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.]