Implementation of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Departmental responses to public hearings

Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities

22 August 2012
Chairperson: Ms D Ramodibe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee continued to hear the responses of departments to the public hearings held in July on South Africa’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. The Department of Basic Education and Department of Labour were due to present their responses. When the Department of Education representative began the presentation, members questioned why the Director General was not present, and wondered if the Director of Policy would be able to answer their questions. Some Members suggested that the lack of a written apology, and the presence of a less senior official, showed disrespect and suggested that the Department be released immediately. Others had more sympathy that the Director General had to attend to serious problems in Limpopo, and were reluctant to waste the Department’s money. The Chairperson ruled that the presentation could proceed. However, this was stopped when it became apparent, very soon, that figures in the written and slide presentations differed. The Department attempted to explain that when it had first prepared documentation for the Committee, not all the figures from provinces had been obtained and verified, and the figures in the slides represented the true picture. Committee Members were very dissatisfied, saying that there had been a problem in the past, that the veracity of the whole written document was now called into question and that for this reason the Department could not be allowed to continue. That department was dismissed.

The Department of Labour (DoL) noted that the Employment Equity (EE) Act, regulations and Code attempted to achieve equity by promoting equally opportunities and fair treatment, as well as implementing affirmative action measures that may be necessary to achieve equity. Reporting forms were used to collect data on race, gender and disability and annual reports were compiled detailing the representation of the designated groups. Formal qualifications, recognition of prior learning and ability to learn the job within a reasonable time were all accepted. The DoL outlined the steps that it took to promote disabled employment. Whilst no targets were set for the private sector, the public sector had a target of achieving 2% employment of people with disabilities by 2015. By 2010, the total disability representation in both sectors was at 0.8%. The Department of Trade and Industry was asked to include targets for employment of those with disabilities in the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment scorecard. The reasonable accommodation (RA) requirements were detailed, which were intended to assist people with disabilities to have equal access to, participate in and advance in employment. The DoL internal staffing included 2.7% disabled employees, and was aiming for 3%, and 2.4% of these were at senior management levels. It was trying to source women and disabled candidates under an Accelerated Development Programme (ADP), and EE representatives had to be included in the shortlisting and interview processes. From an external point of view, its general empowerment initiatives included the 12 Sheltered Employment Factories (SEFs) and Workshops, operating in seven provinces. 241 people with disabilities were placed in employment and subsidies were paid to others. The Sector Education and Training Authorities were being asked to create jobs for the disabled and use the SEF facilities, and there was an agreement that government procure from the SEFs providing furniture, which had already amounted to a 15% improvement. A turnaround strategy was in place for the factories, and proposals for funding had been put to National Treasury.  Members asked questions around compliance, inspections and how the DoL would ensure better compliance in future, as well as any programmes that it might have to prevent discrimination, and how the question of promotions, raised in the public hearings, was to be addressed. They wanted written indicators of employment statistics in other departments, and what kind of access was provided to the disabled, as well as more elaboration on the problems of access from and to the rural areas. Members were impressed with the SEF in Gauteng but felt that more detail, including timelines, were needed on these projects, and a greater indication of their sustainability. They questioned why white people with disabilities were still not being employed, and asked if amendments were required to the legislation. They wanted details of any entrepreneurial training opportunities, and financial aid for the disabled.

Meeting report

The Committee continued to hear the responses of departments to the public hearings held in July on South Africa’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. The Department of Basic Education and Department of Labour were due to present their responses. When the Department of Education representative began the presentation, members questioned why the Director General was not present, and wondered if the Director of Policy would be able to answer their questions. Some Members suggested that the lack of a written apology, and the presence of a less senior official, showed disrespect and suggested that the Department be released immediately. Others had more sympathy that the Director General had to attend to serious problems in Limpopo, and were reluctant to waste the Department’s money. The Chairperson ruled that the presentation could proceed. However, this was stopped when it became apparent, very soon, that figures in the written and slide presentations differed. The Department attempted to explain that when it had first prepared documentation for the Committee, not all the figures from provinces had been obtained and verified, and the figures in the slides represented the true picture. Committee Members were very dissatisfied, saying that there had been a problem in the past, that the veracity of the whole written document was now called into question and that for this reason the Department could not be allowed to continue. That department was dismissed.

The Department of Labour (DoL) noted that the Employment Equity (EE) Act, regulations and Code attempted to achieve equity by promoting equally opportunities and fair treatment, as well as implementing affirmative action measures that may be necessary to achieve equity. Reporting forms were used to collect data on race, gender and disability and annual reports were compiled detailing the representation of the designated groups. Formal qualifications, recognition of prior learning and ability to learn the job within a reasonable time were all accepted. The DoL outlined the steps that it took to promote disabled employment. Whilst no targets were set for the private sector, the public sector had a target of achieving 2% employment of people with disabilities by 2015. By 2010, the total disability representation in both sectors was at 0.8%. The Department of Trade and Industry was asked to include targets for employment of those with disabilities in the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment scorecard. The reasonable accommodation (RA) requirements were detailed, which were intended to assist people with disabilities to have equal access to, participate in and advance in employment. The DoL internal staffing included 2.7% disabled employees, and was aiming for 3%, and 2.4% of these were at senior management levels. It was trying to source women and disabled candidates under an Accelerated Development Programme (ADP), and EE representatives had to be included in the shortlisting and interview processes. From an external point of view, its general empowerment initiatives included the 12 Sheltered Employment Factories (SEFs) and Workshops, operating in seven provinces. 241 people with disabilities were placed in employment and subsidies were paid to others. The Sector Education and Training Authorities were being asked to create jobs for the disabled and use the SEF facilities, and there was an agreement that government procure from the SEFs providing furniture, which had already amounted to a 15% improvement. A turnaround strategy was in place for the factories, and proposals for funding had been put to National Treasury.  Members asked questions around compliance, inspections and how the DoL would ensure better compliance in future, as well as any programmes that it might have to prevent discrimination, and how the question of promotions, raised in the public hearings, was to be addressed. They wanted written indicators of employment statistics in other departments, and what kind of access was provided to the disabled, as well as more elaboration on the problems of access from and to the rural areas. Members were impressed with the SEF in Gauteng but felt that more detail, including timelines, were needed on these projects, and a greater indication of their sustainability. They questioned why white people with disabilities were still not being employed, and asked if amendments were required to the legislation. They wanted details of any entrepreneurial training opportunities, and financial aid for the disabled.

 

Mr Nondwangu said that on the issue of employment equity, designated employers gave reports to the DoL on this matter. Employment Equity Forums were held. The DoL had engaged with companies to build awareness on peoplewith disabilities.

The meeting was adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: