges were treated as screening mechanisms, rather than weighbridges in the proper sense. If they were considered to be weighbridges from the point of view of the law then he supported Mr Hunsinger’s proposal. He also welcomed the idea of linking electronic weighing devices as a way of saving time. He observed that some registration functions were the responsibility of provinces. Did this imply that not all road traffic related functions were the responsibility of the Shareholders’ Committee?

Adv. Makgatho explained that the Shareholders’ Committee comprised of the Minister as the Chairperson and nine MECs of Transport. Appeals from aggrieved parties would be dealt with by the Department. He confirmed that mobile weighbridges were treated as screening mechanisms.

Mr John Motsatsing, Director, DoT, confirmed that certain functions were performed by provincial MECs and others by the Minister. In the long run, many of these functions would be performed by the Shareholders Committee.

Mr L McDonald was elected acting Chairperson.

Clause 12, amending section 6 of the principal Act
Adv. Nel explained that this clause expanded the list of organisations that may make appeals related to registration to the Shareholders’ Committee.

The Committee accepted this clause.

Clause 13, amending section 7 of the principal Act
Adv. Nel explained that this clause expanded the range of institutions under the inspectorate of motor vehicle manufacturers, builders and importers to include body builders, number plates, microdots and weighbridge facilities.

Mr Hunsinger observed that the NRCS had a similar inspection function, and a balance needed to be found with the inspection functions of the DoT. Whatever the arrangement was, the Department should be responsible for safety and the introduction of vehicles onto the road. He asked how the inspection of number plates, microdots and weighbridge facilities was currently handled.

Adv. Makgatho explained that the Minister was empowered to appoint the inspectorate; in this case, the Minister had appointed the NRCS. There was also a compliance unit within the DoT that performed inspections at driving license testing centres, registering authorities and vehicle testing stations.

Mr Hunsinger asked if this meant that the Minister had appointed departmental inspectors to do the work of the NRCS.

Mr Motsatsing added that, as an entity under the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), the NRCS had to be authorised by the Minister of Transport to perform functions in terms of the NRTA.

Mr Hunsinger observed that it was not necessary for the departmental compliance unit to be part of a function executed by the NRCS.

Adv. Makgatho explained that the when it acted as the inspectorate, the NRCS reported to the departmental compliance unit.

Mr Mangcu asked for clarification of whether there was an inspectorate in the DoT other than the inspectorate of driving license testing centres.

Adv. Makgatho replied that there was not.

Mr Mangcu said that it was then unclear what the role of the inspectorate appointed by the Minister was. At the same time, there were functions that resided with the NRCS according to legislation. This was the root of the confusion. The legislative branch of government should take responsibility for clearing it up and giving the DoT more power.

Mr Hunsinger supported this suggestion. The role of the NRCS should be related to its position within the DTIC, and road safety issues should be the responsibility of the DoT. The appointment of inspectors by the Minister of Transport was therefore appropriate, but these inspectors should not be inhibited by the overlapping mandate of the NRCS.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF) asked for clarity on who could be appointed as an inspector. The Department said that any person could be appointed. Were there not any required qualifications?

Adv. Makgatho explained that it could be a natural or juristic person. There were specific qualifications, and he undertook to confirm these.

Mr Mangcu supported the inclusion of a separate reference to manufacturers of blank number plates in the heading of section seven, to clarify the distinction with embossers of number plates.

Adv. Makgatho replied that the reason for referring generally to manufacturers of number plates was that the inspectorate would be inspecting blank as well as embossed number plates.

The Acting Chairperson explained that the distinction between a blank and an embossed number plate should be made.

Ms Ngema asked if the Committee was seeking to limit the power of the Minister of Transport to appoint inspectors.

Mr Mangcu explained that the Committee was not seeking any limitation of the Minister’s power. It was simply frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the current inspectorate, as revealed in the course of the subcommittee’s investigation into illegally converted vehicles.

Mr Hunsinger added that the problem did not only involve illegal conversions. The NRCS was currently signing off on new vehicles with headlights that contradicted existing traffic laws.

Adv. Nel suggested that it would help if the DoT could spell out which entities actually performed the inspections of the various types of organisations governed by section seven. Where the NRCS was performing the inspection, perhaps an amendment could be inserted to the effect that it should apply road safety legislation and regulations.

Clause 14, amending section 8 of the principal Act
Adv. Nel explained that this clause amended the wording of section eight to reflect the fact that only provincial governments and municipalities would be authorised to run driving license testing centres. She drew attention to a public submission that had suggested replacing the word ‘municipality’ with the words ‘local authority’ in the clause for consistency.

Mr Hunsinger noted that the clause also dealt with the grading of testing centres as well as registration. Was it intended as a mechanism for maintaining standards?

Adv. Makgatho directed the Committee’s attention to Regulation 95, which specified the different grades of testing centres – which were distinguished by the different types of licenses that they were authorised to issue.

Mr Mangcu asked if there was any substantive difference between a municipality and a local authority in this context.

Ms Ngema noted that ‘local authority’ was defined in the Act and referred to various types of municipalities. It was therefore important to be clear what the Bill was intending to convey.

The committee agreed to replace ‘municipality’ with ‘local authority.’

Clause 15, amending section 8A of the principal Act
Adv. Nel observed that the amendments in this clause would have to be brought into alignment with clause 14, and that section 8A(2) seemed to be a repetition of section eight.

Mr Hunsinger noted that the clause provided for the establishment of a driving license testing centre by a ‘provincial department responsible for transport,’ and wondered whether this would cover a provincial department of education responsible for scholar transport. It would be ridiculous if a department of education was authorised to establish a driving license testing centre.

Mr Mangcu said that the phrase ‘on the prescribed conditions’ in 15c(4) was unclear. He also suggested that this section be changed to allow mobile facilities to handle driving license renewal as well as learners license testing.

Adv Makgatho explained that the prescribed conditions would be specified in regulations.

Mr Mangcu replied that he was querying the language of the phrase. It did not seem correct.

Ms Haricharan confirmed that the word ‘prescribed’ was defined in the Act as ‘prescribe by regulation.’

Mr Mangcu still felt that the language in 15c(4) should be clarified. He suggested replacing the phrase in question with ‘as prescribed.’

Mr Hunsinger agreed with Mr Mangcu’s suggestion.

Adv. Makgatho said that the Department would have no objection to the removal of 8A(2) if the Committee regarded it as dispensable.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: