Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan

Meeting report

Briefing by the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases (CCOD)

Dr Barry Kistnasamy, Compensation Commissioner, CCOD, briefed the Committee on the CCODs annual performance plan.

The entity submitted its 2012/13 and 2013/14 annual reports to Parliament during the 2018/19 financial year. The CCOD has obtained the draft opinion from the AG on the 2014/15 and 2015/16 annual reports. The 2016/17 annual report has been approved for submission by the Audit Committee to the AG. The 2017/18 annual report is being prepared for submission.

Business process highlights included:

-         974 Benefit Medical Examinations per month ~ 1054 (2017/18)

-         877 certifications per month ~ 1081 (2017/2018)

-         782 payments per month ~ 860 (2017/18)

-         6902 persons seen at the One Stop Service Centres

-         Total Paid – R2017 million to 9382 claims ~ R254 million to 10324 claims (2017/2018)

-         Neighbouring countries – R71 million to 3407 claims ~ R110 million to 4912 claims (2017/18)

-         Decline due to non-functioning information technology system for three months

Dr Kistnasamy presented the relating expenditure strategic outcome goals which included stabilising the number of claims; provision of Benefit Medical Examinations at One Stop Service centres as well as amendments to cover costs of administration, medical examinations and health care – among many others.

The entity spent 90% of its budget allocation in 2018/19.

The focus areas for 2019/20 included amendments to Occupational Diseases in Mines 7 Works Act, 1973. The expansion of databases of the current and ex-mineworkers was also a highlighted focus area. Furthermore, there was mention of submission of an updated actuarial valuation report as well as annual reports and financial statements.

There were a number of resources considerations such as:    

-         Inadequacy of voted funds

-         Working with mining companies/development

-         Register of controlled mines and inspections to cover deliver

-         Criteria and timing of benefit medical examinations

-         Training of health professionals

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked CCOD for their presentation and noted that the Committee cannot fix everything at once but moving forward they can find ways to assist. He then opened the floor up for comments and questions.                   

Ms N Chirwa (EFF) explained that her question was three-fold. Firstly, she would like to know what the position of the CCOD is on the reduction and lowering standards for silicosis. Furthermore, she asked where it stood with regards to hearing loss being one of the effects that need compensation. It was not just the respiratory illnesses that need compensation. Substantial research had been done on how hearing loss was also associated with working in mines. She asked if there were any standardised hearing protection gears in place to protect miners from potential hearing loss, and more importantly, if these gears are continuously being developed. These gears should not just be old school ones that the miners may decide not to wear because they are outdated and uncomfortable.

Ms Chirwa further asked if the CCOD implemented any awareness campaigns for new miners, informing them of the dangers of the industry. And if so, she wanted to know what the response has been.

On unpaid levies, had there been any action and adequate consequences put in place to ensure that the mining companies pay the levies? Did the money for compensation come from the mining companies or form the department? The mining industry is extremely lucrative, but there are many consequences and risks within the department that cannot be left unattended.

Ms Chirwa noted that there is an increase in the money being paid to ex-miners and there were some reasons mentioned for this, such as inflation. She asked if the increase in the death of miners was a contributing factor to the increase. Furthermore, she was curious about the trends and if there are more people dying in mining. She recalled Dr Kistnasamy saying that they intend to stabilise trends and wanted some clarity on what exactly that means.

Ms S Gwarube (DA) explained that her question was two-fold. She would enquire about governance issues that were highlighted as well as on the AG and finance process.

She was quite concerned that the audit reports had been outstanding for the past couple of years and would like to know the exact reason for this. Essentially, the reason for the AG report is to see how allocated funds have been spent. However, the reality is that the Auditor General process is needed to access the integrity of the work that is being done and how the money is being managed. Not liking how the AG does its work does not justify deliberately not submitting AG reports. The CCOD needs to figure out a way to clear this backlog. She requested that CCOD give the Committee a confirmation of when this issue shall be resolved. Ultimately, a way forward is needed to clear the backlog. These backlogs date back to 2005 and she would like to know what the timeline to clear those backlogs are. Is there space for public partnership initiatives to assist with clearing some of those backlogs?

Ms Gwarube expressed her concern about the IT system that had broken down and caused many challenges. She hoped that it has been resolved. The CCOD mentioned that one of the issues was that it could not afford to afford to fix it. She would like some clarity on that as the work that the entity does is crucial and the assumption is that the IT system is the backbone of most of the work it does.  It seems that as a result of the system breaking down, the entity was hindered form doing its job. She would like to know why it took them so long to fix the system and if they have been seeking solutions.

When it comes to governance, she believes that it was linked to staff shortages and spent resources. Resources are scarce.

Ms E Wilson (DA) expressed her concern that the Department sees the challenges but the CCOD was not receiving any support from it. Nothing is being done. She would like to know what the Department has done about this and who the CCOD is liaising with. She also wondered why the support is not forthcoming. This issue deals with the lives of people, they cannot afford to mess around. This matter is extremely crucial. “They need to protect our people and if they are not adequately protecting our people, what is the next step?”

Dr P Dyantyi (ANC) emphasised what Dr Kitsasamy said about clearing the backlog by next year. She is hoping that that will happen.

In terms of the mining companies that have refused to pay their levies, there should be a way to pressure them into doing so. There has to be a method of ensuring that they pay the levies.

Speaking from a non-financial aspect as someone who has seen the suffering of miners, she believes that more should be done to raise awareness. People in rural areas need to be made aware of what they are in for and how they can be compensated.

Furthermore, she would like to gain some clarity on when they will receive the compensation.

Mr T Munyai (ANC) stressed the that the CCOD cannot spend money without accounting for it. Furthermore, the CCOD cannot expect to be moved to another department. As it stands, it receives money from the Department of Health, yet it cannot account for it. He emphasised that if there is any institution that needs a forensic investigation and subsequently deployment, it is the CCOD. While it may be doing some great work, the fact that it has not submitted a number of AG reports is problematic. It has been receiving IT support from the very same organisation that is supposed to pay levies. The reality is that the CCOD cannot hold this organisation accountable. The country cannot have commissioners that are dishonest; that cannot enforce the laws of the nation and cannot collect levies. He believed that the CCOD should be investigated. It was not being audited – that is problematic. While the work that it does and the progress it is making is wonderful, an area of weakness is levy collection. He would like to know what can be done.

Furthermore, he feels that CCOD should not be permitted to change legislation and request to go to the Department of Employment and Labour if they have not been able to be held accountable all these years. The reason that they will not receive additional funds is merely because they cannot account for it. No department will increase their funding if they cannot even account for how it has been spent. The Department of Health will surely not allow them to change legislation for them to go to another department. The CCOD is spending a lot of money without accounting for it. It is neither fair or acceptable and if he were the Minister, he would remove the current commission and appoint new members that would account.

The Chairperson asked the commissioner to email a point-form presentation stating where they are in terms of improving. The report should state, for example, that they are still outstanding on the 2014/2015 AG report? And this will be signed at a specific time. The CCOD should give feedback on work that it is still behind on. This will be helpful so that the Committee can understand where it may step in. This step-by-step presentation should be submitted in the following week to guide the Portfolio Committee.

The Chairperson said he was not at all comfortable with the CCOD wanting a revenue increase. The entity’s starting point should be improving the visiting of mines and making a bigger pool of controlled mines because they need to increase levies.

Dr Kistnasamy thanked the Committee Members for their input. He explained that the previous Committee had ordered the firing of the previous Commissioner. That is how he came to be the new commissioner in 2012. The Committee has that power. If the Committee wanted to dissolve the commission, it should dissolve the entire structure of 120 people. The Commission has in fact failed to do its job. However, one leader coming in cannot change it. There are civil servants that have been there 20-25 years who failed to do their work. He has gotten the system to where it is today, but he has had several personal threats on his life. It is not about removing the commissioner – the committee has that power. It is not about the individual, but rather what he can do.

When it comes to the ITC system, he likes that the Member asked if there was innovation that is due to be implemented in terms of Private-Public Partnership. It covers components of databases and electronic databases across Southern Africa. It also covers components of biometric identification. It includes machine learning and artificial intelligence. It even goes on to include an automated payment system. The CCOD is still to come and present on it.

On awareness, he explains that unfortunately, the issue of mining sits between two departments. It sits with CCOD for compensation as well as the Department of Minerals and Energy.

The Occupational Exposure Limit in South Africa is 0.1mg per cubic millimetres. The regulation for the Occupational Exposure Limit is regulated by the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1996 under the Department of Minerals and Energy. South Africa has a higher exposure than that of British Columbia (which 0.025mg per cubic millimetres). The Committee should ask those questions. Unfortunately, the CCOD does not enforce those laws. This law is enforced under the Department of Minerals and Energy.

The CCOD can assess hearing loss. However, noise is covered partly under the Mine Health and Safety Act and partly under the Department of Labour’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. The CCOD is not an enforcement policy as a department. While it can assess hearing loss, it does not enforce the policies.

Dr Kistanasamy explained that they are not shifting blame; social protectors sit in a different department by international law. If there is a large fund of R70 billion sitting with the Department of Labour, there should be a compensation fund for hearing loss and other injuries in the workplace. Unfortunately, the CCOD cannot enforce it. They see the consequences of exposure limits and they see the consequences of silicosis, but they do not prevent it. They do not have the enforcement measures. They have engaged with their counterpart in both the Department of Minerals and Energy and the Department of Employment and Labour.

There is a new discipline in the country called Ergonomics (the study of people's efficiency in their working environment).  The discipline looks at physiology and anatomy. Ergonomics regulations are currently being crafted by the Department of Employment and Labour.

When it comes to stabilising claims, the objective was getting people to know their numbers. They are now stabilising around 10 00 per annum.   However, if they can increase the awareness campaigns, then they can get more. They have the funds to pay, so it is not about their capacity to deliver.

Regarding the issue of unpaid levies, the CCOD does not have any mechanisms to ensure that the companies pay. The CCOD could work with its counterpart in the Department of Minerals and Energy. Alternatively, they could go about it from a legal perspective which would require liaison with the Department of Justice.

The CCOD does not have the data that will disclose whether or not people are dying of mining diseases, injuries or accidents. The entity will not know unless it does a post-mortem finding to know what the causes of death are.

On governance issues. The CCOD accepts that it is unacceptable. When the entity has limited resources, accountability becomes a bit tough.  

Dr Nhlanhla Mtshali, Director: NDOH, addressed the question of Dr Dyantyi regarding the stage at which miners receive compensation. Occupational TB covers only those who have worked over 200 shifts – which is the equivalent of 9 months or if the miner gets TB within 12 months of leaving the mine. However, it has to be reported as soon as possible. Once the patient has completed the treatment, the doctors are trained to do an important assessment that checks if there are any complications such as cystic fibrosis. This is done by doing repeat X-rays and lung functioning tests. Thereafter, they will assess whether it is 1st degree or 2nd degree payment. However, if the patient has MDR-TB, they are immediately paid out at 1st degree while XDR-TB will be paid on the 2nd degree.

Ms Valeie Rennie, Deputy Director General: Corporate Services, NDoH, explained the role of the Department of Health in trying to support the CCOD. The Chief Directorate has a huge responsibility of managing funds. Within the Department of Health this is regarded as a cluster because it is not registered as an entity yet. Which is why when the Department of Health reports, there is always a provision in their APP about CCOD – despite the fact that they are governed by a separate Act which requires them to report to the Minster as a commission.

When she joined the Commission in 2008, she came in as the deputy CFO. She found that the unit had a commissioner at the level of a Deputy Director (with a level 10, 11 or 12) at that time. They were also assisted by consultants. At that time, she did not see the benefit of those consultants, which is why they terminated their services. The Department struggled until it recruited the current commissioner, Dr Kistnasamy. NDOH picked up a lot of corruption at that time; touting and misleading document claims etc. Hence, the Commissioner is saying that they have elevated those investigations.

This structure is struggling with IT infrastructure, which is why they are trying to improve the infrastructure.

The other challenge is that of labour in Gauteng. The CCOD is barely surviving as the labour leaders in that cluster behave as though they have an upper hand over management. She has been called by CCOD on a number of occasions to try and intervene. They are hopeful that things will move forward because they are trying to close the gap between labour and management. Hopefully, this will encourage everyone to work together within the confines of the law.

She further explained the issue of capacity. The Department does not have adequate funding to assist the CCOD with the structure. Although the CCOD had developed the ideal structure, it was unaffordable. The entity needs an administrator that will work directly with the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The CCOD was given a seconded official at a Chief Director level.  Things started working a little bit and then the person had been removed. So there was a gap. But the post has been created and approved. All that is left to do is to follow the process to be advertised.

The Chairperson explained that it seems that the MPs need to intervene. They need to bring together certain Portfolio Committees to assist and the matter is too complex to be handled only by them. This issue needs to be addressed in Parliament. He thanked CCOD for their presentation and closed the meeting.