COIDA is essential.

The Compensation Fund is essential.

Employee protection against occupational injury and disease is non-negotiable. But a good legislative objective does not automatically produce a good administrative system.

The current model demonstrates several structural weaknesses: limited differentiation between employers based on size and administrative capacity, uncertainty around assessment and billing, potentially disproportionate audit requirements, dependence on systems that have experienced operational interruptions, and a compliance process that can have serious commercial consequences when a Letter of Good Standing is required for tender participation.

The government's own documentation confirms that the Compensation Fund is undergoing structural reform, which its systems are being modernised and that service delivery and administrative challenges remain areas requiring intervention.

The question should therefore no longer be whether COIDA needs to change. The question should be: How do we build a Compensation Fund that protects workers while making statutory compliance practical, predictable and proportionate for the small businesses that South Africa needs to create jobs and participate in the economy?

A modern COIDA system should not ask a one-person or three-person business to navigate an administrative framework designed around the needs of a large corporation.
It should know the difference. It should bill accordingly.
It should assess accordingly.
It should audit according to risk.

And when a compliant small business needs proof of compliance to compete for a tender, the system should make obtaining that proof simple, fast and predictable.

That is not a demand for preferential treatment. It is a demand for proportionate, intelligent and fit-for-purpose administration.

And that is the reform South Africa's Compensation Fund should be pursuing.