Information Services Research Unit; Child Abuse Documentary: briefing

Meeting report

IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE & STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE
20 March 2002
INFORMATION SERVICES RESEARCH UNIT;CHILD ABUSE DOCUMENTARY; BRIEFING

Documents handed out:
Content Analysis of Department and Statutory Body Briefings
The Analysis of the Presentations of the Departmental and Statutory Bodies

Chairperson: Ms H I Bogopane (ANC)

SUMMARY
The Parliamentary Information Research Unit critisized the structure of departmental submissions presented to the Committee. Many presentations were not in-depth and some lacked analytical content.

The Committee expressed reservations on the planned screening in the UK of children that were recently raped in the country under a BBC commissioned documentary. Filmmakers and the children's parents would be invited to explain the nature of the proposed documentary. The Committee was concerned that children's rights were not exploited to feed in the sensational film production

MINUTES
Information Services Research Unit
The research unit proposed that presenters should prepare slides and hard copies that were properly simplified to enable Committee members to digest the purport of the presentations hence facilitating more qualitative interaction with the Committee.

Mr Ahmed,a researcher with the Unit, commenced his briefing by outlining the object of the research project. The project aimed at providing a content analysis of eleven government departments' and five statutory bodies' briefings to the Committee. He explained that the content analysis consisted of three broad categories covering children, youth and disabled persons.

Each department and statutory body had been analysed under the foregoing three categories focussing specifically on their policies, budgets, programmes and anticipated policies and programmes related to improving the quality of life and status of children, the youth and disabled persons.

Mr Ahmed identified the departments and statutory bodies that were covered in the report and these were Communication, Correctional Services, Education, Health, Justice and Constitutional Development, Labour, Public Works, Safety and Security, Social Development, Sports and Recreation and Transport. The Statutory Bodies covered in the report and these were; Commission on Gender Equality, Human Rights, Commission, Khula Enterprise, Ntsika Enterprise and Umsobomvu Fund.

DEPARTMENT SUBMISSIONS
Department of Communication
Mr Ahmed said that its submission focused mainly on disabled persons and less on youth and children. He recommended that the JMC interrogate the Department's policies on youth and children. He also suggested it would be prudent for the JMC to establish progress in terms of the different programmes highlighted and mentioned by the Department.

In terms of budgetary allocations, it would be advisable for the Department to establish the criteria used for allocating different amounts to various programmes. He also underlined the need to assess whether the Department had a monitoring mechanism to ensure implementation of its programmes.

Department of Correctional Services
Mr Ahmed pointed out that the Department had not set out a separate budget for youth programmes with the exception of the Youth Correctional Centres. He asked the JMC to seek clarity on the issue. He also noted that a specific budget for disabled persons was absent from the Department's submission which he said was highly problematic and same called for an explanation.

Mr Ahmed also noted that the Department was primarily concerned with disabled staff members and ignored the needs of disabled prisoners. The Department had generally failed to adequately deal with the needs of disabled persons which he said was clearly reflected in their budget.

Department of Education
Mr Ahmed questioned whether programmes had been put in place for out-of-school children who could not afford to pay for education? He also asked for clarity on whether the Department had taken measures to ensure that there was policy governing Reform Schools and Schools of Industry. He asked how the Department planned to deal with the implementation of the Reception Year in poor communities that do not have resources.

The Department had noted that 249 644 learners with disabilities were unaccounted for. What had the Department done to ensure that these learners were given a proper education. How much was the Department spending on institutions catering for disabled learners.

Department of Health
Mr Ahmed suggested that clear indicators and timeframes should be provided by the Department on their activities so that the JMC was able to track progress or lack thereof effectively. He added that an indication of targeted and non-targeted programmes benefiting disabled persons should be made available to the JMC.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
Mr Ahmed said that this department had the most comprehensive in-put. He noted, however, that according to the Department's Legislative Programme dated May 2000, it was envisaged that the new Child Justice Bill would be introduced into Parliament by November 2001. Why in the Department's 2002 Programme,had the Bill subsequently been moved for introduction during the first half of this year. At the time of compiling this report the Bill had not yet been introduced into Parliament. He pointed out that the Department owed the JMC an explanation on what caused the delay in the introduction of the Bill as earlier scheduled.

Had the Department considered the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act in drafting its policy on disabled persons. He pointed out that the Department was obligated to provide the JMC with timeframes for the completion of future programmes and any outstanding legislation.

Department of Labour
Apart from its policies on child labour, the Department's submission lacked evidence of programmes that protected children's rights. He faulted the anticipated policies and programmes as being very broad noting that the Department must indicate the progress made on each policy and programme and elaborate on exactly what it entailed.

The Department, Mr Ahmed continued should address the question in relation to progress made with regard to restructuring the Sheltered Employment Factories and whether, indeed, the feasibility study had been concluded and what other, if any, protective workshops the Department was managing. He added that it was important to know whether there is a mechanism in place to monitor progress by employers in making the workplace conducive and accessible to persons with disabilities

Department of Public Works
Mr Ahmed said that more information was required on provincial programmes and the targets that had been achieved so far. At the same time he was of the view that more needed to be done on sustainable financing of job creation projects at district level.

Department of Safety & Security
Mr Ahmed observed that the Department's submission did not illustrate exactly how the resources allocated were being used to prevent and combat crime, the nature of physical and human resources at its disposal, the involvement of the public and also how effective these interventions were. He added that no specific budget had been allocated to deal with crimes against the youth, children and disabled persons.

Department of Social Development
Mr Ahmed wondered why the Department had not listed any policies to deal specifically with child labour. He inquired as to what portion of the R700 000 budget is allocated to dealing with child labour. Had the Department distinguished between the children and youth sectors and did such a distinction influence policies and programmes formulated to combat child labour?

Mr Ahmed concluded that the Department's submissions fail to provide the reader with an understanding of how its programmes and policies relate to preventing child labour.

Department of Transport
Mr Ahmed said that it would be useful for the Department to update the JMC in terms of progress made in the three-phase development process. The Department should also indicate whether implementation guidelines and regulations have been drafted. He suggested that the Department should be requested to elaborate on its policies with regard to youth and children sectors.

STATUTORY BODIES
Commission on Gender Equality
Coming down to Statutory bodies, Mr Ahmed pointed out that it was not clear from the notes as well as the web-site what specific programmes the Commission on Gender Equality focused on children, youth and disabled persons. He faulted the presentation for not addressing issues relating to disabled persons. In view of the CGE mandate what programmes were they engaged which benefitted the girl child?

Khula Enterprise
Mr Ahmed asked if the enterprise in its programmes coordinated and worked with other agencies and service departments and whether it plans to expand its programmes.

Ntsika Enterprise
Mr Ahmed asked what percentage of the youth and disabled does Ntsika Enterprise currently service. He also asked if there was a vision or a policy to assist entrepreneurs with disabilities. Many potential entrepreneurs were mothers with children and wondered if Ntsika had considered support measures aimed at entrepreneurial mothers with children such as childcare support.

Human Rights Commission
As regards the Human Rights Commission, Mr Ahmed pointed out that it has a special section 5 Committee that deals with child labour. He said that the mandate of this Committee is to advise the Commission on issues about children and their rights.

Umsobomvu Youth Fund
Finally, Mr Ahmed asked the Umsobomvu Youth Fund to demonstrate how it would address the many challenges of capacity, policy and strategy, information, youth participation, risk management and sustainability.

In conclusion, Mr Ahmed suggested that clear guidelines be given to presenters before the presentation. This, he said, should include the format in which the submissions are to be made say for instance the objectives of programmes should be outlined clearly with specific outputs, indicators, timeframes and budgets. This would enable the JMC to develop a system, which would ensure the systematic tracking of such programmes.

Mr Ahmed recommended that written submissions should be made available to the JMC. He ventured that slide presentations were inadequate in compiling a comprehensive report as activities were normally only listed and details were not provided. He further recommended that presenters should be asked for desegregated information on programmes with the specific budget allocations attached to it.

Discussion
The Chair noted the criticism of departmental presentations. She said Departments had been struggling and needed to develop reporting guidelines by end of June. She suggested that the JMC send them guidelines annually.

Mr Gore (DP) supported the idea that a criterion be developed for submissions before the JMC. He suggested that the finding be taken back to the relevant Departments for necessary intervention.

Mr Raju (IFP) said that the report referred to children which the Department of Education could not account for. He sought clarity on this issue.

The Chair reminded Mr Raju that what the presenter had said in his report was based on an admission made by the Department of Education before the Committee that they did not have statistics of children they support in special schools.

Mr Raju pointed out that the report contained clear figures on these children so what was it that the Department could not account for?

The Chair asked Mr Raju to save the question for the Department since they were in a better position to reply.

Mr Da Camara (DP) expressed his satisfaction with the report. He suggested that all presenters should emulate the Research Unit which supplied members with the report long before the presentation.

He added that this strategy was valuable since it prepared members to interact with the presenter more meaningfully. Why was National Youth Committee not covered in the project.

The Chair replied that the oversight on that item was on the part of the Committee clerks who failed to furnish the Research Unit with the relevant particulars.

Mr Morkel (NNP) asked why the Department of Finance was not covered. He also asked why NGOs were not listed yet the Committee had interacted with the NGO sector on several occasions.

The Chair replied that she had pointed out at the outset that not all departments were covered and that the report was not therefore exhaustive. She said that to her recollection only three NGOs had appeared before the Committee. She noted that it would be better to deal with the government first.

The Chair urged members to study the report in preparation for debate after the recess. She suggested that the report be submitted to the National Assembly for debate instead of it merely being noted, as has been the case in the past.

She said that members had voiced concern on what to do with the presentations made before the Committee. She added that the research that was carried out did not cover all the Department due to the time constraints.

She pointed out that a comprehensive report had been tabled for members to study and discuss. The Chair, however, clarified that today's business was, really, to seek clarity where it was called for and note areas of intervention when the report will be interrogated after the recess.

She explained that the presenter was merely present to analyse the factual basis of the report and at the same time guide members through the document to enable them grasp the content more thoroughly. The Chair summed up her preliminary comments on the report by urging members to familiarise with the report during the long recess and ready themselves for the debate that would ensue.

MINUTES
Child Abuse Documentary
The Chair also sought members' indulgence to address another issue arising from the recent public presentation on sensitive question of child abuse. She said that after sitting through the hearings, she had noted a presentation by Shadow Pictures based on a documentary commissioned by the BBC on child abuse in South Africa.

The Chair noted with concern that Shadow Pictures had indicated that they intend to screen the documentary on the rape of six babies in South Africa and that the pictures of these babies would be run on big screens in the UK. She added that Shadow Pictures had also indicated that they had put an embargo on the screening of the film in South Africa.

The Chair pointed out that while she had no quarrel with the implicit intention of the documentary to depict South Africa to the entire world as a "disastrous and sick nation", she was gravely concerned about the identities of the babies affected. She added that there was also the issue of the protection of children rights, which must be of fundamental concern to the Committee.

The Chair explained that she had arranged to meet the parents of the affected children together with Shadow Pictures after the recess on the April 24. The purpose of the meeting, she explained was to try to understand what deal if any the parents struck with the filmmakers later that had influenced them into acquiescing to the violation of the basic rights of the child.

She noted that some of the cases involved were still pending in court and that therefore the intended screening of the pictures would impinge on the administration of justice in the country.

The Chair added that when she asked Shadow Pictures to disclose certain information they declined citing privilege of their sources.

Discussion
Mr Morkel (NNP) thanked the Chair for sharing this "critically vital piece of experience" with the Committee. He then stated that "as South Africans, we crave for a positive image but that we cannot hide the wrongs in our society by trying to gag the independent press".

Having made that clarification Mr Morkel urged the Committee to investigate and find out if there was any malice underlying the screening of the report. He offered that this could be achieved by engaging the UK government to gauge the intention of the proposed screening before any conclusions could be drawn thereon.

Ms Ghandhi (ANC) pointed out that there were clear laws on children's rights and that therefore the full force of the law should be brought to bear where there were clear violations.

Mr Da Camara (DP) reminded members that they had a moral and legal obligation to ensure that children were not exploited either for financial gain or to satisfy selfish sensational pursuits.

He added that whilst there was need for a flow of factual situations, the media had an obligation under the law to ensure that the material put before the public took cognisance of the underlying sensitivities. He however concurred with Mr Morkel that members should be cautious not to jump to conclusions.

The Chair clarified that the meeting scheduled for the 24 April with the parents and Shadow Pictures was purely to interrogate the facts and get informed on what was happening.

The Chair noted that she was particularly disturbed by the fact that there was an embargo on the documentary in South Africa. She pondered why this was so if the intentions of the presenters were that noble.

She explained that Article 24 of the Constitution gave a an unequivocal mandate on the protection of children's rights. She added that there was already in place an international criterion on the rights of the child and that even the UK was a signatory to this instrument.

The Chair pointed out that it was expedient to interrogate the affected parents in order to gauge whether they understood the implication of this measure to the lives of the children. She added that the legal advisor would be invited to attend the meeting so as to guide members in their discussions.

Mr Da Camara asked if there was any other branch of government involved in the issue given its serious implications to the vulnerable members of society.

The Chair replied that she had not been made aware of any other governmental intervention but hastened to clarify if there were not other authorities involved, that did not detract from the fact that the JMC had its own independent processes which must run full course.

The Chair then concluded this particular session by stating that it was not the Committee's brief to stop any production whatsoever. She noted, however, that where children's rights were at stake the committee must intervene accordingly. She added that the good offices of UNICEF could be invoked for lobbying where necessary.