The revolutionary recommendations in the report by the Satchwell commission into the Road Accident Fund throw open the debate over an overhaul of this fuel levy cash cow — but how soon it will be implemented is the question.
The report recommends that a new parastatal, known as the Road Accidents Benefit Scheme, be created to administer the fund.
The report is a beacon of hope for the cash-strapped fund, with experts hailing it as a comprehensive and sensible approach that ought to be favourably received by the government.
Judge Kathleen Satchwell’s 2 000-page report was finally tabled in Parliament on Tuesday after three and half years of intensive investigation into the corruption, fraud and mismanagement that has been taking place in the fund.
The commission has proposed radical changes aimed at protecting accident victims. The new system would provide compensation to a broader spectrum of victims but with lower and capped pay outs.
The report eliminates the need for a wide range of professionals by proposing a ”no-fault” approach, which means that victims no longer have to prove who was responsible, thereby eliminating the need for litigation. Under the new system all victims will be compensated, regardless of who is at fault.
One of the central changes is that victims will no longer be compensated by lump-sum payments but rather in renewable periodic payouts that cover health care, loss of income, life enhancement benefits and funeral needs as they arise.
The commission mentions correspondence from motor vehicle attorneys expressing concern about possible findings.
”There is a suggestion, which has been repeated by many legal practitioners, that radical amendments to the current system will lead to the financial prejudice of the legal profession. As Judge Meyer Joffe has said, the system of road accident compensation exists for the benefit of road accident victims alone and the impact on the legal profession is irrelevant.”
This has sparked debate in legal circles, with early responses from a few lawyers calling the report ”idealistic” and a ”pie in the sky”, socialist approach that looks good on paper but cannot possibly work.
One lawyer says that these recommendations will not benefit the public and that a system of periodic claims will result in an administration nightmare.
The Black Lawyers’ Association (BLA) has slammed the report, saying the recommendations are not in the interests of the public as they eliminate the role of lawyers, thereby leaving claimants to the mercy of the fund.
”We have not made a detailed study of the report, but so far it is not a good report. People are entitled to receive their compensation in a lump sum and not have to queue or wait for instalments,” says Edward Ngubane, president of the BLA.
He says the recommendations, if accepted, will not adversely affect only black lawyers but all lawyers who work with fund claimants.
”There will be powerful lobby groups opposing this report,” says David Unterhalter, head of the Mandela Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand. But he is confident that the government will not brush it aside because the fund is in dire need of restructuring.
Satchwell says appropriate, user-friendly accessible and affordable arrangements must be made to ensure that every claimant is provided with free professional assistance at all stages of prosecution of the claim.
Under the proposed new scheme victims would be equally compensated in line with their injuries and no longer according to their loss of earnings.