Civil Aviation Amendment Bill: finalisation

Meeting report

Consideration and adoption of the Civil Aviation Amendment (CAA) Bill
The Chairperson invited Members of the Committee to make comments. Where there any outstanding issues on the Bill?

Mr T Brauteseth (DA, Kwazulu-Natal) observed that according to the Committee’s minutes, Adv Frank Jenkins, senior parliamentary legal advisor, would comment on three issues, but these comments were not reflected in the annexure to the Bill.

Mr Hlupheka Mtileni, Committee Secretary, confirmed that Adv Jenkins’ response had been circulated among Committee Members.

Adv Jenkins said that he had been asked to look at the search and seizure provisions in the Bill and their relationship to privacy rights. These provisions in the Bill applied only in the context of aviation incidents and accidents. Privacy rights applied more or less strongly depending on the context, he explained, and in this context privacy rights were relatively limited. These provisions were therefore in line with the Criminal Procedure Act and the Constitution.

Mr Brauteseth appreciated the clarity on this point but noted that Adv Jenkins was also going to comment on potential conflicts of interest in the appointment of the Director of Investigations of the Aviation Safety Board (ASB), and the consistency of the words “airport” and “aerodrome” in the Bill.

Adv Jenkins replied that in his view, the definition of “airport” was included in that of “aerodrome” and no changes to the text were required. He said that the Department of Transport (DoT) had addressed the conflict of interest issue. According to the Department, the situation was such that there might be a conflict of interest, but not necessarily. If there was such a conflict, it would be the responsibility of the Commissioner to appoint an independent investigator on ethical grounds. Since accident investigation reports would also be sent to Parliament, it would also be able to intervene if an investigation seemed to have been compromised by a conflict of interest.

Mr Brauteseth confirmed that he supported the Bill and would defer to the advice of Adv Jenkins, but was concerned that the Bill created a situation which depended on people behaving ethically, while ethics could not be legislated.

Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked if there were regulations associated with the Bill and if so, perhaps potential conflicts of interest could be addressed there.

Mr Levers Mabaso, Chairperson, Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in Africa (AFI Plan), clarified that the position in question was not the Director of Investigations but the Executive responsible for accident and incident investigations. This position was an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to whom no particular responsibilities were given, other than being the person to whom the investigators reported. The appointment of investigators was done in terms of an agreement between the Commissioner and the ASB, which must avoid conflict of interest (Clause 26(2)). He added that there were already existing civil aviation regulations which would be extended after the Bill was passed.

The Committee voted in favour of the Bill. No members dissented or abstained.
Report of the Select Committee on Transport, Public Service and Administration, Public Works and Infrastructure on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill [B 44B – 2018] (National Assembly – sec 75)
 Mr Brauteseth observed that the according to the report “The Committee agreed to the Bill without any proposed amendments.” He recalled that a few small changes had been made to the Bill and suggested that this sentence be rewritten as “The Committee agreed to the Bill with certain proposed amendments.”

Mr Rayi remembered that questions of clarity had been discussed but did not recall that any changes had been made to the text.

Mr Brauteseth drew attention to page 13 of the minutes of 17 November 2021, according to which the definition of “airport manager” would be replaced with a definition of “aerodrome manager,” page 14, according to which an amendment would be made regarding the expression “designated airport” which appeared in the principal Act, and page 22, according to which an amendment would be made in relation to the 1963 Tokyo Protocol.

The Chairperson suggested that the phrase “without any proposed amendments” be removed from the sentence in question.

The Committee voted in favour of the report. No Members dissented or abstained.

Committee minutes
The Committee considered and adopted minutes of meetings on 8 September, 10 November and 17 November 2021.

The meeting was adjourned.