Chairperson, I truly believe that we must confront the hard truth about the poor performance of the department and its entities if we want to ensure that all South Africans enjoy their constitutional rights. The same issues that appear on both the strategic plan and the annual report of the department were discussed and resources were appropriated for them to be implemented five years ago when I was a member of this committee.
Today, I find myself with more questions than answers. Once again, we revisit the same issues and make plans for the period of 2017 to 2019. Why is it that those plans tabled five years ago were never implemented? What happened to the resources that were allocated to these plans? With all the challenges that we face as a nation - poverty, inequality and unemployment - one would have expected the department to implement its programmes with far greater urgency.
The issues at hand are the universalisation of the child support grant and the old age grant, the child protection register, the policy for nonprofit organisation funding, or NPO funding, and the establishment of an inspectorate for social security. Despite the massive expansion of the grant system as a source of income for many poor families, many still suffer the double fate of poverty and social exclusion. A recent study found that 2,3 million eligible children are not receiving the child support grant, primarily because of a lack of documentation and administrative obstacles.
It is worrying that, as a country, we still use the means test to determine who qualifies for social grants, thereby excluding many deserving citizens of this country. The extent of this exclusion indicates that there is an urgent need for a policy review that will focus on the legislative changes necessary to unblock the legal impediments to the child support grant and the old age grant. Since 2009, the DA has proposed the removal of the means test so that a person, by merit of being a South African citizen, receives the grant according to his or her needs - and not related to his or her income and assets. It is sad that after so many years this matter will only be finalised during this financial year.
With regard to nonprofit organisation funding, we have seen an expansion of the social grant system, but, in contrast, funding for social welfare services has been relatively neglected. In 2009, NPOs challenged the department on problems in its NPO funding policy. This included a judgment of the Free State High Court instructing the department to come up with a better policy in respect of funding of NPOs. These NPOs filed this court application after several years of serious frustration with how the department dealt with transfers to and subsidies of NPOs. The frustrations, amongst many others, included delayed payments, lack of communication, lack of consultation, payment amounts not corresponding to the services rendered and not enough funding for nongovernmental organisations for the services they render. As a result, many NPOs are unable to successfully perform their duties. The judgment notes that many NPOs are funded by the department and that the department openly acknowledges that these organisations play a major role in delivering social services to children, the elderly and people with disabilities. In fact, in many cases, the department is dependent on these NPOs for delivering services that government are actually responsible for through laws like the Children's Act and the Older Persons Act. The department also acknowledges that the transfers it provides to many NPOs do not cover the full cost of service delivery, yet we see no urgent effort to fix this situation.
During the strategic plan and budget presentation by the department to the committee, it was indicated that only by 2019 would the department come up with an efficient regulatory system, the capacity-building ability and the funding model for NGOs. This is unacceptable because by then it will be 10 years after the court judgment. Hon Minister, surely we owe it to NPOs to accomplish this review with greater urgency? If we don't, the following will happen: many NGOs will be closed; many people will lose their jobs; and 62% of the social welfare services rendered by these NPOs will come to a standstill.
It is not only the judgment of the High Court that provided the recommendation on this matter. The Financial and Fiscal Commission's 2013 report highlighted the low financial provision by government to child welfare services, which amounted to R5,7 billion in 2013-14 compared to the estimated need of at least R12,9 billion for only the low-level implementation of the Children's Act. Finally, the report also points to the vast disparities in funding social welfare and the expenditure between provinces. KwaZulu-Natal spends R81 per child while the Northern Cape spends R412.
In the Western Cape, where the DA governs, we have managed to introduce a new departmental system for monitoring the use of these funds by NGOs, ensuring that the vulnerable citizens of the Western Cape get the maximum benefit. This drive shows that the Western Cape department of social development spent the biggest portion of its budget, 68%, on transfer payments to NGOs. This is more than any other province in this country, according to the Financial and Fiscal Commission in its submission for the division of revenue in 2014-15. During a time of financial crisis and with the National Lottery failing the NGOs dismally, we believe this is a critically strategic move to preserve the welfare services of our people. Surely, we need to assess the rationality of our spending across the provinces and rectify these disparities.
Hon Minister, I believe the power is in your hands to do what is right for those South Africans whose lives depend on this Ministry.
During the 2010 Budget Vote debate in this very venue, I was concerned about and raised the issue of the legal cases brought against Sassa in the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. One of the Supreme Court of Appeal judges described the inefficiency in the processing of social grant applications "as a war of attrition against the poor". Today, as I stand before you, there is a Constitutional Court case against Sassa. Maybe we should be asking ourselves why Sassa is back in court again. How many court cases is Sassa facing?
We know that the Cash Paymaster Services tender was declared invalid. It is about time that Sassa corrects the public procurement principles of transparency and adheres to the Constitutional Court order. In 2011, during a Questions for Oral Reply session in the House, I asked the former Deputy Minister, Mrs Ntuli, why the department never established the inspectorate for social assistance, as required by chapter 4 of the Social Assistance Act. If the department is really serious about fraud and corruption within Sassa, I believe Sassa could have acted immediately. We also take note of other systems that Sassa is trying to put in place, especially with regard to reregistration. Why has the inspectorate for social assistance never been established? The department has lost millions through fraud and corruption since the establishment of Sassa. According to Sassa, it will only establish this inspectorate by March 2019 - that is 10 years later!
Currently, the bulk of Sassa's expenditure goes to cash payment contractors which, on average, account for approximately 53% of the entire budget, whilst the remaining caters for so many little things. In 2009, I asked the Minister this question, and I am asking it again: Does the department really need Sassa to administer the grants on its behalf? I ask this because Sassa has subcontracted out the very job it is supposed to be doing to contractors who are taking huge chunks of the budget. Is Sassa an asset or a liability to the department? It is clear that the majority of Sassa's budget does not benefit the poor and vulnerable of our country. Why will the department only have developed a payment system in three years' time that will strengthen the position of Sassa as a payment provider?
In conclusion, allow me to leave this House with Albert Einstein's words. He said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. [Interjections.] Anything we have criticised is because we care; we are part of South Africa. [Time expired.] [Applause.]