Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Transport

Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Transport Responses to Public Oral Submissions on The AARTO Amendment Bill [ 38-2015] 13 September 2016 1

INDEX • Background • Objects of the Bill • Oral Submissions on the Bill • Common issues/Divergence

Background • The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act, 1998 (Act No. 46 of 1998) (the Act) seeks to promote road traffic quality by providing for a scheme that discourages road traffic contraventions and facilitate the efficient adjudication of road traffic infringements. • The Act has been in operation without the demerit points system, in the jurisdictional areas of Tshwane and Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipalities

Background (Cont.) s • The Bill seeks to amend the Act in order to achieve efficiency and financial sustainability of issuing authorities as well as the Road Traffic Infringement Agency, which the Bill amends to the Road Traffic Infringement Authority (Authority). • The amendments identified in the Bill will assist the agency as well as the issuing authorities to be financially stable in order to proceed with proper implementation of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (“AARTO”).

Objects of the Amendment Bill • To amend the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act 1998 (Act No.46 of 1998) • To provide for financing of the Authority by empowering the Authority through its Board to open a bank account • To do away with the issuing of warrants by the repeal of section 21 • To simplify manner of service of documents by the Introduction of electronic method of service • To provide for the Apportionment of Penalties • To provide for Transitional provision • To provide for general provisions and consequential amendments

Oral Submissions Input 1: Received from: Alta Swanepoel • Amendment to the definition of issuing authority to include any other authority prescribed by the Minister, • To amend the definition of infringement to be extended to allow infringements in terms on National Land Transport Act (NLTA),Cross-Border Road Transport Act, National Road Transport Legislations. • Inclusion of definition of Registered mail in the definition section • Amendment of the date of service to cater for postal service • Amendment to section 21 should not be repealed in its entirety. Propose retention of paragraph (1)(e) which provides for power to immobilize motor vehicle • Amendment to section 34 to allow for circumstances where an infringement notice, courtesy letter or enforcement order may be re-issued • Retention of section 35 as it is in the principal Act no need for further amendment

Oral Submissions continue • National Contraventions Register should be available at border posts and foreigners with outstanding traffic notices should be required to pay the notices before leaving SA. • Offenders who did manage to leave without paying should be required to pay on re-entry Response • We agree with the amendment of definition of authority to allow the Minister to prescribe additional issuing authorities if the need arises to do so. • We agree to extend the definition of infringement to allow infringements in terms of the NLTA,CBRTA & National Road Legislations. • We agree to inclusion of Registered mail in the definition section to create legal certainty in terms of what constitute registered mail • We agree to amend the date of service to cater for postal service

Oral Submissions Response • We disagree with retention of section 21(1)(e) which provides for power to immobilize motor vehicle. • We in principle agree with the Amendment to section 34 to allow for circumstances where an infringement notice, courtesy letter or enforcement order may be re-issued. • We disagree with the proposed Retention of section 35 as it is in the principal Act.

Oral Submissions Input : SA TAXI • Suspension of driving license will affect employees remuneration; • Penalties for similar infringements have to be consistently applicable to all infringers; • AARTO readiness; and • Suspension of Operator card;

Oral Submissions Response : SA TAXI • Implementation of demerit point will not affect cancellation of driving license if the driver complies with road traffic laws; • AARTO standardizes all road traffic related infringements; • There is a master implementation plans that tracks readiness on continuous basis and system interfaces; and • Demerits points are linked only to the infringing motor vehicles.

Oral Submissions continued Input : SALGA • Interfacing between the NCR and Local Contravention Management System • eNaTIS challenges and reconciliation of penalties – Audit query = • Cost of registered mail; • Representations; • Withholding of monies to all institutions; • Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for infringements; • Oppose amendment of section 21; • Less expensive methods of service; • Provision to establish and administer rehabilitation programmes • Renaming of RTIA.

Oral Submissions • Response • Interfacing between the NCR and Local Contravention Management System – Process is working efficiently; • eNaTIS challenges and reconciliation of penalties – Audit query = matter has been addressed by making payment to issuing authorities; • Cost of registered mail – Hence we introduced electronic system to save costs • Representation – RTIA has increased the capacity of representation officers to deal with representations nationally.

Oral Submissions • Response • We agree to the proposal for the withholding of monies from the RTIA • Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for infringements – That’s the current process. • Oppose amendment of section 21 – The warrants have a negative socio-economic impact. • Less expensive methods of service – Introduction of electronic service • We fully agree with the inclusion of the provision to establish and administer rehabilitation programmes

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Input : TASIMA • eNaTIS has 20 different integrated modules • All aspects of NCR tested & functional. • Not optimally operated by IA’s & RTIA. • NCR provides for all required functionality. • Exceptions may still be handled under CPA. • NCR has been ready for immediate national implementation. • Change management proposals made to RTIA in 2013. • Operational issues to be attended to. • Remove definition of NRTOR from Bill.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Response • eNaTIS was developed as a register of vehicles, drivers, etc & addition of NCR functionalities have caused numerous changes on eNaTIS costing Government millions of Rands unnecessarily. • RTIA assessment of NCR found 101 deficiencies & reported to Tasima in 2013. Only 5 issues have been attended to. • IA’s & RTIA stopped issuing notices due to the lapse of posting processes. • NCR has some issues that were presented to TASIMA, it is evident from slide 23- bullet 1.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Response • It is a misrepresentation that NCR is ready for national implementation (see bullets 2 & 4 above). • Proposals by TASIMA were not acceptable to RTIA requirements, e.g a proposal by TASIMA to change the system would also require legislation changes. • Operational issues are dealt with through the AARTO Master Implementation Plan on a continuous basis. • Government has prerogative to determine its business & operational requirements & tools

Oral Submissions - JPSA • Input : JPSA • Electronic service ignores laws of the service of legal documents. • Inadequate instrument as not all drivers possess the cellphones and other electronic addresses contemplated by the section nor are they (motorists) technologically competent. • Response • Point made inapplicable because AARTO is a pure administrative process which is unconnected to the court system. In any event the rules of the court (Rule 4A) have since 2012, been changed, pursuant to the promulgation of ECTA, to accommodate electronic service of court documents. • The motorists will be served notices electronically to the extent that they would have provided such address information to the Agency.

Oral Submissions – JPSA Continued……Received Input : JPSA • Presumption of service based on the secure mail is inadequate as the Agency has never been able to serve any courtesy letter using that method. Response • Point raised irrelevant as it does not relate to any clause which is proposed in the amendment. The Agency can confirm that it has been able to successfully effect service of documents, utilising registered mail.

Oral Submissions JPSA – Continued…….. Input 3: • Proposed amendment through the insertion of subsection (3) to Sect 32 does not do anything to enhance the efficiency of the system, because the Issuing Authority becomes entitled to the AARTO share of revenue as soon as it begins complying again. Response: • The measure will compel the IA’s to comply at all times because the retention of the revenues will terribly affect their cash flows.

Orals Submissions JPSA – Continued……. • Input 4: JPSA - Issues worth pondering on • Remedial driving programmes for demerited drivers.

Orals Submissions JPSA – Continued……. Input 4: JPSA - Constitutionality Issues Response: • The Bill was referred to the State Law Adviser for Pre Certification and Certification process. The reasons for such referral was to obtain, amongst others, the confirmation regarding the constitutionality of the Bill. • Pursuant to the tabling of the constitutionality issues during the oral submission, RTIA & DoT engaged with the State Law Advisers to obtain additional confirmation of the compliance of the legislation with the constitution.

Oral Submissions JPSA Input : JPSA • The rest of the inputs made by the Organisation are unrelated to the sections which are being amended but operational at most.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Input : CANCOM • Non receipt of notices due to Post Office. • How will SMS be deemed served. • No provision for infringements for international drivers. • Issuing authorities differ in requirements : Nominations. • Issuing authorities cannot manage volumes.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Input : CANCOM • Submission of election to be tried in court. • Issuing of enforcement orders is a tactic by RTIA. • Manner of Service to different infringers • (i) individuals –registered mail • (ii) companies with fleets-electronic notification via web services or ftp • (III)E-mail with delivery receipt; & • (iv)monthly electronic file to confirm receipt of all notices

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Input : CANCOM • Timelines on infringers • (i) individuals - allow payments of AARTO fines to be done more easily. • (ii) companies – increase time to identify offender; • - enable electronic nominations via web; • - audit trail to ensure notices are sent to correct person. • Have standard operating procedure.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Response • Bill seeks to address the service of document via other means. • SMS would not be used for service but to inform the infringer. • A dispensation for international drivers will be developed for ports of entry. • Standard Operating Procedures have already been developed and are implemented. • Capacity of capturing and electronic submissions have been developed.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Response • Election to be tried in court should be done in line with the law. • RTIA applies the law when the infringer has not responded to the infringement. • Registered mail to individual infringers proved expensive; • Companies already have access to web nominations; • E-mail transmissions can already be tracked & proved. • Standard Operating Procedure has been developed. • Proxies need to take responsibilities for vehicles in their name.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS • Response • RTIA has increased the payment points with more than 2000 platforms. • Time to nominate is 32 days as per the Act – we do not support providing additional time just for businesses • Web application for nominations available to fleet companies • Notices are sent to the addresses provided by the infringer or to the registered owner’s addresses. • Capacity of capturing and electronic submissions have been developed.

Written Submissions Input: Bonginkosi • Motorists not sufficiently sophisticated to interact with the electronic serving method. • Use of one language instead of the 11 approved languages likely to cause imperils to the infringers. Response: • The AARTO provides varied methods of serving in order to suit the different needs and circumstances of infringers. • The traffic fines have historically been communicated in English & Afrikaans. Suggestion for multiple language usage accepted

Written Submissions • Input : James Geach • No substantive input to the Amendment Bill i.e. SAPO not a reliable conduit of serving infringements

Written submission Input: SollyTayob • The concerns raised here are operational and not related to the Amendment issues, such as the following: • The inaccuracy of the database information.

Ends THANK YOU

Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Transport