An interest group opposing reforms at the Road Accident Fund has taken aim at Transport Minister Barbara Creecy suggesting she’s clueless about what she’s trying to do.
The attack comes after Creecy reintroduction of the Road Accident Benefit Scheme, a bill aimed at reforming the RAF by among others enabling it to operate as a typical social benefit scheme which pays benefits directly without having to be sued, just like SASSA (South African Social Security Agency).
The Association for the Protection of Road Accident Victims, APRAV briefed the media in Pretoria on Wednesday where it announced planned opposition to the bill which has already rejected by MPs on three occasions.
“Minister Creecy must answer how this will work. Explain to us. I think the problem is Minister Creecy must change her advisers and must read the letters that are sent to her.I think this is at the crux of the problem. I have a high regard for her but she’s absolutely ill-informed on this,” said APRAV Chairperson Pieter de Bruyn.
The organisation questioned the motives behind Creecy reintroduction of the bill when Parliament has now rejected it no fewer than three times.
“They tried it failed, tried again didn’t succeed and in fact it was withdrawn ultimately by her own ANC members of parliament. She must ask them why they rejected it because we showed them how bad it was. her own government dropped RABS and it doesn’t make sense why would she want to bring it back,” said de Bruyn.
He painted a horrifying picture of what victim compensation could be like if the RABS was to be passed into law claiming it’s emphasis on rehabilitation could only be realised if the National Health Insurance was successful, and he argues, it could never succeed.
“NHI may be on the president’s desk and had a signature on it, but NHI has zero chance of working in South Africa even over the next 10 years. One, there’s no infrastructure, there’s not enough medical people, there’s not enough funding, there’s no infrastructure created for this, etc.Then this whole issue of no fault being a silver bullet is a total myth. Even we say everyone has a claim, you will still have to show that you’ve been in an accident, you will still have to show that you’ve had injuries. Like now, there are four requirements in the RAF Act.Those are two of them. The only difference in RAFs, you will have zero assistance from government,” said de Bruyn vowing to challenge the bill at every step.
APRAV said among others the bill would take away the right to access to the courts, the right to bodily integrity and would result in reduced payouts as payments would no longer be in lump sums.
It said the proposed law would also afford criminals involved in car accidents the same rights as everyone else which it argued was immoral.
“Second last thing is the moral issue. This is a country where violence against women rapes, domestic violence, is absolutely rife and one of the worst in the world. No one disputesthat.Our Honoured President is the same one saying these things. So what will raps do? A rapist would rape a girl, be chased away and drive away and be chased by the police. Isn’t a road crash? That rapist will have the same right to claim as any other person. Tell me how can that be,” questioned de Bruyn.
APRAV has been singled out by now suspended Road Accident Fund CEO Collins Letsoalo as being an elitist group using every trick to milk money out of the RAF and formalise its capture by white law firms and medical aid schemes among others.
de Bruyn confirmed APRAT doesn’t have actual victims of road accidents affiliated to it and said the industry bodies that came to form it are genuinely concerned about human rights, particularly of victims of car crashes. He claimed the organisation consulted citizens in all 9 provinces sometimes in the past about how they wanted the state to compensate victims of road accidents.