Office on Status of Disabled Persons & Office on Rights of the Child Annual Reports 2007/08

Meeting report

Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP) presentation
Mr Benny Palime (Director, OSDP) spoke to the two documents that had been presented to the Committee. The presentation covered the OSDP’s strategic objectives, its activities from January to September 2007, the internal Presidency involvement and integration, international obligations, its capacity building work, and a brief financial statement.

Additional comments included:
- The OSDP had last met the Committee late in 2007 and it was hoped that the OSDP would return to present its 2008/09 Strategic Plan, once it had been completed.
- The Office’s 2007/08 work had been divided into two strategies: a myriad of activities and the auditing of expenditure of donor-funded projects. The OSDP had ensured that administrative processes had been put in place and had completed work on auditing projects (specifically the Danish Economic Empowerment Donor funded project).
- The OSDP had conducted much work around policy. The revision of the National Disability Policy Framework , which subsequently materialised through the establishment of a task team. Part of this process entailed a review with consultations with disability organizations as well as a host of workshops. The OSDP had saved a lot on consultancy fees as it had conducted its own internal workshops.
- The OSDP had assisted disability organizations. The Office only released funds to an initiative, once its project manager had finished and reported on a certain activity. Funds were allocated as needed throughout the funding period, and not as a once-off amount.
- The OSDP had embarked on a capacity building program, which was given an NQ4 grading.
- It had trained civil servants on mainstreaming disability in partnership with the South African Management Development Institute (SAMDI) at national, provincial and local government level as part of its capacity-building drive.
- In terms of monitoring and evaluation, Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) had conducted research that assisted the OSDP in publishing disability indicators that could be utilised by the OSDP in its activities.
- The Office of the President and National Treasury had also conducted its own monitoring and evaluation of the OSDP. This was to assist the Office in its organisational and institutional structure.
- The National Disability Machinery (NDM) had been established to provide national support to disability. organizations and other stakeholders through well-coordinated initiatives that strengthened OSDP’s work.
- The OSDP had fulfilled its international obligations by actively taking part in the various forums as well as the payment of member fees. The OSDP had spent money with regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol (UNCRPDOP or Convention) as the OSDP team had to fly to New York to conduct further work, before the Convention was finalised. The Convention had been ratified by South Africa in 2007.
- The OSDP was a signatory to the Africa Disability Decade (ADD) and had funded board meetings of the Directory. The OSDP would continue its support where it was needed, especially since the Directory was based in Cape Town.
- In terms of advocacy the OSDP had spent a lot of money on the International Day for Disabled People, through partnerships with provinces governments that acted as official hosts.
- The OSDP always applied for the deviation of funds to provinces on the International Day for the Disabled as they were responsible for the procurement process and not the OSDP. This was done to prevent confusion if the OSDP organized the event from Pretoria, without input from the host province.
- The OSDP had spent money on normal administrative essentials, travelling and accommodation, printing (especially Braille) from its own funds and not that of the Presidency.
- The OSDP had done financial projections from time to time as it assisted in tracking expenditure patterns that prevented overspending. The Presidency had assisted the OSDP in its auditing processes and a report had been submitted to the National Treasury on this.

Discussion
Ms Newhoudt-Druchen and Mr K Marais (DA) asked how the OSDP had spent R1,174 million on salaries, whilst there was no apparent budget for it.

Mr Palime replied that the OSDP managers did not manage the salaries of the staff as the Finance and Human Resources Divisions, located in the Presidency, did this. The OSDP relied on the information they received from these Divisions. They would send the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) a report, once all the relevant information was received.

He added that a decision had been taken that would allow the OSDP to manage its own salaries, a direct consequence of the internal audit that had been conducted. He noted that the OSDP would thus only manage those budget line items that have allocated responsibility codes, as the other processes would be dealt with by the internal audit committee, HR and Finance divisions.

Mr D Gamede (ANC, Kwazulu-Natal) said that it might be unfair to expect of Mr Palime to engage on the Financial Report, as he should have brought representatives from the HR and Finance divisions to account for the financial statements. Proper financial statements were vital when a government entity presented its Annual Report. The OSDP financial statements showed several unbudgeted items, yet expenditure on those items took place. He said that Mr Palime had indicated that very little money was spent on consultants, yet the amounts painted a different picture.

Mr Palime replied that consultants had been hired to conduct workshops and training exercises for the State Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be hosted by South Africa and not on policy issues. He noted that the documented figures were sent to the OSDP by the Presidency and that he did not want to create the impression that the OSDP was shifting its responsibility. The OSDP did account for its expenditure, as it was activity based.

He added that the OSDP had worked with estimations based on the previous year’s expenditure pattern when it submitted its budget. In most cases these estimations were correct as prices would inevitably increase and this was taken into account through an added 10% to each responsibility code.

Mr Marais said that the OSDP had a very interesting budget approach. He asked if the OSDP budgeted because they made projections on previous spending or because it was needed for future objectives.

Mr Palime replied that the OSDP compared the current prices of hotels and airlines with that of the previous year, compared to anticipated increases. He said that 10% was thus added to each code to bring it in line with the realities. The difficulty with activity based budgets were that they sometimes created minor glitches, but he had to admit that the OSDP had a very healthy financial position. All unspent money was transferred back to Treasury. One should not only look at the expenditure by item, but the budget in its totality.

Mr A Madella (ANC) said that he got the impression that the financial statements were not complete. He failed to understand how the OSDP could make allocations to items, without it being budgeted for. He added that there was also gross under spending on advertising.

Mr Gamede said that OSDP was only reporting on its expenses and not the total financial situation, which meant nothing as the JMC would like to interrogate everything. This was the reason that it was important for the OSDP to bring its accounting people along to engage on the entire financial situation. The budget process was pegged with the desired objectives and outcomes, and not necessarily just to spend money for the sake of spending. If the JMC could not interrogate the OSDP on these issues then it would have implications for people with disabilities.

Ms Newhoudt said that the document that detailed the expenditure and allocated budget was incomplete, as there was many zeros in the budget column. She said if the budget column had to be filled then it would obviously be more than the expenditure. This was why it was viewed as incomplete by the JMC.

Mr Palime replied that the objectives of the budget were presented first as Members were not always interested in the financial figures but also the activities tied to those figures. He agreed with Mr Madella on the advertising issue, but that an explanation was needed to clarify why so little had been spent on advertising.

He said that the reason why so little money had been spent on advertising was that there was not a lot to advertise for and that R2, 5 million had be spent on goods and services. He noted that the expenditure pattern had to be shifted around to accommodate other spending by the OSDP. He said an overall picture of expenditure and how the OSDP went about spending that money was thus given. The OSDP had to plan around the MTEF period and that systems had been put in place that would assist the OSDP to master this process. The OSDP had also decided to appoint its own finance manager that would track expenditure and would work closely with the auditors of the Presidency.

Mr Marais stated that he was quite shocked at the response given by Mr Palime as it seemed that he had no idea of how a budget worked. He said that it was imperative that the OSDP got value for its money and stopped proclaiming a healthy balance sheet, whilst there had been major under spending. Given the pivotal role that the OSDP played he failed to understand why it would have under expenditure, especially on essential activities, such as advertising and awareness raising.

He was shocked when Mr Palime said that they had nothing to advertise, considering the lack of awareness amongst abled people about the difficulties that disabled people faced. Mr Palime had not performed on par as the accounting person for the OSDP.

Mr Gamede proposed that the meeting move forward with the JMC engaging the OSDP on its activities, rather then the financial statements that had to be clarified by the Presidency.

Mr Palime said that the advertising budget related to the HR function (advertising of posts) and not to awareness as Mr Marais insinuated. He stated that the OSDP had spent vast amounts on awareness campaigns and advertising around the International Day for Disabled People which was not included in the primary advertising budget.

He added that the UN Plan of Action had been completed through the ratification of the Convention which entailed a lot of travelling, especially when the OSDP attended the Conference of State Parties in New York where South Africa was chosen as the Vice-Chairperson for the African Bureau. He announced that South Africa was mandated to host the first full summit of State Parties in two years’ time and asked for the assistance of the JMC in this regard.

He added that the OSDP had engaged with the National Disability Machinery (NDM) and the South African Disability Alliance (SADA) on the United Nations Plan of Action that would become an official document, once it was approved by Parliament. He said that the Integrated National Disability Strategy would not be cast aside, although most of the initiatives entailed in the INDS Charter had been implemented.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen said that initially she was shocked when the OSDP announced that it would first train its staff on the UN Plan of Action, before a road show was planned to make disabled people aware of the Plan. One should first inform disabled people about the Plan through the road show, before the OSDP embarked on training its staff. It was very important that the ordinary disabled and abled person on the street got to know about this.

Mr Madella added that it was important for the OSDP to inform and educate disabled people on the ratification of the Convention as well as the extent to which the different policy frameworks of the government and the Convention complemented one another.

Mr Marais said that it was very important for South Africa to play and fulfil its international role and obligations, but that national issues should receive priority. Charity began at home, especially in light of how abled bodied people responded to the disability fraternity. He noted that in many cases government and the private sector flaunted their disability credentials, without committing themselves to fulfil their constitutionally bound duties.

He added that every year the equity targets for females were increased as oppose to the disability target that never had an increase. At the moment government was dragging its feet in this regard as it had not even attained the 2% benchmark it set for itself. The actual equity figures for disabled people stood at less then 1% and that continued increases in other equity rates would continue to add to the marginalisation of the disabled community.

He asked whether the OSDP had engaged with government departments on what was expected in terms of this target. He had been at constant loggerheads with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) on their dismissal track record when it came to the employment of disabled people. SARB had indicated that they had deaf people working at the Mint, but that this was not enough as disabled people had to be given the chance to proof themselves at managerial levels as well.

The OSDP also had a duty to inform disabled fraternity that they were allowed various tax benefits. The R1,9 million spent on awareness for the International Day for the Disabled was wasted spending and could have been used to effect real change. He asked if the OSDP had regular consultations with organizations that worked with disabled people as well as the nature and affiliation of the SADA.

Mr Gamede asked how the OSDP communicated with provinces and local governments on planned initiatives and whether there was any synergy amongst these three tiers of government. It was about time that uniformity was attained through the implementation of a Disability Unit in each Premier and Mayor office.

He further asked how the OSDP accounted for donor funding and whether Members would be informed how this money was spent. As public representatives it was important for Members to be fully informed when they brief their constituencies. He also asked how the OSDP involved civil society on disability issues.

The Chairperson noted that the African Decade had already lapsed, but that it was greed to extend it as there were still many issues that had to be reviewed and changed. She asked until when the Decade was extended and to what extent the OSDP played a role in funding the Decade.

Mr Palime replied that the OSDP did engage and work with civil society organizations through SADA and that the OSDP admitted that at times not all disabled people received information on initiatives and events as the OSDP depended on mainstream organizations who were affiliated to the Alliance.

The OSDP had designed an effective tool that facilitated monitoring and evaluation through the induction of annual indicators by the Presidency. StatSA also played a significant part in this process.

Mr Palime said that the SADA comprised all major organizations dedicated to disabled people. He said that organizations such as the Deaf Association of South Africa (DEAFSA), the National Council for the Physically Disabled (NCPDA), the Down Syndrome Association of South Africa (DSASA), the South African Quadriplegic Association and the National Association of Blind People (NABP) were some of the organizations aligned to SADA. The former structure that comprised all these organizations had to close down due to lack of funding and SADA was a new initiative that aimed to fill the void that was left.

The OSDP only reported to the donor nations on activities undertaken. The donors appointed their own auditors that worked closely with the auditors of the Presidency and that if the JMC wished then the OSDP could arrange for a briefing on donor funding.

Mr Palime said that OSDP wanted to ensure that the public understood that the INDS would not phased out as it was a broader framework, free of any barriers and guidelines on how it ought to be implemented. He noted that the OSDP planned to involve the various affiliates of SADA in the road shows and that it was due to start on 1 April. The OSDP would inform the provincial and local governments, government departments as well as the JMC on the itinerary of the road shows.

He said that the OSDP got the same response on the disability equity status of government departments as Mr Marais. His inability to summon Directors General and lecture them on their dismal disability equity ratios had been a major problem and he implored the JMC to work closely with the OSDP to corner departments when they present their Strategic Plans as well as their Annual Reports. He noted that the contempt with which HR units within government departments treated the issue of disabled employees was very problematic as they knew that nothing would happen to them if they do not fulfil their equity plans. In many instances these government departments claimed that they could not find any suitable disabled candidates for a certain position, without even consulting the necessary civil society organizations that could be of assistance to them. At the moment the government’s disabled equity ratio stood at a disappointing 0,46 %.

Mr Palime said that Cabinet had approved the Job Access Strategy (JAS) which would now be implemented jointly with between the OSDP and the Department of Public Service and Administration. The JAS would fast track and facilitate the appointment of disabled people to positions in the public service by liaising with civil society organizations. It was hoped that the process would unfold quickly so that the 2% target could be reached by 2010.

He stated that the OSDP had liaised with National Treasury and SARS on tax legislation and a new definition of a disabled person had been provided to them. In many instances disabled people were told that they did not qualify for tax benefits due to their disability status, which was not in line with the OSDP’s definition. It would be an important step in the right direction if these two institutions accepted the OSDP definition of disability as it had Cabinet approval. The process was ongoing and a report on this would be submitted to the JMC speedily.

He said that uniformity remained a challenge as many provincial governments already had their own plans which were not aligned to that of the OSDP. He noted that in the Western Cape and Gauteng the ‘Disability Unit’ had been established as an entity in the Human Rights Directorate. The OSDP had requested that this Unit be made a separate entity, but was not averse to reviewing the decision made by the Western Cape and Gauteng to see whether it was / would be effective.

Mr Palime noted that the Secretariat of the African Decade had decided to extend the Decade to the end of 2019. The decision was taken by the Council of Ministers for Social Services who would make a recommendation to the AU Head of State Summit where it was to be approved.
 
He noted that the OSDP wanted the Secretariat to function as independently as possible from the OSDP as the OSDP was an ex officio member of the Board and not a member of the Secretariat itself. The OSDP had been assisting the Secretariat with its institutional organization as well as with funding.

Mr Marais noted that the OSDP had to ensure that all government departments enforce the employment equity charter. More stringent rules had to be instituted, as government was quick to enforce other charters, but failed to address the issue of disabled people

The Chairperson requested that the OSDP sent all the relevant information on the first Conference of Experts timeously as the JMC would like to get involved in the process. It was very important for the OSDP to first address the problems that disabled South Africans faced. There were only eighteen months left before the conference and she hoped that the new JMC would play an active role at that conference.

Mr Gamede asked to what extent the 2010 preparations had included insight from the disabled fraternity to make it accessible to disabled people as well.

The Chairperson expressed her disappointment with the cancelling of the International Day for Disabled People (IDDP) celebrations. It was unacceptable that the event was cancelled just because the President or Deputy President could not attend. She had taken the matter up with the ANC Chief Whip who said that the OSDP could have asked a Member from the JMC to attend the event.

She added that as a signatory to the UN Convention, South Africa has duties and responsibilities, which must be fulfilled. She noted that the International Day for the Disabled should not be treated as a non-event as it provided the platform for disabled people to celebrate the victories attained.

Mr Palime commented that the OSDP had determined that it was very difficult to negotiate with pharmaceutical and medical companies as they had the concessions. In many instances vital information that was of use to disabled people never filtered down to those who need it. He would make a commitment to work with Mr Marais in addressing the issues he had raised.

Office on the Rights of the Child (ORC) presentation
Mr David Chabalala (ORC Deputy Director) said that the ORC had divided its performance milestones for 2007/08 into three Key Results Areas. They were to facilitate the coordination and oversight of children rights in government and civil society (Key Result Area 1, the strengthening of children rights competencies at the three spheres of Government (Key Result 2) and enhance the coordination, monitoring, evaluation and communication of children rights delivery in South Africa (Key Result 3).

Key Result 1
The ORC had mainstreamed the children rights mandate in line function departments as well as participating in children rights policy and programme processes.

Key Result 2
The ORC had facilitated a workshop to examine case studies that tested the impact of the 05/06 introductory training of the work performed by the ORCs and focal points. Process guidelines had also been developed that focussed on the strengthening of annual programmes for children rights awareness.

Key Result Area 3
The ORC was currently busy finalising the text of the sectoral children’s rights system as well as an analysis of the children right’s delivery report. It had also conducted the 2^nd Situational Analysis of Children in South Africa in partnership with UNICEF.

Financial Report
National Treasury had allocated R3,801 million to the ORC for the 2007/2008 financial year, of which R951 000 was spent on Key Result 1, R1,070 million on Key Result 2 and R1,780 075 million on Key Result 3.
 
Performance Challenges
The ORC faced several performance challenges such as the inadequate competencies in government in mainstreaming children rights policy as well as the lack of children rights focal points in government departments.

Ms Khomotso Kgothadi (ORC Deputy Director) said that when she joined the Office on the Rights of the Child it was discovered that the 2^ndUnited Nations Country Report on Children was not yet submitted. The new team started working on the document and finally submitted it in 2006. The ORC was also busy finalising the 3^rd Report as soon as it had gone through an internal review process. She apologised for again submitting the their report late.

She added that the UNICEF Situational Analysis of Children in South Africa report was in the process of being finalised. She noted that a diverse group of children had been interviewed on what made them happy and/or sad. She stated that the children were also asked their views on their local municipalities, schools, clinics, household circumstances and the community at large. The final stage was to track performances in children rights over the past fifteen years, after which it would be distributed to key stakeholders. This would help with access to critical information on children and where it can be strengthened.

Discussion
Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked if the ORC had begun the process of locating ORC offices in mayoral offices. If this indeed had happened, it would be prudent to explain whether these offices were monitored to ensure that they implemented policies. She expressed her concern with the continued late submission of important UN reports. She noted that the ORC should finish this document as soon as possible.

Mr Gamede noted that he had been told that the two deputy directors were both acting as the director on a rotation basis. He asked whether this was true or false and to list the programs and policy directives the ORC was involved with. He also asked how many provincial ORC offices had been established.

Mr Madella asked why the ORC mentioned that it would establish new district municipality offices as it was not an ORC competency. He asked how successful the establishing of new advisory councils at municipal and provincial level had been. It was important for all departments to establish a focal point for children rights. He said that the JMC not only wanted copies of reports, but these should also be accompanied by a presentation for scrutiny and questions.

Mr Moss said that it was important for the ORC to popularize its work through rigorous communication and advertising campaigns. He asked if the ORC had any publications and whether these publications were accessible by ordinary citizens.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked what the total expenditure by the ORC was for the past financial year.

Mr Chabalala replied that the ORC had a budget of R3, 801 million for the previous financial year and that it overspent by R16 000.

He added that the ORC had the same problems as the OSDP with regard to many issues, especially  establishing local and provincial offices. The ORC was working very hard in establishing relations with key institutions and individuals that worked on the issue of children rights. He said that the view from local government structures had been that children rights were part of a broad program, but that follow-up meetings would be held with mayors and premiers to establish these offices.

Mr Chabalala said that it was true that the three deputy directors were acting as the director on a rotating basis as the chief director wanted them to gain insight and more experience. Mr Gamede had been right to make the assertion that this might impede on stability within the ORC. It would be prudent for the ORC to fill the vacancy as soon as possible.

He said that South Africa generally had good policies, but that it lacked implementation. The ORC had participated in the drafting of the Childrens Act as well as working closely with the Department of Labour (DoL) on legal instruments to protect children against child labour practices.

His response to Mr Madella was that the text was incorrect as it should have stated district advisory offices on municipal level, an initiative that would need the assistance of SALGA. Many departments did not have focal points, except the Department of Social Development (DSD) that had just appointed a Deputy Director-General responsible for Children.

Mr Chabalala admitted that the ORC still had problems with popularising its mandate and role as there was complaints that the ORC had a very low profile. ORC had very few published works and it relied mostly on spreading the message to those that attended ORC events. These events were not well coordinated, but that an assessment team comprised of the Presidency, Premier offices and Mayoral offices would work on a plan that would see positive results.

He added that the ORC had also worked closely with Presidency staff in launching a children’s website that would contain informative information and quizzes.

Ms Kgothadi said that she was not sure whether the 3^rd Report could be forwarded to the JMC first before it was approved by Cabinet.

Mr Gamede said that it was very important for any entity to have strict financial controls that would prevent the under- and overspending of funds. He said planning was very important as it seemed that the funds were not being spent for what they were budgeted.