Office on Rights of Child & Office on the Status of Disabled Persons: budget & Strategic Plans 2007/08

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS
8 May 2007
OFFICE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD & OFFICE ON THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS: BUDGET AND STRATEGIC PLANS 2007/08

Chairperson: Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC)

Documents handed out:
National Children’s Rights Programme Strategy and Budget Plan 2007 presentation
Capacity Building for Children’s Rights Mainstreaming in Government
National Children’s Rights Programme Performance Targets 2007/208
Mainstreaming of Child Centred Governance Approach
OSDP Operational Plan for 2007/2008
Summary of Expenditure per Programme

Audio Recording of the Meeting

SUMMARY
The Office on the Rights of Children briefed the Committee on the strategy and budget plans for 2007/2008.
It was noted that the process to engage with municipalities on National Children’s Rights began last year and training was at the advanced level. Much had been achieved to initiate and work on mainstreaming children’s rights in government’s processes but not as yet in key organs of civil society. There were several partnerships and cooperative arrangements with other departments, youth groups and the Office of the Presidency programmes. The ORC’s total budget for this year was R3 781 000. The programmes were set out in great detail. Members asked a number of questions around the relationships with local government, oversight capacity, enforcement procedures, and concerns were raised over street children, child headed households; and children who went through the justice system. Further concerns were expressed about the UNICEF reports, the need to strengthen delivery on the millennium development goals, and research on violence on and by children.

The Office on the Status of Disabled Persons briefed the Committee on its activities and budget. IT noted that there was still a struggle to meet the 2% targets of employment of people with disabilities. The work around disability awareness month, promotional concerts of Stevie Wonder, and other special programmes was noted. OSDP would be hosting a National Disabilities Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre to try and iron out all the issues raised, with particular reference to relationships, civil society, and institutions of higher learning. Members raised their ordeals with public and private transport and noted the need to consult with disabled persons. Other questions related to the cooperation with other organisations, the need to address all sectors of disabled, sheltered workshops and some of the activities planned for the year.
MINUTES
Committee business
The Chairperson announced that the Committee’s Annual Report January to November 2006 should be examined by Members in preparation for its approval the following week.

The Chairperson introduced and welcomed Ms P Qambela, a researcher who would assist the Committee pending the appointment of a dedicated researcher.

During the presentations some of the documentation was not before the Committee, and the Chairperson noted with concern that she had asked the Committee Section one week ago to make copies and circulate them. It was particularly difficult for her to try to read and follow the interpreter. She apologised to Members and the presenters and asked the Committee secretary to ensure that in future all Members received documentation before the meeting. 

Briefing by Office on the Rights of the Child ORC)
Ms Mabel Rantla, Director, ORC, noted that in the third Annual Sectoral Performance Evaluation and Planning Meeting the ORC had looked at why it was not possible for South Africa to easily consolidate information and report to the nation on delivery of children’s rights. The reason was that there were not systems at all spheres of government to enable the ORC to capture information accurately at all three levels of government, nor from civil society. Civil Society was doing a great deal in terms of children’s rights delivery either individually or sometimes in partnership with government, but that information was lost because there were no systems to capture it. The performance evaluation process therefore agreed that those systems must be put in place. It further agreed on guidelines for performance evaluation at each level, and on how to consolidate.

It was also agreed at the Evaluation Meeting that the annual sectoral meetings should focus on governance or institutional Children's Rights (CR) frameworks, systems and tools, and check whether the systems and institutional frameworks were aligned to delivery aspirations, and whether there were tools to enable the OCR to do the work. Secondly, it would focus on service delivery and exactly how the constitutional mandate was delivered, and thirdly on sectoral planning. The evaluation process would also examine how South Africa was performing in terms of national, regional and international obligations for CR delivery.

The meeting also agreed on a sectoral strategy. ORC worked both with the National Children’s Rights Programme and also had its own specific responsibility within the National Children’s Rights framework.
This presentation would look at both the individual and sectoral Strategy Plan.

The broad vision and mission of the ORC was to build a united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society for South Africa through work in the children’s rights sector. This reflected the preamble to the Constitution. The sectoral strategic objectives were fully outlined (see attached document). The overview for the three year sectoral strategy plan was also given.
.
It was noted that in working in the sector the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) was important because the sector agreed to concentrate this year quite heavily on working with municipalities.
.
Currently there were very capable civil society organisations, especially the NGOs working in the area of children, but most of the time civil society did not speak as one voice on different issues. There was a need to start facilitating a process that would lead to civil society at all levels being able to discuss matters, take a position and advise government.

The ORC was hoping that March 2008 would see children’s rights delivery reports from municipalities, provinces and at national level. The ORC did produce annual reports on children’s rights at national level but were not as fully informed as they should be by information being submitted from the other spheres of government. The sector hoped to complete operational National Children’s Rights facilities, coordination and oversights, to draw a National CR Policy Framework for the Advancement and Coordination of CR Delivery , to set up operational District Municipality ORCs, to develop data for the Comprehensive National Policy Framework for the Protection and Development of Vulnerable Children in SA, and hoped also to conduct an exercise to pull in information with regard to achievements as a nation since 1994. That exercise would give the handover report to the new administration.

Ms Rantla then turned to the longer-term indicators. These were related to national priorities. She said that South Africa had done very well in the sector in terms of initiating and working hard around mainstreaming children’s rights in government, but had not managed to achieve as much to ensure that key organs of civil society also mainstreamed children’s rights issues in their business initiatives. South African Society must achieve transformation in both sectors. It was hoped that this would be consolidating by 2009/10.

The obvious question was how the commitments were to be funded. The ORC noted that the Evaluation and Planning Meeting had noted the challenge in obtaining sufficient resources, and noted that ORCs and government departments must support mobilisation of resources from civil society.

Ms Rantla then presented the Sectoral Performance targets, noting that the framework comprised all the component parts of the National CR programme, which she outlined as including government, civil society, departmental service delivery units, SALGA, the Premiers, mayors and advisory councils. Up to now there had not been sufficient focus on parents, and there was a need to make certain that parental input was consolidated into National Children’s Rights processes.

Ms Rantla outlined the vision and mission of the Presidency, and noted also that the strategic objectives were allied to those of the Presidency. These had been revised annually since 2004 to ensure that they were up to date with sectoral developments, and the five year strategy was revised annually.

One of the key objectives for 2007/08 was to mainstream CR in the processes of, in particular, civil society and municipalities. Last year the ORC had visited all the municipalities in the country, and Minister Pahad had addressed them on the importance of mainstreaming children’s rights in governance processes, programmes and monitoring of Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).  Individual municipalities were identifying dedicated people to work on children’s rights in partnership with provincial ORCs and the National ORC.  ORC aimed, by end March 2008, to have a children’s rights dedicated person in at least every district municipality. Insofar as the mainstreaming in civil society was concerned, much of the work would be done by the National Children’s Rights Committee in partnership with ORC.

A further key objective was to consolidate all the information on achievements of the National Children’s Rights Programme over the past fifteen years and to prepare a report for the new administration when it came into place in 2009. Further detail appeared in the documentation.

Ms Rantla indicated that the budget in total was R3 781 000, which would be spent on the core activities of mainstreaming child centres, governance and strengthening service delivery, especially in municipalities. The budget had assumed a slightly higher amount, but the activities would need to be streamlined to fit the budget.

She indicated that the budget allocation would include going out countrywide to municipalities to negotiate for children’s rights desks in municipalities, and then undertaking training of the new staff,  on children’s rights mainstreaming, coordination, monitoring and evaluation. ORC would also be sharing with them the children’s rights delivery guide for municipalities as a standard tool. In addition there would be spending on children’s rights work in the Presidency, providing support to existing individual children’s rights offices or desks in municipalities. ORC would ensure that general understanding and tools were aligned around children’s rights mainstreaming.

ORC had also done a lot of work around mainstreaming children’s rights issues in the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA). ORC must report how those initiatives began to strengthen economic development in the country - for instance, by giving children knowledge on running a business, and helping to build entrepreneurial skills. It would partner with the Department of Education to see how existing systems there could be used to promote skills among children.

ORC was also finalising the National Children’s Rights Policy Framework which should be printed and shared with the whole sector and which would clearly, for the first time, set out legislation and policies. Substantial funding would also be spent on capacity building programmes. The dedicated Children's Rights staff in municipalities would need training, but there was an ongoing three year plan to train ORCs and departmental focal points. Support to municipalities would be given, and this would probably be more time and resource consuming than support to provinces. The  Children's Rights Advocacy Framework had also been produced. When performance gaps in the different departments were identified ORC must investigate the matter and suggest  improvement strategies, which would be negotiated with the department.

Two particular focus areas in the forthcoming year were defined as National Children’s Day and the Day of the African Child. These were days for children themselves, and included an essay competition. The budget for this year was R1.5 million.

The Comprehensive Children’s Rights Monitoring and Evaluation System would be finalised in the forthcoming year, and this would require fairly substantial funding as it was an electronic system to capture  information at all three levels. This would meet the constitutional mandate for reporting, the national constitutional requirements and priorities on children's rights delivery, the AU obligations, the UN obligation and the Millennium Development Goals. A situation analysis would be conducted in partnership with UNICEF on the status of children in South Africa. ORC was further compiling a report for the AU in terms of Children’s Rights delivery, and the third report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Discussion
The Chairperson sought clarity on whether ORC would be receiving R3.8 million or R3.7 million.

The Chairperson noted that in regard to the mainstreaming of the Child Centred government approach, only an amount of R1 000 had been provided, which she considered small for the planning, the travelling and documentation and communication.

Ms Rantla firstly apologised that the budget of R1000 had appeared incorrectly in a document, and she promised that the updated versions would be sent through on Monday, and would explain the appropriate allocations for individual activities would be explained there. ORC had a lengthy discussion with the Presidency on the budget and ultimately agreed that the total resources available to ORC would be R3,7 million, so ORC must go back into its higher budget and re-budget to bring the requested figure down to R3.7 million. Again, the revised document would give more accurate information.

Mr B Mkongi (ANC) complained about the "crisis of technology", which made it difficult to keep abreast and to work effectively. He stressed that this matter must be taken further.

Mr Mkongi asked for clarification on the issues of vision and mission. The first vision was listed as building a united, non racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society for South Africa through our work in Children’s Rights. The second vision was for excellence in government for a better life for all children. He asked which applied.

The Chairperson noted that Ms Rantla had spoken about some systems giving her problems and asked her to define whether these were problems of technology, coordination, or research.

Ms Rantla responded to the question of two visions and two missions, and said that this was the problem she had referred to in the technology; Members did not have the correct documents in front of them.  The National Children’s Rights Sector was much bigger than ORC, and  included the Joint Committee, which was right at the top as a component part of the National Children’s Rights Programme. That broad programme required agreement from constituent members as to where it was coming from and wanted to go in the Children’s Rights Sector in this country. That was the Sectoral Children’s Rights Strategy, and it was a very broad framework. That broad umbrella would serve as a guide or a point of departure for different component parts of the National Children’s Rights Programme. Among the component parts of the National Children’s Rights Programme was the ORC. Provinces, municipalities, departments and all similar structures were also included, and all these structures based their own individual performance strategy and operational strategy on the broad sectoral strategy. That was why there were two separate strategies presented, but they spoke the same language.

Mr Mkongi referred to the statement on the difficulty in consolidating information and asked why that problem existed, given the systems available for gathering information.

Ms Rantla clarified that Government did have systems, but she had meant continuous perfection of systems. When ORC wrote a report to the UN, that report was informed by input from all the national departments. Logically, those national departments should have spoken to the provinces, who should have spoken to the municipalities. However, ORC was trying to achieve the situation where in one province it would be able to do a reality check on the information provided, to ensure that accurate reports were presented, and to try to curb the tendency to creativity. That was a comprehensive problem that ORC was seized with. The system worked, but needed development. If ORC was asked a detailed question on Children’s Rights in a particular municipality it would be very difficult to respond. It was hoped that the system being put in place would achieve that.

Mr Mkongi referred to relationships, noting that other institutions in place also dealt with issues around children. The National Youth Commission (NYC) defined youth as all those between the ages of fourteen and thirty-five. he asked how that influenced policy direction of the office and the policy of catering directly for children.

Ms Rantla responded that ORC needed to meet with the NYC and discuss the question of age because the fact that they worked with overlapping age groups (0 to 18 in ORC and 14 to 34 in NYC) made it imperative to find a way of working together and to harmonise their activities.

In regard to the Office of the Status of Disabled Persons, Ms Rantla responded that ORC would regard OSDP as their technical competency for anything done . That was something that had to be cleared with the Youth Commission.

Mr Mkongi asked what was the structural relationship, in terms of informing the ORC’s policies, not to make issues of disability an added programme

Ms Rantla noted that the UN Convention on disabilities did have a section that focused on Children’s Rights and ORC and the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP) would work together in terms of implementation of that chapter in the UN Convention on Disabilities. ORC regarded OSDP as their technical competency for anything they did regarding children with disabilities. ORC did not have in depth knowledge on children with disabilities, but OSDP did. When ORC was involved in any Children’s Rights process with children, those with disabilities would also form part of that process, but if there were special considerations then ORC would be guided by OSDP.

Mr Mkongi asked  about ORC’s relationship with the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF), noting the comment that the UYF had dedicated funding for entrepreneur education in High Schools. Umsobomvu was part of ASGISA to deal with those particular issues.

Ms Rantla said that relationships with Umsobomvu were good. Because ORC wanted to focus on ASGISA related Children’s Rights Programmes in primary schools, they would necessarily engage with Umsobomvu.

Mr Mkongi also asked if ORC was using existing structures when taking the Children’s Rights Programme into local government. He noted that there were Local Youth Unions in local government. Municipalities had Civil Society organisations, called Local Youth Councils, that also dealt with issues of Children’s Rights. He asked of the ORC’s relationship with them.

Ms Rantla noted that as a matter of principle, there would come a time when any of the three spheres of government would need to talk to children themselves. At municipal level it would therefore be important that the ORC in the Mayor’s Office, when doing consultations with children, should also look at involving local youth structures. The process to engage the municipalities in National Children’s Rights processes began in earnest last year. It was a fairly new exercise but the input was quite valuable.

Mr Mkongi asked what the core mandate was of the ORC, specifically in light of the fact that the Department of Social Development had just considered a Children’s Amendment Bill, and he would like to know what was the ORC’s participation in the construction of that bill. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was working on the Child Justice Bill which was at the heart of social work. He asked what was the ORC’s involvement in those legislative processes.

Ms Rantla replied that the first core function was to facilitate mainstreaming of a child centred government and business approach in government. That was done working with the ORCs in the provinces and in partnerships with the ORCs in municipalities. In departments it was done through the Children’s Rights focal points. It was important for ORC nationally to make certain that there were competencies, capabilities and resources in the departments, provinces and municipalities to enable them to do that. A municipal ORC officer must ensure input into the planning process, capturing of children's rights in the IDP and prioritisation of the rights delivery. Budgeting issues would also need to be addressed to ensure that resources were allocated for delivery. The second core function of the ORC would be to heighten awareness in the municipality, among councillors, and within local government departments, of the importance of mainstreaming. These sectors must also be capacitated, in terms of policy analysis and coordination and made aware of the oversight processes, so they would support the ORC in the municipality. The third core function was monitoring and evaluation. ORC National had shared the Children’s Rights Delivery Guide for Municipalities. The Municipal must ensure that it implemented the guide as agreed, and report to the provincial overseer, the Mayor and Municipal Manager, to identify gaps and redress them. The provincial  overseer must collate all that information and send it to a National Office that was fully informed and would then be able to coordinate. ORC was starting out at municipal level and there was a great possibility that most of the reports produced till now had left out pertinent information.

Specifically in relation to the Bills mentioned, Ms Rantla added that ORC worked nationally in partnership with the Department of Social Development around the Bill processes relating to Children’s rights, and made input. Similarly ORC also worked with Department of Justice on the Child Justice Bill. ORC had made a submission to Cabinet to the effect that this was long delayed and that South Africa must take a decision to move on this particular issue. ORC acknowledged that anything related to Children’s Rights was central to its responsibility and would support any appropriate legislation and give input.

Ms J Chalmers (ANC) was deeply concerned that the lack of systems continued to be raised as a problem when the country was twelve years down the line into the new government and considerable time had elapsed since the formation of this committee. She noted that surely there should have been some way of attracting people with capacity so that systems could have been put in place.

Ms Chalmers noted that an area of primary concern and importance was how ORC was analysing  their findings. Training was now at an advanced level. She asked what those trainers were actually doing,  where did their reports go and how were they analysed,  so that there was capacity to feed their findings into  different departments in order to increase their capacity to deal with children’s problems and improve the quality of life of children. She also asked if there was any oversight specifically on street children, on child headed households, and on children who went through the justice system. All of those must be taken into consideration.

Ms Chalmers asked how different constituency offices could access the 54 municipalities that ORC had been working with, and whether her constituency office was included amongst those. She asked what they had been trained to do and what was ORC hoping to achieve. She wondered if child issues were being prioritised, and whether there was some way to evaluate this. If the information was not analysed and fed back in the proper routes, then this came down once again to lack of systems. 

Mr A Madella (ANC) added to Ms Chalmers’ question on the issue of relationship with local government, and asked whether the City of Cape Town was part of the 54 municipalities that the ORC had a relationship with. The City of Cape Town had a number of care networks dealing specifically with children’s issues.

Ms Rantla clarified the work of ORCs with municipalities and the linkage with constituencies. When the Minister met with the Mayors last year the provinces met in three areas. Although ORC had begun already to work with Municipalities it was important for the Minister to meet the mayors themselves to strengthen understanding of the government agenda around Children’s Rights. This year the ORC was following up on the commitment made by mayors in those meetings. She would want to believe that the municipality of Cape Town had participated in that meeting. The ORCs in the different provinces would have a list of who participated in those forums, and the records indicated that most municipalities had done so.

Mr A Madella (ANC) added to Ms Chalmers's concerns on the apparent lack of inter governmental coordination and the lack of systems. He noted that a report had to be submitted to the UN by December, but was worried that if there was lack of inter governmental coordination, systemic issues had to be dealt with otherwise the report may not be accurate.

Ms Rantla said that there were several programmes or initiatives in the Children’s sector that made it imperative for the different spheres of government to work together. Government had prioritised the Early Child Development Programme and this also linked to health (well being), education (mental stimulation), home affairs (registration of the child), and social development (grants).  Several initiatives made it imperative for different spheres of government to work together in the Children’s Rights sector. Although it might not yet be perfect, the interdepartmental coordination and collaboration was happening and it was the ORC’s responsibility to continue to strengthen such coordination. he findings would help to programme more effectively from that point on.

Mr Madella noted that the inequalities in the country impacted most severely on children. About eight million people were currently unemployed. The statistics showed that a child that was poor stood a four times higher chance of dying in childhood than one from a wealthier family. The vast majority of the around 19 million children in the country were poor.

Ms Rantla agreed that this was unfortunate and was the legacy of our history. The situation analysis aimed to examine this.

Mr Madella then asked how the oversight operated for the most vulnerable of children. Street children were frequently exploited. They were being subjected to and forced into prostitution, crime, drug trafficking, burglaries and such like. The Human Rights Commission had conducted numerous hearings in relation to farm workers and there was a major problem of abuse in South Africa. He asked how this was being dealt with.

Ms Rantla  responded to the question on child headed households and children living in difficult circumstances in different areas. She confirmed that the list of children in difficult circumstances was long, and that ORC therefore felt the need to have a big picture in order to come up with intervention and programming systems dealing with the vulnerability of children. This year ORC would be focusing around the state of children in South Africa, with special attention to the various categories of vulnerability of children. Within that exercise it would be looking at street children, children in child headed households and children in different situations of difficulty. Specifically around child headed households, ORC and the Department of Social Development were looking at existing models for dealing with child headed households and preparing to identify or consolidate a model that South Africa should use, that was sustainable.

Mr Madella added to what Mr Mkongi had raised in relation to disabled children. Children with intellectual disabilities were not being adequately catered for, and the bulk of them were at home. Their potential for development was not good at all, especially those with an IQ of 35 and less. It seemed that the Department of Health was left to cater for them.

Mr Madella noted the references to the Day of the African Child and the National Children’s Day were mentioned, but said that nothing was mentioned about International Children’s Day. He asked whether that meant the ORC did not believe in international solidarity.

Ms Rantla responded that over the years organs of civil society and departments did celebrate the International Children’s Day, and so ORC tried not to organise a separate programme, preferring instead to support the former programmes. Last year there was a proposal that on the International Day of the Child ORC, working in partnership with the Joint Monitoring Committee, should set up a facilitation for children from all the nine provinces to come to Parliament to meet with the Joint Monitoring Committee and present their issues and challenges on Children’s Rights delivery. The ORC was not able to facilitate that this year because they had not received the endorsement from the Joint Monitoring Committee. It now proposed that the committee review the proposal and respond to it. The other proposal was that ORC should facilitate periodic meetings with ORC and departments to ask pertinent questions around delivery, as ORC's responsibility was not in delivery itself but monitoring whether others were delivering.  This would enable better tracking of the performance of Children’s Rights delivery. Ms Rantla again requested the Joint Monitoring Committee to revisit that proposal and respond.

Mr Madella was most concerned that the infant mortality rate in South Africa was 42 out of 1000 births. In terms of the State of the World Report 2006 South Africa was ranked at number 65. It was better than Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Zambia or Mozambique, but clearly much must still be done to improve the ranking. He asked how the ORC was involved in ensuring that there was that kind of improvement in the livelihood of children and that their quality of life was drastically enhanced.

The Chairperson noted that the Children's Institute had noted a lack of coordination by government to enhance child survival. She asked what was ORC’s involvement in coordination between the various spheres of government regarding child survival.

Ms Chalmers noted that she still wanted to know about the analysis of the findings, whether this was available and could be accessed. She thought that a meeting between this Committee and departments would be useful.

Ms Rantla responded that the analysis conducted related to whether ORCs in the different spheres of government were able to do efficiently what they needed to do, and this would be shared with the sector at the annual performance evaluation and planning meeting. She could send a copy through to this Committee..

Mr M Moss (ANC) said this Committee sometimes also monitored the ORC. He thought it was important that ORC  sent quarterly reports to the JMC.

Mr Moss noted that 1 June was traditionally a day when children from all provinces were invited, and this should be an annual event in Parliament. He asked what the 1 June activity was this year. Finally he noted that ORC also had offices in the office of the Premier and the Mayor, and he asked whether there should not also be one in the office of the Deputy Mayor or the Speaker.

Ms Rantla replied that the ORC did not do anything for 1 June this year, for the reasons already indicated. She agreed that the idea to locate desks in the Deputy Mayor’s office was good, and ORC should look at that.

Mr Moss noted that a UN representative had spoken to this Committee twice, and his report was quite shocking. He had apparently received the information from South African government departments. It was unacceptable that South Africa should have such a poor performance level, for instance the number of children not attending school. It would be interesting to see the report the ORC would be giving to the UN. He asked whether there was a significant improvement in the status of children since 1994, and whether this was a true reflection of the facilities that were now available..

Mr Madella was also concerned at the levels of violence with which children were involved, both as perpetrators and as victims. In the Western Cape there had been the brutal killing of a child by two other children known to him and the media had reported that children were engaging in violent activities at school, where they settled disputes with knives or guns. Most gangsters were children.

Ms Rantla agreed that UNICEF reports on children were scathing and ORC had a discussion with UNICEF. She was not sure whether the local perceptions or the international interpretations were correct, as sometimes there was a difference. UNICEF produced annually a report called the Country Programme of Action, which determined funding for UNICEF, and the report was contained in this document. There had been many positive changes since 1994, but much still had to be done. Issues of concern must be viewed against achievements. ORC was very concerned about why there was so much violence, especially the issue of child-to-child violence. There was a need for greater understanding of the reasons. ORC would be visiting prisons to see people who had been arrested for violence on children, and conducting research in order to tackle the issues and share the findings.

Mr Moss raised the issue of the relationship with municipalities and provinces. The Intergovernmental Relations Act 2005 provided for national consultative forums but lacked an enforcement tool, and experiences in the past showed that MECs might agree to do something but not implement because they were accountable to the Premier and not to the national minister. He asked if there was any enforcement for municipalities’ obligations. The constitution was very vague on Children’s Rights and municipalities could easily argue that this was not their responsibility. He wondered if some kind of MOU existed between the ORC at national level and the municipality.

Mr Mkongi noted that the core functions of the ORC but said that it seemed there was no advocacy capacity, which was related to the communication strategy. He asked if this communication strategy extended to all of municipalities, government and civil society. He asked for further explanation of awareness campaigns.

Ms Rantla that insofar as municipalities were concerned, SALGA and municipalities had resolved that all municipalities would establish desks for children, women, disabilities and youth. ORC also had a partnership agreement with SALGA to follow up and sure that that resolution was activated. She agreed that quarterly reports were very important, as they could highlight those municipalities that were not delivering and it could then be the responsibility of the Portfolio Committee to assist by following up with those municipalities to ensure delivery of Children’s Rights.

On the question of advocacy, she noted that one of the outputs of doing monitoring and evaluations was identification areas of non performance and concern. Once identified, these would be taken back into the department and suggestions made for improvement. A further level of advocacy must happen within the National Children’s Rights Programme, to be driven by the National Children’s Rights Advisory Council, which was structured both of government and civil society, and which ensured delivery in broader society

Mr Moss asked if ORC was meeting the millennium goals in relation to children, as the UNICEF report suggested South Africa might fall short. It was not investing enough in children and this was a threat to their future. A recent SAFM programme had asked whether South Africans were becoming happier and many people claimed not, and raised issues of child labour; rapes on children and crime and violence. He asked if there had been attendance at the child labour conference on 1 June, organised by Western Cape Youth Commission, which addressed a number of important issues.

Ms Rantla said that when looking at the position prior to and after 1994, there were many achievements and evidence that South Africa was delivering on the millennium development goals, but it must be acknowledged that it still was not delivering to full capacity. There was a need to strengthen delivery on the millennium development goals in the Children’s Rights Sector. Ms Rantla was not sure whether ORC had attended the Youth Commission Child Labour Conference.

The Chairperson asked when documents would come through to the committee, reminding Ms Rantla that the Committee still needed the Child Rights Policy Framework, and Delivery Guide. It would be useful when doing constituency and oversight to know what the municipalities were supposed to be doing on these deliverables.

The Chairperson noted that perhaps Ms Chalmers’ constituency was not aware whether the municipality did receive the training. She asked Ms Rantla to give an indication of all municipalities who had received training, and those that would be receiving training, and if there was a measurement of how that training resulted in action.

Ms Rantla agreed that ORC would send the documents the Chair had referred to; as well as the list of municipalities involved in the training process.

The Chairperson indicated that there was not sufficient time to respond to all questions but asked ORC to respond to any outstanding issues at next week’s meeting.  She also asked that ORC forward the report in due course on the research conducted in prisons around child violence. She looked forward to the Annual Report for 2005/06.

Office on the Status of Disabled Persons: Briefing
The Chairperson indicated that documents had been circulated, although she commented that the small print was difficult to read. She indicated that she had been in contact with the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP) and was pleased to inform him that the Committee had passed the International Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons and was pleased with the work on this. A time needed to be set for the OSDP to sit with the Joint Monitoring Committee as to where and how to implement this convention, as it was vital that NGOs be involved.

Mr Benny Palime, Director, OSDP, thanked the Chair and members for their support for the work done for the Convention. His main focus at this meeting would be on the Operational Plan and Budget, and he would touch briefly on some focus areas, but not present the entire document.

Mr Palime noted that the OSDP would be focusing on the implementation of the UN Convention, and the formalisation of the Steering Committee of the African Decade and the implementation of the Continental Plan of Action for the South African Chapter. Out of that OSDP would still be doing project work.

Mr Palime took members through the main functions of the OSDP. These could be summarised as  Advocacy and Awareness Raising; Policy Coordination; Mainstreaming and Capacity Building; and Monitoring and Evaluation. Each function was clustered to fit under the Operational Plan. Advocacy was done in the departments and in the provinces. Currently OSDP was looking at reviewing the different policies and would be guided by the ANC Policy Conference, which would set the work of government. Some policies such as free health care and provision of grants might need to be reviewed, and he would touch on this during the presentation.

Mainstreaming and capacity building were both important as OSDP wanted to capacitate government officials on the Integrated National Disability Strategy (INDS) that was under review, with a task team comprising of government and OSDP working together. The outcome of the review would be submitted to the Committee.

In terms of Monitoring and Evaluation, OSDP was developing and finalising the disability indicators. In the next two weeks, when the programme of action would be published and the government wide monitoring and evaluation system was opened, the Committee would see OSDP had worked on a number of indicators, with employment, health and grants being the three main indicators. The growth of availability and accessibility of the grant system for people with disabilities was shown from 1994 to 2007. OSDP was also working with government clusters and the Administration Cluster had a Deputy Director responsible especially for monitoring and evaluation. A budget was allocated for administration, that would cover streamlining the systems, filing systems, archiving, and information document management systems.

Mr Palime said that OSDP had budgeted for each function and activity. The highest budget was for the International Day of Disabled Persons at R800 000. Much work had to be done around disability awareness month, between 3 November and 3 December. In December Stevie Wonder would be singing at a concert that 80 000 people were expected to attend, and this event would raise awareness of disability. The promoters could speak to the Committee.

Mr Palime noted that the allocated funds were R2 540 000, but the Presidency had reviewed the budgets and the other figure of R3 443 000 took into account salary adjustments for staff of the OSDP. This budget was released only last week. Mr Palime was satisfied that the work in terms of the UN Convention could be done. Once the ratification process was finished his Office would embark on the training of officials on the UN Convention, that would fall under mainstreaming and capacity building activities.

Mr Palime continued that the Operational Plan was aligned with the Policy Unit in the Presidency; and with Gender, Disabilities, Children and Youth issues.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for further clarification on the budget.

Mr Palime clarified that on the previous day the Presidency released a new form of the budget, which reallocated the units, resulting in money being made available for salary adjustments for staff members of the OSDP for 2007/08, and certain post-specific allocations. The difference between the original and new allocations was R903 000. Funds to be spent on projects remained at R2 540 000, and the differential would be applied to salary adjustments.

The Chairperson asked for further clarification on the concert and stressed that deaf people must be included in activities.

Mr Palime explained that OSDP would be bringing Stevie Wonder to South Africa to perform at the International Convention Centre in Cape Town, on 3 December, and at Ellis Park on 7 December.  80 000 people were expected to attend the shows.

Mr Mkongi noted that there had been reference to employment and he asked for clarification because the Portfolio Committee on Labour had indicated that government departments were not achieving the targets, nor was there an attempt to put disabled people in higher positions instead of at places like call centres. If government was not achieving this target then it was probably worse in the private sector.

Mr Palime replied that OSDP were trying to do two things in the Western Cape, but faced the problem of managers letting them down. OSDP was continually being told that it was not possible to find disabled people with the right skills. He would send an explanation in this regard to the Committee in writing, because in a recent report of the Public Service Commission he noted that employment of disabled persons had dropped to 0.26% in the public service. This was very poor and he would like to have a full explanation, and he asked if this Committee could assist. He had gone to departments, had worked with the Public Service Commission, had set up a database in his office with the CVs of people with disabilities, and government employers merely had to access the information that was already there. Managers in government just did not seem to be committed to these targets. He still received calls from departments who were looking to employ disabled people as typists and clerks. There were not more than 200 senior managers employed in the whole public service. OSDP had until 2009 to reach the targets, but urgent action was needed now. In the meantime a Job Access Programme had been implemented by OSDP in a further attempt to open up the public service. The Minister of Public Service and Administration was really committed to the process of job access.

Mr Mkongi asked about the OSDP’s relationship with other institutional structures, in particular the National Youth Commission, Umsobomvu Youth Fund. In mainstreaming disability issues these were also organisations that had set goals. Some organisations did not report on the disability sector and that was very worrying.

Mr Palime responded that OSDP had relationships with the UYF and had actually put out a sizeable amount on research and socio economic opportunities for disabled youth, working with the NYC and UYF. Money was set aside in the OSDP and with the desk of the Presidency.

Mr Mkongi asked about the OSDP’s relationship with other portfolio committees. When discussing the Children’s Amendment Bill disability was only a once-off issue, and was not at the centre of the Amendment Bill in terms of Child and Youth Centres. Similar comments applied to the Child Justice Bill.

Mr Palime said that so far OSDP only reported to this Committee, but on issues of disability grants and transport would report also to the portfolio committees on social development and transport, who in turn were also looking at reports from different Director Generals on disability targets and indicators.

Mr Mkongi asked if the OSDP was doing oversight work as it was not mentioned in the core functions. He had recently been through Lentegeur Hospital and rehabilitation centre, and did not see any proof of rehabilitation. He was shocked to see one night nurse trying to manage more than 50 young people who did not have mobility, and could see that there was a chaotic situation.

Mr Palime answered that OSDP did not do oversight because of time constraints, but they did have time to go to places like workshops, schools for disabled learners, organisations like DeafSA and the Council for the Blind, but not do oversight as such. The Presidency process was going to be introduced this year which would include random checks at hospitals and the like.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would like to see the reports of the DGs on disability targets.

Mr Madella thanked Mr Palime for an excellent and concise presentation, but was disheartened to see the figures for employment of disabled persons dropping. It was vital that OSDP must interact with the political heads in the various departments and the Minister. Each ministry had a person focusing on disability issues, and every Department head would be compelled to implement and honour the disability targets. Many of the managers needed disability sensitisation training because the excuse of not being able to find suitably qualified people to fill the posts was just not acceptable. There were hundreds of disabled people matriculating from schools or graduating from universities and colleges every year. Most employers were just not prepared to go the extra mile in making sure the environment was conducive for disabled persons. It was easy to say mention switchboard operators and people at clerk level but OSDP and this Committee must step up interaction with the various departments and must make a concerted effort to ensure that disabled people were fully accommodated in employment. Perhaps interaction with the Sector Education and Training Authorities might also facilitate that process.

Mr Palime welcomed the comments and announced that on 4 and 5 July OSDP would be hosting a National Disabilities Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre to try and iron out issues raised, with particular reference to relationships, civil society, and institutions of higher learning.


Mr Madella indicated that he was happy with Mr Palime’s Job Access Programme and the database of the OSDP, which had been mentioned last time. However, he was  concerned that there was no reference in the present budget to popularisation of the UN Convention. He had also mentioned this aspect when Mr Palime gave a presentation to the Committee on the convention. He wanted to emphasise what the Chairperson had said earlier. This Committee would not want a situation where civil society disowned the convention because of a lack of consultation. Consultation had to go beyond the organised disability sector. The road shows were of paramount importance.

Mr Palime responded that the popularisation of the UN Convention was under Policy Coordination on the three-page document and OSDP would be starting the process in July.

The Chairperson asked whether IMDS was mentioned in the budget.

Mr Palime responded that the review of the IMDS was also under Policy Coordination. Money had been set aside, and would be increasing substantially on demand.

Mr Moss noted that he had recently been approached by a disabled woman, and he noted that she met all the criteria for employment equity as she was disabled, female, black, in possession of a diploma and experience. Mr Moss approached Minister Balfour of Correctional Services, and within a very short space of time she had permanent employment. It must not be allowed to happen that this type of person was limited to working switchboards or staying at home unemployed. Members should go from minister to minister to ensure employment. Committees kept hearing that there were so many posts not filled, yet there were eminently suitable people not getting jobs. A vigorous approach had to be taken. Mr Moss noted that Mr Palime had previously told the Committee that the departments were starting to listen to him, yet still the disabled targets were not being met.


The Chairperson added that she had read in the newspaper recently that a disabled social worker was trained but was unable to find employment. Examples like that needed urgent attention, as there was absolutely no excuse for such trained workers not to be employed by Department of Social Development.

Mr Palime responded that he was talking in the context of finding focal persons to sit in the OSDP interdepartmental committee. Two weeks back he delivered letters to all the DGs in government and there was a very good response. The context of employment was different, because senior managers were very difficult to deal with, and because HR in government did not specify a set and clear cut disability policy, they simply would not accede. OSDP was pushing through the job access programme in an attempt to bypass the policy difficulties and go straight through to activity to fast track the process. Policy objectives did exist in the INDS but the public sector did not have a policy on Employment Equity Act.

Mr Moss asked where the International Day of the Disabled activity for this year would be.

Mr Palime said that the IDDP would be held in Cape Town at the ICC on 3 December and the Committee Members were all invited.

The Chairperson raised the perennial question of transport and accessibility to transport. Although this fell under the portfolio committee on transport, nothing was being done to make transport accessible to people with disabilities. She had noted in the Operational Plan that the OSDP did have an activity under policy coordination, environmental accessibility and public transport. She asked what that meant in practical terms, what was going to happen, and how was the OSDP going to work with the Minister and portfolio committee to make public transport accessible to people with disabilities.

Mr Mkongi added that the Golden Arrow buses did not have ramps and the construction of railway stations was very worrying.

Mr Palime responded that when he presented the Plan in June last year he alluded to the fact that OSDP would look at accessible public transport as a priority for the Minister, and he thought the Minister also announced it in Parliament. Mr Palime had gone to provinces to speak to the heads of public transport in an effort to understand the magnitude of their problems and the challenges in terms of disability, and also started a process of working with the metros. That process was continuing. He had classified all forms of transport. R100 000 would be spent on reviewing the codes for taxis, and South African Bureau of Standards was looking at the quality of the hydraulics systems to make buses and trains accessible. There was a further investment in the Gautrain. All of this work resulted from the Transport Indaba that was held last year, and OSDP was working very closely with Minister Radebe. It had also made a presentation at the Indaba on public transport accessibility.

Mr Mkongi asked about the staff complement of the OSDP, their staff turnover, and their retention strategy.

Mr Palime said this comprised the Director, the Deputy Director Mainstreaming and Capacity Building; Deputy Director Monitoring and Evaluation; Deputy Director Policy and Advocacy; two Administrative officers, a secretary and two project personnel. OSDP was running a project of the Danish government looking at economic empowerment and transformation of sheltered workshops.

Mr Mkongi was interested in the last response on sheltered employment, noting that a programme reported to the Portfolio Committee on Labour on sheltered employment. He asked what was the relationship with those people, and whether the perception of this being dominated by whites was true.

Mr Palime responded that the sheltered workshops were not as they should be. The workers were still earning very low wages, and were working hard, and the workshops were not managed by disabled people themselves. The OSDP started a pilot project, for two years, funded by the Danish government, aiming at turning sheltered workshops into viable businesses managed by disabled people. These were working well in a number of places and should be handed over at the end of the pilot project. The OSDP was working with Departments of Labour and Social Development to finalise this plan.

Mr Moss noted that although issues were raised, people on the ground did not listen. Last week he had travelled  with the Portfolio Committee on Transport to Gauteng. It took him an hour to get out of the plane and into the terminal building. He was tired of complaining – he even had the phone number of the Public Relations Officer of SAA. The Department had failed to organise a car for him. The whole visit was geared to checking the transport readiness of the city for 2010. There was a bus described as user-friendly to disabled, with a hydraulic lift, but getting into it was extremely difficult. Only six of the eighty new buses were disabled friendly. Therefore a disabled person could wait for twenty buses to pass before one arrived that he could get into if he was in a wheelchair. 2010 was the ideal opportunity to address the problems of the disabled. Metrorail were asked the same questions but admitted that very little was done. The nearest train station might have a subway or steps to get to the platform, and disabled persons were having to get off three stations away because their own station was not disabled-friendly. He asked specifically what strategy did the Department of Transport have in place to accommodate disabled persons. Any project must be judged on whether it was integrated, accessible and efficient to disabled persons. Insofar as taxis were concerned, one in twenty taxis would be disabled friendly under the Taxi Recapitalisation programmes. This was just not good enough. Any programme with the Department of Transport would have to interrogate all issues thoroughly and would have to show exactly what they were going to do, the time frames, and the results. Nothing should be done for the disabled without consulting them as to whether the proposed interventions would actually work. 

The Chairperson said that the private sector was probably just as bad. Private companies had been asked recently to fetch Members to take them to a meeting at the hotel. The driver of the shuttle tried to carry those in wheelchairs but did not know how. On arrival at the meeting the driver instructed some Members to go on without those in wheelchairs, but would only drop those in wheelchairs when his shuttle filled up again. She asked whether OSDP had any activities for the private sector also to comply.

Mr Palime confirmed that OSDP was currently working with public entities, such as SAA, but would also try to extend to private transport companies and businesses. It was also trying to implement the dial-a-ride system, but this did not seem to work very well. The problem is airports was that the Airports Company of South Africa had decided to outsource passenger transport. Disabled passengers used to have someone assisting them from the plane, taking them from the lounge and waiting with them until they were collected. Now they would simply be left sitting in the plane. Mr Palime was blind, yet was told he had to be in a wheelchair if he wished to be assisted. In regard to 2010 OSDP was sitting with SAA on a team to ensure that there would be good service for people with disabilities. SAA was limited to carrying only four people with disabilities per flight and this issue was also being discussed.

Mr Madella followed up on the sheltered workshops, saying that marketing was a major problem and the workshops needed support. Most of the computers at the Gugulethu workshop were not even in working order. There had been some discussions around starting an agricultural and food garden, which DPSA was looking at, but much support was needed from the government side, otherwise the new workshops would fall into the same pitfalls as the old ones. The workshops were being run as profit centres, and the disabled people working there were threatened with having their grants cut if they were to earn more. Those issues need to be looked at. He suggested the Committee should visit those workshops. He also suggest that the Committee must convene a workshop at which disabled people could describe their problems with transport.
He also suggested that the JMC consider convening some kind of workshop and invite disabled people to make a presentation around the transport problems disabled people encountered. At his station a disabled person was needing to be carried on to the platform each day by Metrorail officers, and if they were not there he was stranded. He also suggested that Metrorail officials must attend that workshop, to explain what they intended to do about the problems. Some positive results had come from meetings between this Committee and SAA and other airlines. Those working on equity should also be invited. He had recently been told at the airport that the airline’s responsibilities ended at the terminal, no matter whether there was a long passage to get to the exit.

Mr Mkongi reiterated his concerns on sheltered employment and transport and noted that government was being forced to pay without results.

Mr Palime assured the Chairperson that the report would be made available. He would consult his colleagues in the Departments of Labour and Social Development and would present a combined report giving the status of workshops. The Committee could also contact the project manager at his office.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Palime, noted that there was follow up needed, and would like to meet him for an in-depth report on the convention. She noted that OSDP would return on 22 June for consideration of its Annual Report.

The meeting was adjourned.