|
My blog seems to be picking up a lot more traffic these days, and thanks to those like Robert Koch, who promote it extensively, although perhaps not with me in mind, I am also receiving contributions - ehich of course is much easier than riting the material myself.
Anyway, this is a constructive one received from Chris Greenland, the former CEO of the Road Accident Fund itself: Hi Michael,
I am adverting to your report of June – July 2006 which includes the following text -
'I see former RAF CEO here Chris Greenland has turned up at the Namibian Fund. He seems to want to help change that system too. One wonders if the lets change it approach, no matter what country we are in, is the right one. Each country can hardly be the same, but anyway, that seems to be the approach….”
I don't think we should wonder about changing the systems. As sentient beings we should know, even instinctively, that constitutional democracies are incompatible with a model that was designed at a time and place that was characterised by a diabolical trampling on human rights including the right to have the effect of a wrong undone.
It is therefore no small wonder that the MVA Funds in the five countries that adopted the model all experienced dysfunction. None were/are sustainable in the original format if the criteria of serving the public interest efficiently and effectively is employed.
My three year stint in Namibia was an enormous privilege and source of profound satisfaction. The Fund in that country is poised to become probably the best public sector road crash compensation model in the world apart from those relatively few countries that can afford full blown social security. That much is already being certified by independent international expertise.
The reason is that Namibia will ensure that most innocent accident victims, over 90% of whom are from the poorer sector of society, will proactively and timeously, have the social harm accruing fully compensated for. This will be achieved at a fraction of the cost of covering loss of equivalent value in analogous private sector schemes.
True each country is not the same. However what is the same is what happens when steel meets flesh and bone. The resultant human suffering is the same. When this is not properly addressed, but dealt with in terms of a system that is something of a lottery, than those in a position of leadership, and that includes members of our profession, need to seriously reconsider their positions in terms of moral and ethical tests.
Most accident victims are passengers and pedestrians. They have this status on account of being relatively disadvantaged. So George Bernard Shaw would properly opine that it is a case of the rich killing and maiming the poor and small wonder proper compensation is not that much of a priority. The Namibian model redresses this paradigm. It will have functional integrity whatever the test be it jurisprudential, human rights, financial, or macro management.
It is tragic and somewhat incongruous that the South African Fund continues to flounder in a morass of dysfunction when the remedies have long since been indicated and most of which were properly tabulated in a report of a credible Commission that sat for three years. Regrettably, as a remedy, the amendment Act is badly flawed and probably unworkable if the efficient and effective serving of the public interest is to be the test.
In ending I must repeat what I have said ad nauseam before, and seemingly to my cost. It is an indictment against our noble profession that the RAF continues to experience dysfunction in that compensation to victims is something of a lottery and delivered at an internationally unprecedented cost ratio. The profession is the primary service delivery partner of the RAF in terms of organic reality. Whatever the reason we have failed to lead society to reform a badly flawed system that, at a fundamental level, is concerned with human rights.
The harsh reality is that at present victims are not timeously compensated and not at full value. Some however do profit in terms of the prevailing operational culture to convert injury and death into as much cash as possible. Regardless of how good management is it will continue to be completly hamstrung in terms of an efficient and effective delivery test. That these aberrations need to be excised is long overdue.
A way of engaging Government in a way that is objectively credible for the purpose of properly reforming the system has to be found. "Blame storming" is useless and results in the the type of product that the amendment Act is. If Government has confidence in our profession it will listen. But is cannot start to listen until what we say objectively passes a public interest test.
All the best in your important endeavours.
Christopher Navavie Greenland
|
