Chairperson, hon Ministers, Members of Parliament and guests, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak at the second reading of the Social Assistance Amendment Bill.
The mission of the Department of Social Development is to enable the poor, the vulnerable and the excluded within the South African society to secure a better life, and to do so in partnership with them, as well as those who are committed to building a caring society.
To give effect to this mission statement, the Department of Social Development provides a range of welfare services, developmental services and social security programmes. We can say without equivocation that these programmes have had a significant impact on the lives of the poor, destitute and vulnerable. Our programme on social assistance continues to improve the consumption capacity of the poor and contributes positively to their wellbeing. The cash transfer system has enabled millions of our people to meet their basic needs, and has empowered all these millions to invest in the future of their children through education. Whilst continuing to expand the reach of our programmes, we continually work towards improving the management and administration of social assistance to ensure that we pay the right person the right grant amount at the right time.
It is in pursuance of this objective that we reviewed the reliability and validity of the instruments used for the assessment of disability. We are also determined to ensure that all our administrative systems are geared towards treating the beneficiaries of our services with dignity and with due consideration for administrative justice. We, therefore, also carefully considered whether the application to the approval process within the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, was just and fair.
It is in the light of these assessments that we sought to make changes to the administration of certain aspects of our social assistance programmes through the Social Assistance Amendment Bill. We sought to amend the definition of "disability", so that we are better placed to identify people who are permanently disabled, those who are temporarily disabled and those who suffer from chronic illnesses.
The current definition leaves too much discretion to individual medical practitioners and Sassa officials, resulting in significant variations in the way people are assessed for the purpose of receiving disability grants. This has resulted in people who are chronically ill qualifying for permanent and temporary disability grants. In some cases, people who are, indeed, permanently disabled were not able to receive support from the state based on the outcome of a medical assessment.
We have, therefore, introduced to Parliament the Social Assistance Amendment Bill with a view to redefining "disability" and implementing the Harmonised Assessment Tool, Hat. The intention behind these amendments was to provide a more rational and less arbitrary means of assessing disability through limiting the discretion of individual doctors and our officials.
With respect to enhancing administrative justice within our administration, we proposed the amendment of section 18 in the original Act as amended, or the Social Assistance Act of 2004 with a view to improving the review process by having more senior officials in Sassa reassessing the decision made by junior officials who have declined an application for a grant.
These proposed amendments were approved by Cabinet and duly submitted to Parliament for further deliberations and public participation. Let me state that when Cabinet approved the amendments as discussed, we also approved a process wherein the Department of Health would develop a strategy to manage the chronic illnesses.
I must admit that the Parliamentary process was very robust, and significant submissions were made by civil society organisations on their concerns and wishes about the proposed changes to the Social Assistance Act.
We are satisfied that the Portfolio Committee on Social Development approached this matter carefully and holistically, reflecting on the impact of such policy amendments and, therefore, proposed that those policy areas that have not been addressed by the Department of Health should first be dealt with before we pass this amendment.
The portfolio committee also called on the Department of Health to present the case regarding readiness from the perspective of the department. I should say at this point that it is possible that we did not fully appreciate the scale of work that needed to be done by the Department of Health to develop a detailed response to dealing with chronic illnesses.
In this instance, the changes that we proposed would have had the effect of removing from the grant system significant numbers of people who, due to their being chronically ill, were accessing the disability grants without the Department of Health's response to those who would fall out, through combating chronic illnesses and also through primary health care which will ensure access to heath services, amongst other things.
The Minister of Health emphasised that managing chronic illness effectively cannot be separated from improving the primary health care system. Given the level of work needed by Health to develop its capabilities to manage chronic illnesses, we accept the portfolio committee's recommendations that they refer the sections of proposed amendments pertaining to the definition of disability and related matters back to Cabinet.
Indeed, as a department deeply concerned with the wellbeing of South Africa's most vulnerable groups, we welcome this development. If the amendments went through without the appropriate response from the health system, many people might have been left without any form of support from the state.
I am thankful that the checks and balances imposed by robust committee debates have made us aware that even the most noble intentions could have negative, albeit unintended outcomes. We are, however, pleased that Parliament has decided to adopt some sections of the Bill which will make the administrative process fairer and more responsive to our clients.
The amendments will enable Sassa to reduce the backlog in the appeals system and expedite the process of reconsideration of a decision to decline an application for a social assistance grant.
The Ministers of Social Development and Health will revert to Cabinet to discuss how we aim to proceed with the management of disabilities and chronic illnesses. I trust that civil society organisations that engaged us on this matter will also use their similar legislative advocacy skills and resources to assist in the passing of good policies and laws, such as the proposed National Health Insurance, NHI, and other comprehensive social security measure.
In conclusion, I want to thank the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development and all the committee members for processing this Bill through the public hearings in Parliament. We accept the deferring of clauses dealing with the definition of "disability" and related matters and also the passing of the remaining two clauses of this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and friends, the purpose of the Bill, when it was tabled by the Minister of Social Development, was to amend the Social Assistance Act of 2004, so as to have a definition for "disability", and to regulate the application process for the grant.
Furthermore, it aimed to regulate the work of the agency to reconsider the decisions it took with regards to grants; to clarify the process of appeals against the decisions of the agency, and also to effect certain textual corrections, and to provide for matters connected therewith.
Now, as we all know, one of our key and effective antipoverty programmes implemented since the establishment of democracy, is the Expanded Social Assistance Programme. Since then, the number of beneficiaries receiving social grants has increased from fewer than 1 million in 1994 to 14 million today. This is indeed a monumental achievement, given that the programme is focusing on the most vulnerable members of our society, who are the children, women, the disabled, orphans and older people.
The committee had public hearings in Parliament that were attended by various stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders raised concerns about the state of readiness of our health system to assess disabilities, and the fact that the definition, as it stands in clause 1 of the Bill, excluded people with chronic illnesses. They also lobbied us for a chronic illness grant of R1 000 a month.
Now, chairperson, there are currently 1,4 million South Africans on the disability grant programme. Disability is determined through a medical process which is done by doctors in the public sector and in the private sector. About 230 000 beneficiaries are in receipt of a temporary disability grant. This grant is defined as a grant that will last for a period of more than 6 months but less than 12 months.
The grant processes have been complicated for a very long time now, and that needs to be addressed. One of the contributing factors lies in the lack of uniformity of assessment methods, which results in errors of inclusion or exclusion. By this I mean that there are people who are receiving the disability grant, but who are not eligible or entitled for such a grant, because they are simply not disabled.
We are further well aware that many of these people are poor and unemployed, and as a result are manipulating the system by collaborating with the doctors in their area, because of lack of income support to these unemployed people.
Let me give you an example, let us take a Dr Van Wyk who knows a Mr Khumalo very well, and this Mr Khumalo has a condition called asthma. His asthma can be managed through appropriate medication and he can still enter the labour market. Now, in medical terms asthma is regarded as a chronic illness and not a disability.
A chronic illness can be defined as an illness that is prolonged, and would not be resolved spontaneously, but can be cured completely. A person with a purely chronic illness alone cannot be deemed to have a disability. Yet Dr Van Wyk would classify Mr Khumalo as disabled for the purpose of the opportunity to receive the disability grant, because he is sympathetic to him, as Mr Khumalo is unemployed and lives in poverty.
Hon Chairperson, the opposite can also be true. There are instances where a person who has asthma goes to the same doctor, but that doctor does not classify that particular person as disabled despite the person being poor and unemployed. I am sure that you will agree that such a practice opens the social grant system to fraud and abuse, and in the long run it undermines the integrity of the system.
Now, in view of this challenge, some time ago Cabinet approved a definition of disability for a disability grant and free health care to address this challenge. The Bill as tabled sought to activate that particular definition. During the public hearing, as I said earlier, the stakeholders consistently raised the issue of exclusion rather than inclusion.
As the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, we also invited the national Department of Health to explain to us the sector's readiness to implement the Bill since its medical officers and other health professionals have a responsibility to use the health assessment tool when they assess disability; and we wanted also to ascertain their state of readiness to dispense chronic medicine, as the Minister said.
I want to commend the department for their open and frank approach to the matter. They, together with the provinces, are in the process of strengthening their primary healthcare facilities in order to timeously dispense medicine, although the shortage of healthcare professionals is also one of their challenges. The committee report, if one looks at it, actually elaborates on this matter in detail.
Now, since we are the Parliament of the people, and especially an activist parliament, we have listened to the people. We have, therefore, decided that only the clauses that have unintended consequences be considered, as well as the clause that deals with the appeals process of the agency.
The committee has rejected the clauses that define "disability" and other clauses that are related to it, and have referred them back to Cabinet for reconsideration. Both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Health must keep the committee abreast on their progress with regard to the state of readiness of the said clauses. The committee will obviously monitor their progress in this regard.
So, the long title of the Bill will now read:
To amend the Social Assistance Amendment Act 2004, so as to enable applicants and beneficiaries to apply to the agency to reconsider its decision; to further regulate appeals against decisions of the agency; and to effect certain textual corrections and to provide for matters connected therewith.
There should be a distinction in the definition of "disability" for children and adults. Also, there should be an assessment tool for the care dependency grant. The department has assured that there is a draft that is ready, but it has not yet been approved by the executive. The draft assessment tool for the care dependency grant determines disability and the extent to which a child requires care and support.
Let me comment on the issue around corruption, because as far as the social assistance grant is concerned, the definition of "fraud" is thrown loosely around, and there are also some allegations. I now want to use this opportunity to commend the Minister and the South African Social Security Agency for the fact that 13 000 public servants and civilians have been convicted of swindling the state about R191,3 million through fraudulent welfare grant claims.
I want to laud them for their action of actually tracking those people down and having them prosecuted so that they can pay back the money to the state. [Applause.]
Sometime I get the impression that members ...
... verlang terug na die vleispotte van Egipte ... [... are longing for the flesh-pots of Egypt].
There was no such thing, and no issue around fraudulent grants. Those of us, who lived in communities where people got grants - if they were lucky - know about the schemes that were there. So far the department has recovered R56 million, and the committee will monitor Sassa closely to see whether they are recovering the rest of the money.
Most of the public servants supplied false information when they applied for social grants, so now that Sassa has access to the Government Pension Fund they can do runs with other government agencies. I am sure they can clean up the system thoroughly.
Obviously, when you have 14 million beneficiaries on the system you will have grantees that fall through the cracks and that come on to the system fraudulently, but when you do your checks and balances that is when you track them down. So the will to prosecute is commendable. It is obviously the right thing to do, and we hope that government will recover all its money.
In conclusion, the ANC supports the Bill as amended by the Portfolio Committee on Social Development. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the level of unemployment is rising on a daily basis in our country. Women bear almost all the responsibility for meeting the basic needs of the families, yet they are systematically denied the resources and freedom to play such a role.
HIV and Aids are rapidly destroying our country. The current food price crisis has a severe impact on our nation. The level of desperation of our people also rises every minute. As we are seated here today, maybe we need to ask ourselves the question: What have we done to change the lives of our people, especially when there are those who go to bed with an empty stomach? For how long do we expect these people to be patient while this government is failing to create employment, and while this government is also wasting millions of rands?
Let me take this opportunity to advise this august House that each and every government deserves the number of criminals it has. The power is in our hands to eradicate the number of social ills in our country.
Because of the level of desperation our people tend to manipulate or abuse the present systems to survive. During the public hearings, many of the organisations alleged that doctors solicited bribes.
Chairperson, I rise on a point of order.
Is that a point of order, hon member?
Chairperson, I don't know whether I'm sleeping or not because the noise reminds me of a visit to a beer hall in Munich. [Laughter.] I don't know whether we are still in the House.
Hon members, please let's lower our conversation so that other members are able to hear the speakers. Continue, hon member.
This implies that people were forging cases to get grants and some HIV/Aids patients and chronic illness patients were deliberately not taking their medication as prescribed by the doctors so that their conditions could deteriorate, and as a result their grants would not be terminated.
Presently there are 13 million people receiving grants in our country. About 1,4 million receive disability grants that cost about R16,9 billion. If all the departments within the social cluster, including the Department of Health, could take their responsibility seriously it would reduce the burden facing the Department of Social Development.
This picture clearly shows how many people are solely depending on social grants as a source of income, but it is not a sustainable solution at all.
Setjhaba se hloka mosebetsi e seng diphuthelwana tsa dijo. Batho ba rona ha ba rate ho ba mekopakopa. Mosotho wa kgale o re "mphemphe e a lapisa, motho o kgonwa ke sa hae." [The community needs jobs and not food parcels. Our people do not like to be beggars. A Mosotho man once said "begging will make you go hungry, one should be satisfied with what one has."]
However, the Social Assistance Amendment Bill was an attempt to deal with the definition of "disability", which is a very complex matter. There was a need to decide to review the existing legislation after noticing a significant increase in the uptake of applications for disability and care dependency grants.
Upon closer scrutiny it was discovered that the current definition of "disability" as defined by the law, included many people, who should be excluded, and vice versa, because there was a lack of uniformity in assessment methods. The Social Assistance Amendment Bill aims to define what exactly constituted disability and who should and who should not benefit from a disability grant.
One of the criteria used in terms of the new Bill is to determine whether a person has a disability or whether a person is able to enter into the labour market. The underlying principle of the Bill was that it will bring about the correct selection and targeting for eligibility for disability grants and a free health care. The harmonised assessment tool will facilitate the uniform assessment and will significantly reduce disability grant fraud.
Section 18 as it stood, only permitted applicants or a person acting on their behalf to appeal against the decision of the agency relating to any matter regulated by the Act. This section did not permit beneficiaries whose grants had been terminated or suspended to appeal against any decision of the agency. According to the agency, relating to any matter regulated by the Act, a beneficiary thus had no choice but to approach the courts for a review.
The amendment to this section will allow a beneficiary to appeal against a decision by Sassa. The amendment also allows Sassa to reconsider the decision by means of an internal review process.
The constitutional implication is that people with chronic conditions, once this tool has been implemented, will no longer qualify for the disability grant as is currently the case. The exclusion is not intentional, but is a means to address the effective identification of disability.
On 18 May 2010, the Department of Health made a presentation before the committee on the state of readiness to implement the Harmonised Assessment Tool, but to our surprise the department reported that they were not ready to implement the tool to assess patient eligibility for disability grants due to a shortage of trained health professionals who could use the tool. They further acknowledged that the Primary Health Care System needs to be strengthened.
According to Chapter 2 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Department of Health must ensure that everyone has a right to have access to sufficient food, water and social security, including - if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants - appropriate social assistance. Furthermore, the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within available resources to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these services.
The current state of the primary health care has deteriorated a hundredfold. Therefore, the shortage of staff, equipment and other sources has posed a high risk and many challenges to primary health care. Given the abovementioned concerns, the committee, therefore agrees not to approve the clause defining "disability" and the related clauses.
In conclusion, the DA demands that the Department of Health must come up with a clear time frame to state exactly when they are going to be ready, so that the Department of Social Development can approve the amendments of the Bill. Thank you.
Chairperson, all Acts of Parliament have unintended consequences and therefore schedules have to be regularly amended. This amendment Bill became necessary because of inadequacies in the definition of disability. This led to a lack of uniformity in assessments methods, which in turn led to budgeted amounts for disability grants being exceeded.
Cope believes that the definition of disability in the Amendment Bill will work better, but a question remains: Will the 400 trained officials whom the department trained at a cost of R462 683 be able to uniformly determine whether an applicant has a moderate to severe limitation to his or her ability to function as a result of physical, sensory communication, intellectual and mental disability making it impossible for such a person to obtain the means for maintenance or employment?
Government will have to institute some kind of peer review to ascertain whether provinces were assessing disability uniformly. Presently, the corrupt practices of South Africa also need to be taken into account. Each of the 400 health facilities that will be set up across the country in support of this Act will have to be regularly audited in order to contain irregularities and corruption.
Officials who have been trained to assess disability should be routinely transferred to other centres so that corrupt practices do not become rooted. We also want to urge the hon Minister to present the portfolio committee with a review of this amendment 12 months after it has been enacted. We need to gauge whether the amendments we are making have, in fact, been effective.
As we are now operating on the basis of a fiscal deficit it is imperative that we keep government expenditure in check. In two years time, the cost of servicing government debt will have risen to over R100 billion. As with Greece, the deficit is going to have serious consequences for our economy.
Furthermore, as the present government is using debt to pay for consumption, not infrastructure development, we can expect resources to become very constrained in the months and years ahead.
The amendment of section 18 of the Principal Act is a great improvement as it allows for self-correction through an appeal of the agency itself. It is very important that the agency fully comprehends the nature of due process and will be able to handle appeals with juridical capability and medical competence.
To obviate litigation is always a preferred way of settling disputes. The courts must always be the final recourse. Litigation is horrendously expensive.
It will be of great importance to Parliament if appeals are analysed to get to the bottom of the problem. If the same problem is continually surfacing from a certain office, area or individual, the department can deal with the root cause quickly and effectively. As a member of the portfolio committee, I urge the hon Minister to ensure that an analysis of appeals takes place routinely and that we are kept in the loop.
Finally, I come to the question of the appointment of a tribunal. In Japan there is an agreement that it is better to take 90 days to plan and 10 days to execute the plan. In the West, planning takes 10 days and the execution takes 90 days. I am making this point that if officials in the provinces do their job well and thoroughly and provide the applicant, who has been turned down, with a detailed explanation it will help to ease up the appeal process and save the Minister from having to appoint an independent tribunal.
In our view the agency itself should never disqualify any applicant without a second opinion and some kind of peer review. Every disqualification should be made as watertight as possible. If an appeal succeeds it will simply mean that someone has not done his or her work properly.
While we support the Bill, we trust that the Minister will keep us in the loop as we have requested. It is very important for us to know whether the amended Act is moderately or substantially better than the Principal Act. Thank you.
Chairperson, in South Africa we have a situation in which 82% of the population is classified as being poor, with poverty levels ranging between 50% and 80%. Unemployment is the root cause of poverty in our country. Inequality is another issue driven more by wage disparity than unemployment.
By 2010, over 13 million people would have received social aid assistance. The question of sustainability is of concern, with some economists saying that South Africa is already the largest welfare state in the world. The problem that we are currently vexed with from a social assistance point of view is how to create a situation in which self-reliance will be promoted and not sole dependency upon state social aid relief.
However, social security is a socioeconomic right that is underwritten by our Constitution. Therefore, we are duty bound to ensure that it fulfils its purpose of financially assisting our most vulnerable and poverty stricken. The Department of Social Development is at the forefront of poverty alleviation and must have the correct legal instruments with which to fulfil its mandate, both effectively and efficiently to the poor and poverty-stricken of our country.
The current Amendment Bill seeks to provide the applicant with greater powers in terms of the appeals procedure, as well as empowering the beneficiaries of social aid grants with the right of appeal to the agency for reconsideration of its decision in respect of a grant, before appealing to an independent tribunal.
The addition of the beneficiaries to the appeal procedure is most welcome because it enables beneficiaries to institute appeal proceedings independently or on behalf of the applicant, thus, once again ensuring a "cover all" clause for social aid relief.
When people living below the poverty line apply for social aid, they are already in a desperate state of affairs. These amendments allow for the expediting of appeals in such matters, thus enabling the government to provide real-time assistance to people in need.
Enjoyment of the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection is of critical importance to the people of South Africa. Regulating the appeals to independent tribunal will also greatly assist in streamlining the procedure, thus providing more effective delivery of aid by the department.
The above is in line with the international norms and conventions, such as the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and certain constitutional imperatives of our own Constitution, such as Section 33, which ensures just administrative action. This accordingly makes the amendment of this Act a very necessary one.
The IFP supports the amendment to the Social Assistance Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the need for the amendment to the Social Assistance Bill was realised when the 2003-04 uptake of disability grants, spiked at more than three times the projected figure for that period.
An investigation was done to establish the cause of this sudden increase. The core findings were that there was no common definition for what constituted a disability, and that there was no uniform assessment, method or tool to determine whether a person had a disability. This situation resulted in errors of both inclusion and exclusion.
The Social Assistance Amendment Bill was an attempt to deal with the definition of "disability", which is an extremely complex matter. One of the criteria used in terms of the proposed Bill to determine whether a person has a disability, was whether he or she was able or not able to enter the labour market.
It seems as if that contentious issue was not going to be decided for now. Very real concerns were raised regarding current recipients of disability grants being disqualified from receiving a disability grant in terms of the proposed definition and that it could have led to more litigation against Sassa and the Department of Social Development.
The ACDP is of the opinion that the definition of "disability" should be exclusively in relation to social grants and not a broad definition. In discussing social assistance in the context of disability, the ACDP would like to draw attention to the present situation where children with disabilities are excluded from receiving social grants until they turn 18 years.
This is because their caregivers receive R280 per month. It is clearly an impossible situation as no one in their wildest dreams would think that a child with a disability could be cared for on that amount. The ACDP will be supporting this Bill as it is amended. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon member, before I call the next speaker, some members were assisting me. I heard some members saying, "Shh! Shh!". Hon Ellis, this reminded me of primary school, where you had a monitor or prefect.
Every time when the teacher left the class, he would appoint a monitor or prefect. Some people loved the job of being a prefect or monitor. When the monitor or prefect was sitting there and someone spoke, he would look at the person and they kept quite. The monitor used to look to the side and then quickly look at one again. Then they would write your name down. [Laughter.] The Chairperson is not like that. Therefore, I am not going to do it. [Interjections.]
Chairperson, the aim of the Social Assistance Amendment Bill is to, and I quote:
Amend the Social Assistance Act of 2004, so as to insert a definition to further regulate the eligibility for a disability grant; to enable applicants and beneficiaries to apply to the agency to reconsider its decisions; to further regulate appeals against decisions of the agency; to effect certain textual corrections; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
Die hantering van so 'n belangrike stuk wetgewing wat die lewens van so veel arme mense diep raak, was betreurenswaardig en uiters swak. Advertensies rakende hierdie stuk wetgewing, wat veral die armes in verafgele plattelandse gebiede raak, was geadverteer in koerante soos die Mail & Guardian en Sunday Times, om slegs twee koerante te noem, teen 'n koste van plus-minus R94 000.
Hierdie belangrike advertensie het toe, nogal, ook oor die Paasnaweek geskied.
Slegs plus-minus ses instansies het voorleggings vir bykans 1,4 miljoen begunstigdes gemaak. Onnodige ritte na Kaapstad deur die Departement van Maatskaplike Ontwikkeling was onderneem om voorleggings aan ons komitee te doen, wetende dat die afwesige Departement van Gesondheid 'n leidende rol in die implementering van hierdie stuk wetgewing sou speel.
Na bykans vier sulke ontmoetings, het die Departement van Gesondheid uiteindelik hul opwagting gemaak. Die departement se situasie was baie duidelik uitgespel. Ek haal dr Pillay aan toe hy baie eerlik en opreg die volgende ges het: (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The handling of such an important piece of legislation, which profoundly affects the lives of so many poor people, has been deplorable and exceedingly poor. Advertisements regarding this piece of legislation, which mainly affects the poor in remote rural areas, were placed in newspapers such as the Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times, to mention just two of the newspapers, at a cost of approximately R94 000. This important advertisement was then, unbelievably, published over the Easter Weekend.
Only about six institutions made submissions on behalf of almost 1,4 million beneficiaries. Unnecessary trips to Cape Town were undertaken by the Department of Social Development to make submissions to our committee, with the knowledge that the absent Department of Health would be playing a leading role in the implementation of this piece of legislation. After about four such meetings, the Department of Health eventually made their appearance. The Department of Health's situation was clearly spelt out. I quote Dr Pillay where he very honestly and sincerely stated the following:]
We are not in any way close to rendering quality healthcare.
Thanks to Dr Pillay for the honesty shown rather than him pretending that everything was in order and that we could proceed. We do want to proceed, but under better conditions.
Implementation of legislation plays a pivotal role in getting systems up and running. The Department of Health can in no way implement what is expected of them in the Bill, bearing in mind the tremendous shortages of health professionals and resources, especially in primary health care.
Voorsitter, die Wet op Maatskaplike Bystand, Wet No 13 van 2004, wat net voor die verkiesing geteken was, nogal, het duidelike oogmerke uitgespel. Ek herinner graag die departement daaraan: eerstens, om vir die administrasie van maatskaplike bystand en betaling van maatskaplike toelaes voorsiening te maak; tweedens, vir maatskaplike bystand voorsiening te maak en die vereistes om daarvoor te kwalifiseer te bepaal; derdens, om te verseker dat minimum norme en standaarde vir die lewering van maatskaplike bystand voorgeskryf word; en laastens, baie belangrik, om vir die instelling van 'n inspektoraat vir maatskaplike bystand voorsiening te maak.
Die vraag is dus nou as volg: Is hierdie inspektoraat ooit gemplementeer? As dit nie gemplementeer is nie, waarom nie? Wie was die uitvoerende direkteur van hierdie inspektoraat? Mag ons miskien nou weet of iemand ooit in die pos aangestel was? Sou dit, soos saamgevat en uiteengesit in hierdie wetgewing, plaasgevind het, kon deeglike monitering, wat onafhanklikheid teweeg sou bring, plaasgevind het.
Sodoende, kon die volgende probleemareas betyds identifiseer word: eerstens, die misbruik van maatskaplike toelaes wat op 'n grootmaat plaasgevind het en baie ekstra administratiewe tyd en geld van die departement geis het; tweedens, kon korrupsie in die departemente wat selfs deur hul eie personeel gepleeg is, bekamp word, soos daarna verwys word deur die voorsitter van ons komitee. Miljoene rande het in die proses verlore gegaan.
Derdens, die agterstand van die aangestelde tribunaal, wat gruwelik misluk het, sou betyds aangespreek en reggestel kon word, en hofsake sou vermy kon word.
Laastens, heel moontlik sou hierdie wysiging van wetgewing nie eers nodig gewees het nie.
Voorsitter, ek weet dat niks vir altyd dieselfde kan bly nie, en dat aanpassings van tyd tot tyd gemaak moet word om stelsels te laat werk. Maar om wetgewing te onderteken en dan in argiewe te bre - en hier verwys ek veral na die 2004 stuk - bring geensins voorspoed of hoop vir veral die armes wat so swaar op ons steun nie. Baie dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, the Social Assistance Act, Act No 13 of 2004, which was, in fact, signed just before the elections, at that, outlines clear objectives. I would like to remind the Department of Health thereof: firstly, to provide for the administration of social assistance and the payment of social grants; secondly, to provide for social assistance and to determine the qualification requirements thereof; thirdly, to ensure that minimum norms and standards are prescribed for the delivery of social assistance; and, lastly, very important, to provide for the establishment of an inspectorate for social assistance.
The questions are, therefore, as follows: Was this inspectorate ever established? If it wasn't, why wasn't it established? Who was the executive director of this inspectorate? May we now, perhaps, be informed as to whether anyone had ever been appointed in this position?
Had this transpired as embodied and explained in this piece of legislation, proper monitoring could have taken place, which would have brought about independence.
By so doing, the following problem areas could have been identified in time: firstly, the misappropriation of social grants, which took place quite extensively and required a great deal of additional administrative time and money; secondly, corruption in the departments, which was perpetrated even by their own staff, could have been controlled, as has been referred to by the chairperson of our committee. Millions of rands have been lost in the process.
Thirdly, the backlog by the appointed tribunal, which failed dismally, would have been addressed in time and could have been rectified, and lawsuits would have been avoided.
Finally, most likely this amendment to the Act would not even have been necessary.
Chairperson, I know that nothing can stay the same forever, and that adjustments have to be made from time to time to allow systems to function. But to ratify legislation and then to store it in the archives- and here I am referring to the 2004 document, in particular- doesn't in any way bring prosperity or hope for, particularly, the poor, who rely so heavily on our support. Thank you.]
Chairperson, I would like to greet the Ministers and all members of the House.
I don't think my speech is going to be very long because, at the moment all the parties that have spoken - the DA, Cope, the IFP and the ACDP - have supported the Bill.
I would like to thank this House for giving us the opportunity to present issues and concerns relating to the Social Assistance Amendment Bill which is before Parliament. As the chairperson said before, I would like to say that we are all aware of the fact that the grant system is not perfect and will require continual changes, from time to time, to adequately respond to the needs of our people.
To improve the provision of social assistance, Cabinet has approved the Social Assistance Amendment Bill, which is before Parliament today.
We know what the Bill seeks to attain by allowing applicants and beneficiaries an opportunity to request the South African Social Security Agency, Sassa, to reconsider decisions, before they appeal to the independent tribunal. It is in order to expedite the resolution of agreements between applicants, beneficiaries and the agency.
It also allows beneficiaries an opportunity to appeal a decision of the agency. It makes provision for the appointment of an independent tribunal in a manner prescribed by the legislation. Lastly, as the chairperson and other speakers have said, the Bill seeks to insert a definition of "disability".
As the ANC and the ANC-led government, we are aware that we have made it clear that it is important to provide income support to all those who are disabled and who, as a result of their disability, are unable to enter the job market.
The chairperson and other people present here spoke about the public hearings, so I won't speak about them or the state of readiness of the Department of Health to implement their assessment team. Chairperson, in conclusion I would rather speak about the desirability of the Bill before I pass a few remarks.
Concerning the desirability of the Bill, we, the committee, would like to request the House to reconsider some clauses of the Bill, in order to address unintended consequences. Our proposal, as the Social Development Portfolio Committee, is, firstly, that the definition in the disability clause be completely withdrawn from the Amendment Bill before this House.
Secondly, seeing that there were no objections to the other clauses, our proposal is that the generic correction in section 5 of the Principal Act and the request on the reconsideration for the right to appeal, as well as the consideration of the decision by the agency for appeal in sections 14 and 18 of the principal Act, be adopted.
As I put it in my speech, we therefore would like Parliament to consider our view and to process these clauses for the acceptance of the Amendment Bill.
Then there are few housekeeping issues that I would like to address. When it comes to the time frame, we do agree that there should be a time frame in place, but we know that there are still challenges when it comes to the Department of Health. So when we get together for our first meeting, we have to look at what we would like to achieve. In this meeting we should discuss the way forward on the milestones concerning the implementation of the Department of Health's strategic plan to manage chronic illnesses.
We also have to look at the care dependency grant because, according to the amendment, there was no assessment tool. We would like the department to brief us on that assessment tool, but after the care dependency grant assessment tool has been approved by Cabinet.
Our social development chairperson gave the long title of the Bill. I therefore would like to place the short title of the Bill before this august House. This Act is called, "The Social Assistance Amendment Act of 2010". The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I would like to express our appreciation for the inputs that have been made by the hon members, who also happen to come from the portfolio committee - all of them. I'm saying so because they have been engaged and they were quite helpful in getting us to the point where we are, in particular the chairperson who has led this process quite well.
I also note that all the hon members, who stood here at this podium, expressed support for the adoption of this Bill, the sections that have been referred to. Having said so, I would just like to respond to some of the issues - quite a few of them - and will be very brief.
The issues that relate to the need for the creation of jobs has been discussed in our portfolio committee on several occasions. We have all acknowledged that it is necessary that government creates jobs so that we are able to ensure that we reduce the burden on the state, in terms of giving grants. That is an issue we have long accepted. We even went to the extent of indicating what measures are in place in moving towards that.
However, it is important to recognise that whilst our people are still suffering, we do have to continue to support them in alleviating poverty; so there is really no debate. We shouldn't stand at this podium and make this issue quite a big issue. There has been this agreement and acknowledgement.
The issue of corruption is not a new thing. It is this particular department, working together with government, which has actually discovered these fraudulent activities in the department. We have been dealing with these activities within the system, so, hon Lamoela, I want to reiterate that it's not a new discovery by any member, particularly from the opposition. It's we people in the department who have found these things and we are dealing with them on a continuous basis, as we are reporting to the portfolio committee.
With regard to the issue of time frames, I want to indicate that indeed we agree that we will come back to the portfolio committee. We'll keep you in the loop, but we will come back with a plan once we note that Health has developed a plan. I did indicate that, as the two Ministers, we will go back to Cabinet to report and to develop mechanisms as to how we are going to take it further. Definitely, we are not going to wait for the time when Health is fully ready because that time will be very far. We would like to have the deferred sections also adopted at some stage.
I would like to thank all hon members and, indeed, agree also that this Bill be passed. Thank you very much. Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Hon members, kindly note that while the committee report is before the House for consideration, there will not be a debate on it today. Members may, however, use the information in the report for the joint debate tomorrow on the Fifa World Cup. I'm sure you will love that; It will be a full House tomorrow. I now recognise the Chief Whip of the Majority Party.
Consideration of Report of Ad Hoc Joint Committee on South Africa's Readiness for Fifa World Cup
There was no debate.
Chairperson I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.