Hon Deputy Speaker, the Road Accident Fund makes social insurance cover compulsory for all users of South African roads. The amendment makes compensation from the fund more equitable and fairer to road users.
The fund, which was governed by the Road Accident Fund Act, Act 56 of 1996, provided road accident victims with rights to full compensation from the fund. This Act was amended by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, Act 19 of 2005, which was brought into effect on 1 August 2008.
Essentially, this amendment, specifically section 18 of the Act, limited the damages recoverable from the fund by certain categories of passengers to the amount of R25 000 per claim. The category of passengers excluded from making claims beyond R25 000 included passengers in taxis where the accident was found to be solely as a result of the driver's negligence, and claims made for motorcycle accidents. Such a cap on claims meant that some victims of road accidents benefited more than others.
In February 2011 the Constitutional Court, in the case of Mvumvu and Others v the Minister of Transport and Another, (CC 67/10) [2011] ZACC 1, concluded that section 18 of the principal Act was unconstitutional and invalid to the extent of being discriminatory. This related to the matter of compensation. The Minister of Transport supported this finding on the Road Accident Fund, and Parliament was identified as the body best suited to determine the extent of compensation. The currently proposed Bill intends to eliminate discrimination against third parties by providing transitional measures for claims that were limited under the Road Accident Fund Act of 1996, before 1 August 2008. More specifically, clause 2(1) affords road accident victims the choice of electing to be subject to the old Act or the new Act if their cause of action arose prior to the Amendment Act coming into effect. Under the same clause, in paragraphs (c) and (d), the Act clearly states that claimants cannot claim double compensation from the fund. Paragraph (g) of the same clause asserts that claimants who resort to the fund are no longer entitled to sue the owner, the driver or the employer of the driver of the motor vehicle that caused the damages.
The process of the amendments to the Act unfolded as follows: The department introduced a draft Bill to Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Transport. The Bill was classified as a section 75 Bill. In July public hearings were held, individually and publicly, with different stakeholders. Consultations with different parties were held and all parties participated well in the process.
Subsequently, all political parties agreed to the Bill. Public comments were incorporated into the draft Bill, which was finalised and published in the Government Gazette of 15 August 2011.
The portfolio committee asks the House to approve the Bill, as it is not controversial. Thank you. [Applause.] There was no debate.
Bill read a second time.