The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Following today’s Transport Portfolio Committee meeting, set to discuss the transitional provisions of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Bill, I am calling on the Minister of Transport Ben Martins to urgently review the current funding and coverage model of the RAF.

Discussions today centred around proposals to amend legislation to bring it in line with a recent constitutional court ruling that victims of accidents who were previously prevented by the Act from claiming fully should be entitled to make legitimate claims.

The DA supports the Constitutional Court ruling, as an arbitrary date was previously being used to prevent certain victims from registering their claims in full. However, if implemented, this bill will cost the Fund an estimated R1.3 billion in claims which will put the fund under increased financial and administrative pressure as this amount will be added to the R42 billion assessed current debt.

Prior to 1 August 2008, the old RAF Act (Act No. 56 of 1996) provided that most categories of road accident victims could claim full compensation from the RAF. However, certain categories of claimants had their claims limited by section 18 of the old Act, passengers conveyed in taxis, for example, were limited to claiming a maximum of R25 000 from the Fund, where the driver’s negligence was solely responsible for the accident in question. These transitional provisions will remedy this situation.

However, while today’s amendments are certainly necessary, the Department of Transport has missed an ideal opportunity to review alternative funding models and coverage mechanisms for victims of serious accidents on our roads. The current model is problematic for a whole host of reasons. Unlike other public entities, the RAF, by its own admission, operates in an environment where:
Funding, or contributions via the fuel levy are not associated with claim frequencies and costs;
the beneficiary base is not constituted by past, present or future contributors to the RAF Fuel Levy;
the benefit available to beneficiaries or claimants is not defined and in some instances is not limited to a maximum value; and
social security is not limited to protecting income, support or funding healthcare needs, but extends to all three of the key elements of social security.
As such, much more should have been included in today’s amendments to address among other problems:
The rising assessed debt of the fund (Currently R42 Billion);
the extensive legal representation and court action many claiments feel that they require in order to get their claims paid;
the overly subjective evaluating of claims;
the relationship between the fuel levy and the mountain of outstanding claims (255 000 claims await payment); and
the ease with which corruption has been found to occur in the current system.
I will today be writing to the Minsiter to ask what he will be doing to address the problems relating to the Road Accident Fund.