Order! Allow me to take this opportunity to welcome the hon the Minister of Welfare, Comrade Zola.
Chairperson, it is an honour and a privilege for me to address hon members on this issue this evening.
First of all, I think we should thank the Auditor-General for compiling this report and, as such, informing South Africa and the public about the disbursement of funds for poverty relief over the past two to three years.
In the report of the Auditor-General concerns were raised about the increasing proportion of underexpenditure by the Department of Welfare since 1996-97. The reported underexpenditure is as follows. In the year 1996-97 it was 43%; in 1997-98 it was 43,3%; and, in the year 1998-99 it was 78,75%.
The bulk of the underexpenditure in 1998-99 was attributed to the Poverty Relief Fund. The Department of Welfare received R203 million in the 1998-99 financial year from the Infrastructure and Development Fund for its Poverty Relief Programme. Prior to the end of the 1998-99 financial year, the Department of Welfare transferred R81 million to the Independent Development Trust, which had been appointed as its disbursement agency. The transferred funds were paid from the suspense account for control purposes as a number of administrative and legal procedures with regard to the individual projects still had to be finalised. The amount transferred to the IDT was therefore not reflected as expenditure in 1998-99. This is what has finally emerged in the report from the department, which was issued probably the day before yesterday.
The Department of Welfare obtained approval from the Department of State Expenditure to roll over R202 950 000 of the poverty relief allocation to the 1999-2000 financial year. The original allocation of R50 million for 1999-2000 was reduced to R40 million. The total amount of funds for poverty relief in 1999-2000 was therefore R242 950 000.
The Department of Welfare received an allocation of R50 million for the year 1997-98. All funds were spent by the end of the financial year. These funds were disbursed directly by the Department of Welfare.
A rapid appraisal of the programme was conducted to identify lessons learnt so as to improve the management of the programme. The IDT was appointed as a disbursement agency in order to address some of the shortcomings of the original programme. The rapid appraisal also pointed to the need to conduct an audit of the programme. A tender was advertised for the audit. The Department of Welfare has recently been informed by the State Tender Board that it will finalise the appointment of an audit company this week. The Department of Welfare will meet with the consultants this week to agree on the audit plan.
The allocation of poverty relief funds has taken place as follows. In the year 1998-99 R203 million was given to the department. Of this, 193 projects have received some assistance, which amounts to R111 583 297. Thirty-eight national projects, including an administrative capacity- building course, received R91 416 703. Of the money that we received this year, that is for 1999-2000, R40 million has been given to nongovernmental organisations who support these projects. The balance of the money that we received for the year 1999-2000 is earmarked for provincial and national projects, and we hope we will be able to give R26 million to the integrated sustainable rural development project under the Deputy President.
The overall expenditure as at 28 February 2000 is as follows. The total amount of funds transferred to the IDT is R205 million. The total amount of funds disbursed by the IDT is R138 437 876. The IDT disbursement as a percentage of funds transferred to the IDT is 76%. The IDT disbursement as a percentage of the R242 950 000 allocated to the Department of Welfare is 57%. That means that, of the R203 million, the IDT has disbursed about 57% since June last year up to now.
Payments are made to projects in tranches of 40%, 50% and 10%. Payment of the first tranche is made on the basis of an approved business plan. Payment of the second tranche is subject to a project assessment. Payment of the third tranche is made on completion of the project. Second-tranche payments to provincial projects has progressed steadily. Second-tranche payments to the 38 national projects have been delayed following the project assessment report. The report recommended that second-tranche payments be withheld in 19 projects and that financial audits be carried out on these projects.
It should be noted that relatively large sums of money have been allocated to national projects. The assessment report noted that while the poverty relief programme has made a good start, the following problems need to be addressed. Firstly, large sums of money are being dispersed without adequate communication with the recipients. Secondly, general expenditure at project level is slow. Thirdly, monitoring and evaluation are not undertaken systematically. Fourthly and lastly, tension between the national and provincial departments undermines the integrity of the programme.
The State Tender Board, on 2 March 2000, approved that the Department of Welfare could use a restricted tender for the auditing of current poverty relief funds. While the audit is expected to focus on national projects, it will include a sample of provincial projects. As the cost of the audit is expected to exceed the Department of Welfare's delegation, the final decision rests with the Tender Board.
An official from the Department of Welfare at national level was arrested and charged in December 1999 with fraud and theft of R200 000 from the poverty relief funds. The matter is being investigated by the Scorpions and the official is in custody awaiting trail. The Department of Welfare has received a draft report on the forensic audit conducted as part of the investigation, which confirms the fraud and theft. There are serious shortcomings in the financial management of the poverty relief programme, and generally on the part of the whole Department of Welfare. Although the department has taken steps to improve the programme, for example designing a monitoring and evaluation system, fundamental problems of poor management will continue to frustrate progress.
The financial audits, while necessary, will only provide a partial picture of the programme. A comprehensive evaluation of the programme within the department will be undertaken to assess the impact of the programme on the poor, and to assess its effectiveness and institutional arrangements. This will continue and contribute to the development of an integrated poverty eradication strategy. Since late last year, the department has been exploring donor support and technical advice for the evaluation.
This is what I have to say. I will now deviate from what has been written here for me. When I came to the department, it was very clear to me from the beginning that there was a fundamental problem. That problem, first of all, concerns the whole issue of the restructuring of the welfare system in this country, and more importantly, the restructuring of the department itself.
Basically, it has not been transformed. It is still the same programme and the same department that served the apartheid regime, except that there have been a few appointments at national level, specifically in the top management echelons. Other than that, all the staff members who were there in 1993 and 1994 have not been moved. Possibly there might have been better people, but because of what is happening amongst the staff members themselves, it has caused some of the best people to leave the department.
I do not think that we have to hide these issues, because these are issues that affect the poorest of the poor. We should be more sensitive in the way in which we deliver services to our people. Millions of people depend mostly on what this Government is able to give them. I am of the opinion that if one deals with the poor, the disabled, with children and with people with Aids, one should be a little more sensitive than we are being at present.
If I had my way, I would not keep quite a large number of those people in the department. As early as August, September last year, it became very clear to me that there was a problem. To a certain extent the problem is a sort of resistance to the concept of change in general. [Interjections.]
I do not want to hide the fact that what mostly held me back was, to a certain extent, the laws and what is generally expected of an employer, in this instance the Government and the department. We should try to instill a sense of duty and patriotism into our public servants so that they will be more sensitive in the way in which they work for our people than they are at present.
If hon members did not know, I am a member of the ANC. The people that voted us into this Government are the poorest of the poor. They are the victims of the lack of response from public servants.
I realised, maybe in September or October last year, that I would be the one standing here accounting to hon members and the public. I therefore tried, from the beginning, to be a little more sensitive and to talk to them carefully. Finally, I had to tell them that it could not work like that, that we could not continue in this manner.
What worries me most is that, if the national department is like that, how much worse is the situation in the provinces? [Interjections.] As hon members know, poverty prevails in the provinces, especially in the rural areas. From the beginning I have gone on record as saying that the welfare system that still exists in this country leaves much to be desired. This system does not reflect the policies of our Government. A complete change is needed, not only mentally, theoretically or otherwise, but generally, including the personnel concerned. We ought to take welfare more seriously than we do at present.
What gets into our newspapers and other media mostly concerns those who have or those who want to have, black empowerment and things like that. The plight of the poverty-stricken in this country has not been reflected as it should have been. All of us move around Cape Town, Johannesburg and all the urban areas, but very few of us ever go to the rural areas. If we do get to those areas, we end up in the towns. There is a very urgent need for services in those areas. As individuals, as citizens and, more importantly, as representatives of our people, we ought to do our best to ensure that we do bring services to our people.
One of the things that worry me most is the services that we as a department have been giving to our people in general. I say this specifically about three other issues, namely the old age grant, the disability grant and, and more importantly, the child support grant. I do not think that we have done our best as a department to serve our people.
More importantly, as far as I am concerned, the department has not shown the urgency it needs to show, specifically in handling issues that concern children, the disabled, the elderly and people with Aids. I have found out what the problem is when we talk about it. They are in the papers, but in the final analysis, when we see how much work we have to do before we are able to bring a simple memorandum before Cabinet, then one starts asking oneself whether we are really paying this money to those individuals. Are they worth the money they are getting? Why can I just not fire them and let them go? However, that is reality. All these other things that one talks about and that one would like to do, one is unable to do.
I think, in principle, we would appeal mostly to the portfolio committee to do its job. That was one of the first things that I did in August and also in September, and in November. I appealed to the portfolio committee to do its job. Honestly, I appealed and I continue to appeal, both here in the NCOP and in the NA in so far as the Department of Welfare is concerned, that it not hold its horses in any manner. It should do everything in its power to put pressure on the department. Most of them think that they will embarrass me. I will not be embarrassed over that. If things are wrong, they are wrong.
In August last year, I gave an order that by the 16th of December everybody should have received their old age or disability grant, so that they would be free to use their money and so that they could spend their Christmas being more at ease because of the money in their pockets. However, by the 14th and 15th of December, 3 000 to 4 000 people had not received their grants. We went on the radio to advertise and tell everybody, and gave a number which is still there. We had to issue orders for staff not to go on their Christmas holidays until that had been resolved. Most of those people came from the Eastern Cape.
In other words, what I am trying to say is that we have these grants. We are all members of Parliament, and the NCOP. We represent a people and where we all come from - whether a member is driving a Mercedes Benz or living in Sandton at present, or whether an hon member lives in Waterkloof - the reality is that the majority of us - speaking for the ANC, because I do not know about the background of others - come from amongst the poor.
Me too! [Laughter.]
We have been voted into the positions we hold by the poor people. The least we can do in the provinces where we stay - in our constituencies - is to serve those people, first of all, by ensuring that all the aged and the disabled do get their grants. I am not sure what the current percentage is of the disabled in this country who receive their grants. However, I doubt very much that more than 20% do. I really doubt that, and the majority of people do not receive their grants because they do not know about them. We should ensure that the children support grant is advertised and that all the people have access to it. All children below the age of seven are entitled to it. All that money has been budgeted for.
The Poverty Relief Fund is, in principle, just an amount of money that is given on top of the budgets that all of us have. It is meant by this Government to ensure that the poorest of the poor do receive some assistance from us. Of course, quite rightly, the public in general were appalled to hear that hardly any percentage of the R203 million had been spent when the Auditor-General went through his books. I think it is justified; the Auditor-General did his work and he should be commended for that.
I hope all of us, when we look at these issues, will do our best to ensure that the programmes that this Government has put in place are effective and efficiently carried out. Quite honestly, this has been very disgraceful and it is terribly embarrassing even to me. I cannot say I was not there. The reality is that we have the issue and we have to deal with it. [Applause.]
Chairperson, before I make my contribution to this very important debate, I must indicate to you, the hon the Chairperson of the NCOP and the Whippery that it is not out of disrespect that I address this House dressed in a T-shirt. It is merely my small contribution in support of the 2006 bid committee as they interact with the Fifa delegation which is arriving in our country today. [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon Minister and members, it is rather sad that a day after celebrating a very successful International Women's Day, we gather in this House to discuss the matter of unspent moneys meant to have been channelled to the poor, the majority of whom are women and children. Our President, Comrade Thabo Mbeki, recently drew our attention to the fact that we are living in a country of stark contradictions, that of humiliating poverty of the majority coexisting with the unashamed wealth of a minority. All of us present here today come from provinces where we stare poverty in the face on a daily basis.
I am not going to dwell very much on the figures in terms of what was spent and what was not spent, because I think the Minister made it quite clear to us. Rather, I want to focus on good governance and service delivery. At the opening of the Gauteng legislature in February 2000, our premier said the following:
The overwhelming mandate we received both in 1994 and 1999, was based on the conviction of our people that we know their anguishes. They know that we are part of them the same way that they are part of us, hence our continued commitment to ensure a better life for all our people. This forms the foundation of our existence as a government, and we will spare no effort in the fight against poverty which is so pervasive in this society.
Two of the most prominent commitments Government holds dear are, firstly, accountable, clean and good governance and, secondly, quality service delivery. In helping Government make good on these commitments, we have to rely on a good Public Service, a Public Service that is committed to the ethic of Batho Pele.
However, we have to face the unfortunate reality that we inherited a largely dysfunctional Public Service, and coupled with that, a bureaucracy that is very user-unfriendly. According to newspaper reports, many NGOs and CBOs dealing with poverty alleviation have knocked on the door of the Department of Welfare for financial assistance. Needless to say, they were unsuccessful.
An ex-colleague of mine in the Gauteng legislature applied for funding for a project of a group of homeless women over two years ago, and only received a response on the proposal submitted about a month ago. She was fortunate to have received a positive response. But unfortunately, when she presented herself to the provincial department of welfare, on the very next day after receiving this response, the cheque was already stale. It was dated five months before.
I am relating this incident to illustrate two things: firstly, the amount of time it takes to process requests for funding and, secondly, the inefficient channels of communication between the service provider, in this case the department, and the client, in this case the people. The withholding of resources or failure to provide service of any kind by a government department amounts to maladministration and corruption. Unfortunately, there is no diplomatic way of putting this.
Without apportioning blame to any particular individual or individuals, we will, as representatives of the public out there, ask the Minister, as the political head, to respond to some of the following questions, not necessarily here and now, but if the Minister can, he is welcome to do so. Nevertheless, we will call the Minister to another select committee meeting where he can probably go into detail on some of the questions raised.
Firstly, what are the procedures and guidelines in place for accessing funds for poverty alleviation? Secondly, how user-friendly are these guidelines and procedures? Thirdly, how many poverty alleviation programmes are currently funded by Government - on this one we need a provincial breakdown. Fourthly, why have these moneys earmarked for one of the most vulnerable sectors in society not reached them?
As an ANC collective in Parliament, we will not tolerate a situation where any individual or individuals retard the process of transformation in any way, especially not when it involves the livelihood of the poorest of the poor.
In 1996 the Department of Welfare declared war on poverty. I would like to make some recommendations to the Minister as commander-in-chief of this war and his department for consideration.
My recommendations are, firstly, to develop a strategic interdepartmental approach to be applied when funding poverty alleviation programmes; secondly, to develop efficient, user-friendly and accountable guidelines and procedures in relation to the disbursement of these funds; thirdly, in conjunction with the Department of the Public Service and Administration, to reorganise the Public Service so that it can more effectively meet the priorities of social delivery; and, last but not least, to develop a morality within the department in the handling of public resources.
In conclusion, our slogan of ``creating a better life for all'' will amount to zero if we do not provide the kind of leadership that is necessary to meet our objectives, as formally pledged in April 1994. [Applause.]
Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, the dispensation based on nonracialism, nonsexism and democracy demands of us to continuously strive towards redressing the inequalities and anomalies still prevalent in our society.
As a result of the skewed policies of the past, vulnerable groups such as unemployed women with children, rural populations, people in informal settlements and people with disabilities still find themselves living in conditions of abject poverty. For the past five years, this Government has undertaken a process to completely overhaul the welfare and development system into a new form that will be able to respond to requirements of representivity, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and that allows for genuine partnership where all stakeholders are always invited to participate in crucial matters such as building a consensus about policy frameworks and planning of actions. This includes stakeholders such as religious organisations involved in service delivery, NGOs rendering social services and developmental programmes, the private sector, academic institutions, trade unions and professional organisations.
However, the co-ordination that should develop between the partners in the developmental social welfare field should also be complemented by a civil service that operates in a coherent and efficient manner in order to be able to achieve values and principles that create comprehensive, integrated redistributive mechanisms and systems, a civil service that strives for equity and accessibility of resources to the recipients with a conscious effort to espouse and uphold the norms and practices of the concept of Batho Pele.
It cannot be denied that whilst Government is pushing forward with a process of restructuring the system and redefining the role of service providers, there are still weaknesses. We cannot run away from the fact that the majority of the people entrusted with the management of the system - some have been on the job for many years - were never properly trained to be able to handle the kind of transformation being introduced. There are those who have the capacity to manage the problem of the archaic management systems that they are trying to overcome, including problems that are of a human nature which have become an impediment to efficient and effective management of our institutions.
Therefore, as we move further and further away from the old models, trying to fully entrench the new developmental model, we should not lose sight of the dynamics that are still playing themselves out within the civil service, regarding the human resources disparities within the senior managerial positions and also applying to social workers, administrative personnel and other positions.
The new dispensation demands of us to address issues in a particular manner that needs respect for human rights, the creation of user-friendly facilities and systems that involve CBOs and NGOs in decision-making planning and implementation to meet the needs of the people and the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. If need be, the system should be able to shed those elements that, because of their historical past, serve as impediments to progress, because of their intransigence and indifference to change.
This Government cannot allow a situation like the one under discussion to continue to prevail because of the incompetence of those entrusted with the lives and welfare of the most vulnerable in our society. Where it is appropriate and necessary, heads should roll and for others, attitudes should change and commitment to the new order should be the order of the day. [Applause.]
Mr Chairman, ``Poor South Africans have been deprived of more than R500 million over the past three years because the Welfare department was incapable of distributing the funds.'' This was the report sent out to the country by the media. We hear that it may have been R300 million. Whatever, it is a lot of money.
What a shocking message to our jobless, poor and distressed people! Whether all the facts and figures are correct is not what I am arguing. The fact that something like this could happen is what is relevant. The fact the people out there will remember is: ``We were hungry and cold, yet R500 million was not distributed.''
Hoe kan ons met ons gewete saamleef as sulke berigte die wreld ingestuur word? Angela Bester, die Direkteur-generaal van Welsyn s die departement het nie die ``capacity and, in particular, skilled staff'' om die werk te doen nie. In Afrikaans vertaal lui dit: ``nie die bevoegdheid en veral nie bekwame, opgeleide personeel om die werk te doen nie''! Wat 'n onrusbarende erkenning van onbekwame administratiewe onbeholpenheid!
Sonder om nou te veel te gaan ronddelwe in die syfers, die vingerwysings en geskarrel om ondersoekkomitees te loods, wil ek s die mense daar buite het hierdie inligting in hulle koerante gekry en dit is die persepsie wat gaan bly. Wie moet blameer word vir so 'n ernstige situasie? Ek sou dink ons agb Minister. Hy is die kaptein van sy skip. Hy is die kaptein van sy span. Hy is die hoof van die departement, maar ek het simpatie met hom. Hy het hierdie boedel van sy voorganger gerf, maar ek moet ook s hy het nie die klomp amptenare gerf nie. Wat gaan hy daaromtrent doen? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[How could we have a clear conscience when such reports go out into the world? Angela Bester, the Director-General of Welfare says that the department does not have the ``capacity and, in particular, the skilled staff'' to do the work. Translated into Afrikaans this goes: ``nie die bevoegdheid en veral nie bekwame, opgeleide personeel om die werk te doen nie''! What a disconcerting admission of incompetent administrative ineptitude!
Without too much digging around in the figures, pointing fingers and scrambling to launch investigating committees, I want to say that the people out there obtained this information from their newspapers and this is the perception that is going to remain. Who should take the blame for such a serious situation? I should think our hon Minister. He is the captain of his ship. He is the captain of his team. He is the head of the department, but I have sympathy with him. He inherited this estate from his predecessor, but I must say he did not inherit the officials. What is he going to do about this?]
I suppose he did not hire, so he cannot fire. But we want action.
Wat het daar buite met ons mense gebeur terwyl miljoene rande nie hul weg na die probleemareas kon vind nie? [What happened to our people out there while millions of rands could not find their way to the problem areas?]
I will tell hon members. In the Eastern Cape, for instance, the Welfare department is only concerned about the reregistration of welfare beneficiaries, but in the meantime there has been no progress in setting up proper administrative services.
Terwyl mense moet herregistreer, wat ons ook glo noodsaaklik is, moet daar hande wees wat die karige, lewensnoodsaaklike pensioengeldjie kan uitdeel. Ek wil vir agb lede vertel wat in die Oos-Kaap aan die gang is. Die mense moet ure lank in lang toue in die warm son staan, sonder enige geriewe daar buite, om hulle pensioene te kry, net om later sonder verduideliking weggewys te word, en dan die volgende dag die hele proses weer van voor af aan te pak.
Ek het gesien hoe bejaarde tannies flou word nadat hulle van vieruur die oggend af tougestaan het. As hulle immers nie voor in die ry is nie, mag hulle weggewys word om die volgende dag weer te moet terugkom.
Wie hiervoor verantwoordelik is, is 'n goeie vraag, maar ek kan vir agb lede s daar is te min uitbetaalpunte. Die amptenare en die ontvangers van pensioene praat baie kere nie eens dieselfde taal nie. Hulle verstaan mekaar nie, en menige keer moet die ontvangers van die pensioene na 'n betaalpunt in 'n totaal ander omgewing gaan om geholpe te raak.
My probleem is, hoekom gebeur hierdie dinge? Waar moet hierdie armstes van die armes geld kry om vervoer te bekostig as hulle van bakboord na stuurboord gestuur word? Dit is 'n totaal onaanvaarbare toestand. As die Minister dink so 'n toestand is nie moontlik nie, het ek slegte nuus vir hom. Ek was daar en ek het die mense sien huil van frustrasie, ellende en uitputting.
Hierdie probleme kom onder meer voor in die noordelike dele van Port Elizabeth in die Oos-Kaap. Nou vra ek, hoe verdedig 'n mens 'n aantyging soos hierdie onbestede geld aan hierdie mense daar buite? Hulle vra nie eens om meer geld van die staat nie, hulle vra net die hande sodat hulle betyds hulle geld kan kry. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[While people have to reregister, which we believe to be essential, there should be hands that can dish out the meagre amount of vital pension money. I want to tell hon members what is happening in the Eastern Cape. The people have to stand in long queues in the hot sun for hours, without any facilities out there, to receive their pensions, only to be turned away later without any explanations, and to start the entire process all over again the next day.
I saw elderly women fainting after queuing from four o'clock in the morning. If they do not happen to find themselves in the front of the queue, they may be turned away, only to have to come back again the next day.
Who is responsible for this is a good question, but I can tell hon members that there are too few pay points. The officials and the recipients of pensions often do not even speak the same language. They do not understand one another, and often the recipients of the pensions have to go to a pay point in a completely different area for assistance.
My problem is, why do these things happen? Where must the poorest of the poor get the money to afford transport if they are sent hither and thither? This is an entirely unacceptable situation. If the Minister thinks that such a situation is impossible, I have bad news for him. I was there and I saw the people crying with frustration, misery and exhaustion.
These problems are, inter alia, prevalent in the northern parts of Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape. Now I am asking, how does one defend an allegation such as this one concerning unspent money to those people out there? They are not even asking the state for more money, they are only asking for more hands so that they can receive their money in time.]
The question of embarking on a general reregistration of grantees in the Eastern Cape cannot really be faulted, because a limited forensic audit of the data base has already identified 8 910 cases of individuals drawing illegal grants. We believe, however, that it would be far more practical, cost-effective and less traumatic for the department to concentrate on the auditing of existing files, rather than to subject more than half a million people in the Eastern Cape to a lengthy and expensive reregistration process.
I want to conclude by saying that impoverished South Africans who depend on the state for their survival deserve to know that the limited welfare resources are coming their way. We are, after all, the people's government, and if we allow these problems to escalate there will be no government for the people. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mnr die Voorsitter, agb Minister en agb lede, wanneer gelees word die Departement van Welsyn het minder as 1% bestee van die R204 miljoen wat in 1998 vir armoedeverligtingprogramme ontvang is, is dit, om die minste te s, skokkende nuus. En wanneer die verslag van die Ouditeur- generaal ook openbaar dat R11,7 miljoen wat die departement van die Nederlandse regering ontvang het vir kinder- en jeugsorg, ongebruik gelaat is, is dit onaanvaarbaar.
Wat tragies is, is dat dit die derde agtereenvolgende jaar is dat die nasionale departement nalaat om 'n groot deel van sy begroting te bestee. Redes soos: die departement het nie daarin geslaag om die nodige stappe te doen nie, is iets wat die miljoene arm kiesers daar buite moeilik sal vind om te verstaan, veral as die nasionale voorsitter van Kinderlyn s, en ek haal haar aan:
What is even more appalling is that the department keeps on telling us there are no funds.
En as die nie-regeringsorganisasies die verslag met ongeloof en ontevredenheid ontvang het, het die Nuwe NP begrip vir hulle.
Die Nuwe NP vra hoe dit in die toekoms geregverdig gaan word om met vrymoedigheid internasionaal geld te gaan vra vir programme ter opbouing van ons land, die geld te kry en dit nie ten volle daaraan te bestee nie. Wat gaan die antwoord wees aan die armstes van die armes oor die feit dat, volgens die verslag, R353 miljoen van die totale begroting van R450 miljoen nie bestee is nie?
Die gewone kieser daar buite mag reken dat miljoene rande miljoene borde kos op miljoene van hulle tafels kon geplaas het. Dit is presies ook hoe die Nuwe NP voel. As daar brood van 'n tafel afgehaal word deur die optrede van 'n korrupte amptenaar of amptenare, wil die Nuwe NP ook s: raak ontslae van hulle! Per slot van sake is ons die beleidmakers in hierdie land en die armes se lot moet by ons swaarder weeg as enigiets anders.
Die Nuwe NP vra dat hierdie ongelukkige aangeleentheid reggestel word. Ons kan nie stilbly oor bedrywe wat veroorsaak dat die arm mense in ons land aan hulle lot oorgelaat word nie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mrs J WITBOOI: Mr Chairman, hon Minister and hon members, when one reads that the Department of Welfare spent less than 1% of the R204 million that was received for poverty relief programmes in 1998, it is, to say the least, shocking news. And when the report of the Auditor-General reveals that R11,7 million, which the department had received from the government of the Netherlands for child and youth care, remained unused, it is unacceptable.
What is tragic is that this is the third consecutive year that the national department neglected to spend a major part of its budget. Reasons such as that the department did not succeed in taking the necessary steps is something that the millions of poor voters out there will find difficult to understand, particularly if the national chairperson of Childline says, and I quote:
What is even more appalling is that the department keeps on telling us there are no funds.
And if the non-governmental organisations received the report with disbelief and dissatisfaction, the New NP understands.
The New NP wants to ask for how long into the future it is going to be justifiable freely to ask for money internationally for programmes assisting with building up our country, to obtain the money and not to spend all of it on that. What is the answer going to be to the poorest of the poor regarding the fact that, according to the report, R353 million of the total budget of R450 million was not spent?
The ordinary voter out there may think that millions of rands could have placed millions of plates of food on their tables. This is exactly how the New NP feels. If a loaf of bread is taken from a table by a corrupt official, the New NP says: Get rid of him! After all, we are the policy- makers in this country and the fate of the poor must weigh more heavily with us than anything else.
The New NP asks that this unfortunate matter will be rectified. We cannot keep quiet about actions that cause the poor people in this country to be left to their own fate.]
Mr Chairman, there are times when I am quite proud to be a parliamentarian and such a time is now. Here we have a situation of the Auditor-General doing his job and a Minister baring his chest to us with all humility, and I would say he has done that. He has come here and he has said, look I am sorry about it.
My heart goes out to him because it cannot be an easy position to find oneself in. One inherits a job, one is doing one's best, one is well intended and suddenly one is landed with this kind of situation with the Auditor-General. Our hearts go out to him, and whatever I say here today is not meant to make life more uncomfortable for him than I know it already must be.
But we in a functioning Parliament also have a duty to the poor. He recognised that in the way he responded to the situation. It is not good enough for us to respond that it is because of the apartheid government, and that there are a lot of officials that were there before. I think the hon the Minister's speech would have been enriched if he had not said that. [Interjections.]
However, the fact is that we have now had three years of this backlog doubling each year. Our only interest here today is to see that this situation ends. We are not interested in recriminations. We are not really interested in apportioning blame, although one has to in order to correct what is wrong. What we are interested in is a speedy resumption of effective payments to those people that are poor.
The reason we say that, is that it is not only a question of people not getting money. The social consequences are immense. When people do not get paid, those people, particularly people with no reserves at all, or maybe reserves for a few days only, get thrown upon their families, who often cannot afford to do much for them. They are then thrown upon the churches and the community. There is a tendency for crime to escalate under those circumstances, in so far as crime can sometimes be driven by extreme poverty, which puts an additional strain upon the police and the security forces.
It certainly puts an additional strain upon the clinics and hospitals. People that are malnourished and poor tend to have a greater susceptibility to illness. So, the community as a whole, apart from the individuals themselves, bears the consequences of the inefficiencies that the Auditor- General has uncovered in the hon the Minister's department. However, I respect the way that he has reacted to the situation.
We as parliamentarians also have another duty. To some extent, what the Minister's department is doing is flouting our instruction and that of the executive, as confirmed by this Parliament. He has identified issues and Parliament has apportioned money for a particular purpose to reach particularly poor people. By not listening to that budgetary instruction, there is a degree of flouting the will of Parliament, and flouting, therefore, the democratic will of the people.
We do not want to leave an impression of hardheartedness. We know that there is a heart-rending need on the part of the poor. This kind of thing, although it brings discredit to Parliament and the executive, also brings an element of credit, because it shows that our system works. It is working in the sense that the Auditor-General has uncovered a situation, the hon the Minister has responded positively, we are debating it, he is going to put it right and we are going to make sure that he does put it right. Next year we are going to be here, and we are going to ask him how he has progressed, and then we will not be so kind to him as we are today.
So, we wish the hon the Minister well. We have to say that when this kind of thing happens, it does put stresses upon the churches, the charities and the NGOs that have to step in and take the responsibility that his department is not honouring by doing what it is supposed to do. Maybe if he looks around he can also have a heart for those people, and see how he can co-operate with them.
We wish him well and we hope this matter will be speedily resolved. [Applause.]
Orde! Miskien moet ek mnr Marais se aandag daarop vestig dat hy vandag slegs vyf minute tot sy beskikking het om hierdie Huis toe te spreek. [Gelag.] [Order! Perhaps I should direct Mr Marais' attention to the fact that today he only has five minutes in which to address this House. [Laughter.]]
Mr Chairperson, I will respect that. First of all, I want to thank the hon the Minister for his complete honesty in explaining the problem. I think he is indeed a breath of fresh air. He did not come here to knock us down and say that we have no right to criticise him. In all humility he admitted the faults. I think he really is an asset to his party.
The NCOP should be used as a platform to build positive relationships between provinces, as well as between provinces and the central Government. Such relationships should be driven by a conflation of strategic and economic interests, and a coincidence of values relating to federalism and democracy.
Let us identify and promote our points of conflation of interests instead of using this House merely to highlight our points of conflict.
The Western Cape government has consistently objected at Minmec to the introduction of the IDT as an intermediary between the central Government and provincial governments. We have insisted on provinces being allowed to identify, evaluate and monitor their own projects for poverty alleviation. We have said we do not need an IDT. We have warned against time-wasting and bureaucratic bungling, but it all fell on deaf ears.
The previous Minister for Welfare and Population Development was so centrist in her thinking that she considered herself to have a monopoly on wisdom. Provinces are sometimes treated as though they are under the guardianship of some national Ministers. The time has come for provinces to be trusted as original centres of political power and not mere administrative extensions of national Ministers. [Interjections.]
Minmec should not be used as a tool to dilute provincial powers and whip provinces into line. We are not political spheres of inferior quality and competences. The current Minister's easy-going disposition has greatly contributed to a new era of co-operative governance between his department and the provinces. I think that the hon the Minister is a good listener. His predecessor could not claim such fame. [Interjections.] The eradication of poverty should be a priority on the agenda of each Ministry and in each sphere of government. The main legacy we must leave behind is how effectively we dealt with poverty eradication and empowerment of people. According to the information at hand, 90% of the 1998-99 budget for poverty relief has now been allocated and only 10% is outstanding. But I wonder whether the IDT has paid over this money? This is merely money that has gone to them. What have they done with the 90%? I would like the hon the Minister to tell me, please.
This Government's policy goals are continuously being sabotaged by incompetency at administrative level. We spent too much time and effort talking, consulting and establishing forums, and too little real delivery is taking place. [Interjections.]
My appeal to the hon the Minister is to insist that each province establishes its own poverty desk under a line function ministry, that the money for poverty relief be made part of provincial budgets as a conditional grant, and that local authorities should be co-opted to serve on these poverty desks because they also have a great contribution to make in terms of urban renewal. Provinces have far greater capacity to manage funds for poverty eradication than the IDT will ever have. It will also obviate unnecessary administrative costs. I want to ask the hon the Minister to lay down the necessary guidelines. I believe money should be allocated to provinces for maintaining and improving current housing stock. We are allowing our housing stock to go to the ghettos.
We need urban renewal programmes, we need training and financing of new small entrepreneurs, and we need monitoring of these projects at provincial level. We need to train and finance entrepreneurs and they, in turn, will create job opportunities. The present system whereby the state tries to finance community-driven projects fails, because the profit motive is absent.
We look to the hon the Minister to turbocharge the vehicle to attack poverty and to show greater confidence in the ability of provinces to help him lead the attack.
Lastly, I want to ask the hon the Minister please to amend the laws to do away with the means test in terms of which pensioners, when they get R500 pension, dare not have a side income or spare income because their pensions get taken away or are reduced. We have no right to tell pensioners R500 is their limit of income, and if they earn anything more than that, we shall reduce their pensions.
Chairperson, on a point of order: There is a rule in the NCOP Rules, Rule 32, that says that during a debate in the Council no member may converse aloud. [Laughter.] I was wondering whether you wanted to make a ruling on this. [Laughter.]
Chairperson, I am reminded of a rule: What can you learn from a fool? [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister and members, as I stand here to speak on the topic, I am tormented by the vivid pictures I have seen of the sorry plight of the victims of poverty, hunger and starvation across a wide spectrum of the community of South Africans, and in particular from one of the poorest of South Africa's provinces, namely the Eastern Cape. Towards the end of last year, some of us were engaged in an oversight tour in the rural environs of the province. At a meeting with one of the communities, although on a different topic, a respectable member of the community stood up - two of my colleagues who are here in this Chamber were present - and said the following:
Khanizijonge. Niyazibona nimbejembeje, niyayokozela, ninqukrile yintlutha! Ukuba niyaguquka nijonge kwaba bantu, niyababona ukuba babhalwe indlala netlupheko apha ebusweni babo. Ninento yokuthetha kamnandi xa nilapha phakathi kwethu, kodwa nithi nje ukuba ningene ezi-ofisini zenu nijike nenze enye into. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[Look at yourselves. You see, you are bright and healthy, you have put on weight because you are well-to-do now! If you turn and look at these people, you can see that their lean faces demonstrate poverty, hunger and privation. You tend to speak nicely when you are in our midst, but once you are back in your offices you behave differently.]
We travelled a thousand and more kilometres on that tour from East London and Bisho to the banks of the Umzimkulu River and back, and we were exposed to the lasting vestiges of poverty. At that time the rivers had run dry, grazing land had been scorched, the cattle, sheep and goats had been emaciated, and the dusty mealie lands on which we drove our microbuses and other glamorous vehicles had given in to years and decades of having been without scientific revitalisation and rehabilitation.
With many of our families, the father is back at home due to job losses. After qualifying as university or college graduates, the sons and daughters stay at home because they cannot find jobs. These funds would therefore have been the main source of income for many deprived families.
It is now common knowledge that huge sums of money have not been spent. We cannot hope to redress the imbalances of the past and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor if we fail the poorest of the poor as we have done. We have all failed as managers who should have implemented the antipoverty project, and as the people whom the voters have charged with the oversight responsibilities as members of portfolio, select and standing committees all over the country.
I can only hope that, as the budgetary process on the finances for the ensuing years takes off, we shall discharge our mandates to alleviate poverty, rather than to make political gains out of the suffering of destitute people. The relevant parliamentary committees must now adopt a vigilant programme to ensure that the funds are utilised accordingly, that the department acts on the proper performance management and appraisal information, and that the department is capacitated in terms of personnel skills and the material resources needed at all levels to deliver, monitor and evaluate a more socially accountable Public Service to affirm the poor out of their deprivations, or else heads must roll. [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, firstly, I would like to applaud members of the opposition for honestly admitting today that our policy of transformation has benefited them, because if it was not for that, they would not be speaking so freely about transparency and accountability in the way they have spoken today.
Although we are in a sombre mood in this House today, we are reminded that all good things in life never come easily. As we said, transformation would not come easily. People were waiting and crying for water in Mpumalanga and the Northern Province when the drought was killing them, but instead of just water, they got floods and thunderstorms. In fact, they are now complaining about it, even though they do have water. It is the same where transformation is taking place and where we are seeing the fruits of transformation. Instead of delivering, the officials are always undecided, and are stagnating because of their fear that they will trip because they themselves did not undergo a transformation.
I would like to say that since time immemorial, it has been our stand as the ANC that any state assistance or intervention to help the needy should be handled in a structured manner with the aim of eradicating dependency through the involvement of the beneficiaries of that relief programme. When accounting for the success or otherwise of our assistance, we do not rely on the theoretical accounting of the expenditure only, but we have developed a more probing manner which involves examining the transparency, feasibility and effectiveness of the project.
Having a less focused manner of accounting for expenditure in the past led to the notorious project of erecting toilets in the veld being described as a very efficient exercise. It is remarkable that the saga of the toilets in the veld was unearthed by a commission of inquiry, and not a routine report by the Auditor-General.
The unspent portion of the fund allocation for the 1998-99 financial year is a very grave concern for all of us, especially the new Government, which prioritises programmes to assist the poor and the vulnerable. This state of affairs is totally uncalled for, and cannot be condoned at any rate. One therefore calls upon the hon the Minister to read the bible of the Public Service to bureaucrats in the Department of Welfare and simultaneously take urgent steps for the necessary capacity-building and mind-shift to occur in that department. We as public representatives should do our share of the spadework by assisting in enabling CBOs and NGOs to access the welfare assistance in conjunction with the people who need that relief. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I think we should accept from the start that there has been a problem within the welfare system of this country and, more importantly, within the Department of Welfare itself.
We cannot attribute that, in so far as the poverty alleviation is concerned, to apartheid or anything else. The ANC takes responsibility. I repeat, the ANC takes the responsibility for the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the department.
In other words we are in no way trying to justify or make excuses for not delivering poverty relief to the people who need it most. We have come out openly and very clearly to say that the welfare system of this country is failing the poorest of the poor. After listening to the evaluation made by all the service providers, ie NGOs, churches and everybody, of the department and our welfare system in October last year, I became completely convinced that there is something radically wrong within the department and with the work that we are supposed to do.
I cannot go into details in answering some of the questions that have been put here, for instance, by Her Majesty the hon Loretta Jacobus. However, I understand there are guidelines in place, but from what I know, those guidelines are not as user-friendly as they are supposed to be. As hon members know, some of the services that we provide did not reach the clients that they were supposed to reach. As the hon member has said, I will be able to come back and answer the rest of the questions at a select committee meeting.
We are attending to the issues that members are asking about. The first is the issue of reorganising the department. We are auditing the department and the skills therein. We are hoping that the company that we have asked to do that for us will be able to finish its task and come up with an audit by the end of this month. In fact, I told them that I wanted to see it by the eighth, but unfortunately they have not been able to do that.
With regard to the question of the morality within the department, as I have said, an attitude of ``I don't care'' prevails in the whole department in general. Let me point out some of the things that I observed and for which I had to call people to order in October. People came to work at about nine o'clock and by 12 o'clock they were gone, and it was very hard to find them. At the beginning when they were not there I thought they had gone to the provinces to attend to other issues. Even worse, people came to work in shorts. I am not against such things, but they actually do not dress properly. They are not presentable.
Last year I had to harangue them about the fact that I had never seen such a situation as prevailed in the department. If we are doing that, as far as I am concerned, we will never be able to provide, as public servants, the better life for all that this Government has promised our people.
In so far as the question of the Public Service and its incompetence is concerned - I refer this to Mr Makoela - if one wants to see incompetence, one has only to come to the department one of these days and ask someone to do something for one, and one will see incompetence written on the faces of everyone there or at least of the majority. Before the new DG came in, things were bad to the extent that when I read the memoranda that had to go to Cabinet, I sometimes had to send them back two or three times or sometimes even withdrew them when I was already in a Cabinet meeting, simply because they did not represent the policy of this Government.
Since November, the new DG has been trying, literally alone, to do some of the work that is supposed to be done by the department.
These are examples of incompetence in general. Members know very well that it is very, very hard to dismiss a public servant in South Africa. I repeat: It is very, very hard to dismiss a public servant in South Africa. As former Minister for the Public Service and Administration I will tell this House one of these days about the problems and what the causes are. [Laughter.] With regard to what I am supposed to do and what I am doing, as I said, we are restructuring the department. We have instituted an audit. We are instituting disciplinary actions because one cannot simply dismiss a public servant. One must have grounds to do so. This is part of the ongoing process.
I have been to the Eastern Cape on more than one occasion. The premier and I are not satisfied with the way in which services in general are being given to the poor in that province. Rev Stofile was one of the first who, as early as July or August, pointed out to me there was a problem. There is a problem as far as the poverty relief programmes of the Department of Welfare are concerned, and he has been very concerned, as an individual, as a priest and as the premier of that province. He has been very concerned about the way in which these poverty funds have been distributed and the accountability of the people that receive them. Even when I spoke to him at eleven o'clock last night, he was trying to find out how he could lay his hands on this money so that he would be able to give it out himself in that province.
With regard to the question as to whether only 1% of the funds has been distributed, that is quite true. In fact, it is 0,6% or 0,8%. That is an utter failure. Really, it is worse than any other thing. I would have understood if it was 40%. When I was doing matric at school, people were always struggling to get 40% to pass. But 1% is unacceptable and unjustifiable.
As far as the question of the money from the Dutch government is concerned, 11% of it has been spent, and I think I might agree with the hon member. As early as August, September last year, I ordered the previous director- general to give me a report on this money. There are problems with regard to how it was used, even that 11%, hence the audit and the investigation in general. We want to find out what happened. I do not want to hide anything. We will talk to the Dutch and we will make it public.
Of course, in general, as the hon member said, I must carry the can, and I think I am carrying it, and it is not nice to carry the can for all this. It is quite obvious I would not ask the New NP to be quiet on this, as there is no justification whatsoever for this underspending. To the hon Mr Durr I wish to say I do not think that we are ascribing this failure to apartheid at all. As I have said, the ANC takes responsibility for this.
In so far as all the other issues that have been raised here are concerned, I think the steps that we have taken are quite clear.
I would now like to respond to Mr Marais. One of the things that I decided to do when I came into that department - I heard him talk about this also at the last meeting of the Minmec - was to devolve funds to provinces. I feel much better personally about this point. I do not have to account for everything. Mr Marais will have to account for it if I send the funds to him and to provinces.
In view of what the public felt, I gave an order a long time ago, but in the process, I had to find out from the IDT how much money they had. To be honest with members, in so far as the IDT is concerned, they did come to me to say that they were trying to help where they had been asked to do so. They had, from the beginning, attempted to set up a network in order to be able to distribute the funds to everybody. However, in the process of distribution, everything has not worked as well as they would have liked.
Secondly, when I started putting pressure on the officials, as the hon member correctly said, they wanted the IDT to just throw the money into the provinces. Ms Gwagwa, the head of the IDT, felt that she could not do that because she would not be able to account for it. That is a reality. I told her to do what she thought was best.
I have been talking to the officials for quite some time now about the fact that this money cannot just remain there because I foresaw the situation in which we are at the present moment. When I heard that there was an auditing process, I ordered them to give all the necessary information regarding these issues to the Auditor-General.
So, as far as I am concerned, all along since October, during the consultative process, we have been in consultation with civil society on the question of its participating in deciding the distribution of these funds to the different communities. At the beginning, most of them, with one exception, were not so sure about their participation because they did not want to be seen to be performing Government functions as such.
However, since just before the Auditor-General's report came out, I have been talking to church leaders to ask them to participate in the distribution of whatever funds are left over. I have met Bishop Dandala, who was representing the SA Council of Churches or SACC. I also have met Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane. I have also met the Catholic Bishops Conference, Muslim religious organisations and Kagiso Trust.
More importantly, we have been working very closely with Sangoco to ensure that it participates in the whole process. They will come back to me after they have met the director-general and the top officials to come up with a plan in order to assist us with the distribution of this money, and to ensure that they are both able to account for the money and that it reaches the right people at the right time.
In other words, I want to say very clearly that we are not trying to hide anything in so far as these funds are concerned. We are going to keep Government, the Cabinet in general, and Parliament as a whole informed about how we use this money. There will be as much transparency as possible because I do not see what we would gain by hiding anything.
The more the funds are out of our hands the better for us. I think the department itself needs drastic action and it needs to change its way of thinking and working. More importantly, the oversight function of parliamentarians, of this House, needs to be exercised as far as the department is concerned. It is actually necessary, in view of the fact that the majority here come from the poorest of the poor, that members give more attention to the work that is being done by that department, and ensure that all those people who ought to receive or have access to the resources of the department do get this, specifically all children, the elderly and the disabled.
As far as the Eastern Cape is concerned, I have even been there to look at the infrastructure of the welfare departments in the Eastern Cape. I think members of this House who come from that area and the Northern Province should try to go and see how and where the people receive their grants. It is very disgraceful, very embarrassing. No wonder there is so much fraud. No wonder that people are robbed. People are getting their grants in an open veld. It is terribly, terribly embarrassing what happens in those two provinces and I think some are of KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. There is a problem in the Northern Province and the Eastern Cape, but, together with my colleagues in the provinces, I think we can work as a team to correct whatever deficiencies exist.
We have no personal interest whatsoever - and I also doubt whether the national Government has any such interest - in taking over the functions and the powers of the provinces. Instead we want to empower and strengthen those provinces and we would like those provinces to work as closely as possible with their local governments so that the services that ought to be received by the majority of our people are received.
More care should be given to the weakest members of our society such as the elderly, children, the disabled and all other people. More needs to be done on the issue of Aids amongst ourselves and within our communities. [Applause.]
Order! I believe it is very significant that we have had such a debate and I am pleased that the Minister could be here to participate in the debate.
The Minister has enjoined members that they should carry out their constitutional brief to assist the Government in ensuring that the people of South Africa receive the support that Government intends to provide. I think this is an important call to members and I hope that members of the NCOP will respond positively.
We have now concluded the discussion on this subject of public importance.
Debate concluded.