Issued by: SA Communication Service
PRESS RELEASE BY P J BOTBIJL - CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MMF
My attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in the Cape Argus of the 3rd of March. It is not a correct reflection of what transpired at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the MMF held on the 26th of last month, and this I wish to correct.
A resolution of which no prior notice had been given, was tabled, proposing inter alia that the chief executive officer of the MMF, Mr Swanepoel, be removed from office. Four reasons were advanced.
First, the fact that, without advising the Board beforehand, he sent the members of staff to Victoria Australia, to study the computer systems used there to administer a no-fault claims system.
Second, that he made certain utterances before the parliamentary portfolio committee of public accounts which were uncomplimentary of the attorneys's profession.
Third, that at a joint meeting of the board and the parliamentary portfolio committee on transport, he presented a revised draft white paper which did not embody the consensus which had been reached at a public hearing held in November last year. His draft, it was stated, substantially restated the proposals of the original draft white paper which was issued in May of last year.
Fourth, that although the board had resolved to appoint one of its members, Dr A van der Merwe, to chair a sub-committee of the board to enquire into the provision of medical services in terms of the draft white paper proposals, Mr Swanepoel, who was present at that meeting nevertheless appointed another medical doctor to report on the provisions of medical services, This, it was stated, he did without notifying or consulting Dr van der Merwe.
Far from tensions erupting, and the meeting being heated, as reported in the article, the resolution was objectively debated. It was pointed out to the meeting, by me, that as regards the first two reasons advanced, I had had discussions with Mr Swanepoel about these events, and had, as far as I was concerned, been satisfactorily resolved. I then proceeded to give details of the gist of our discussions. It was also pointed out that the purpose of the visit to Australia was not to study computer systems, but to study the administration of a road accident compensation system which has many similarities to the system proposed in the revised draft white paper.
As regards the third reason advanced, it was pointed out to the proposers of the resolution that Mr Swanepoel had in fact drafted a paper which was a synthesis of the issues agreed and discussed at the public hearing held at Centurion during November of last year. In addition, he had also attached an annexure which dealt with a fault as opposed to a no-fault system. It was further pointed out that at the joint meeting referred to, when this complaint was first raised, the Director-General of Transport and I approved of Mr Swanepoel's action. I argued then, and still do, that it is management's duty to place before its Board all possible options, before it makes a final decision. This he did.
Regarding the fourth reason advanced, it was pointed out to the movers of the resolution that the doctor appointed by the MMF to advise on the provision of medical services, had been appointed prior to Dr van der Merwe's having been requested to chair the board's sub-committee. Furthermore, that he would now be serving on that sub-committee.
It was not necessary to put the resolution to the vote. Consensus was reached that to call for Mr Swanepoel's dismissal was, in the circumstances, certainly not justified. It was however felt5 that on certain aspects there could be better communication between management and the board. To this end the Director-General and I were requested to discuss the matter with management. This we did, and I am extremely satisfied with the constructive outcome of these discussions.
Another positive development that emanated from our discussions is that the Board will suggest to the Minister that he appoints an advisor to assist him in piloting the final white paper through all its stages.
In conclusion, it is incorrect to state that "the board, which has no legal power to fire the chief executive, will have to rely on a decision by Mr Maharaj". The Minister will not be called upon to make any decision. It is also totally misleading to have as headline and sub-heading to the article. "Maharaj asked to kick out chief of accident fund", and "Out of control, says board". It is also not true that the resolution was "said to be supported by most board members". The contrary is true.
ENQUIRIES: MR P J BOTDIJL TEL: (012) 46 7443 FAX: (012) 46 7443