To: Mr. Mondli Gungubele the Honourable Chairperson of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
To: Mr. Mondli Gungubele The Honourable Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee for Social Development By email: [email protected] c/o: [email protected] 30 October 2020 Dear Honourable Chairperson THE CHILDREN’S AMENDMENT BILL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT – AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REAL REFORM LOST Introduction 1. We are a collective of non-profit organisations, academics, and children’s rights organisations, all advocating for the realisation of the right to inclusive, holistic and quality early childhood development (“ECD”) services in South Africa. 2. We refer to the Children’s Amendment Bill B18-2020 (the “Bill”) and address you on key concerns about the proposed amendments contained in the Bill as they relate to ECD. 3. We have helped coordinate, and along with a growing number of organisations and individuals (currently more than 90), support the Real Reform for ECD Campaign, which calls for key reforms relating to ECD to be considered and implemented in light of the legislative reform process currently underway. 4. The Real Reform for ECD Campaign calls on the Honourable Chair and members of the Portfolio Committee for Social Development (“Committee”) to consider these key reforms. A petition addressed to the Honourable Chair and the members of the Committee can be accessed here. A list of signatories (currently about 560) and their reasons for signing the petition is also annexed hereto as Annexure A. 5. For the reasons set out below, we write to the Honourable Chairperson to urge that a special meeting of the Committee be convened to specifically discuss critical issues and concerns pertaining to the Bill’s proposed amendments in respect of ECD. 6. The ECD sector has consistently requested a more holistic approach to regulating ECD. Government has also, at various times, supported the simplification and streamlining of the regulation of ECD. In 2012, the Buffalo City Declaration committed the government to the ‘streamlining of registration processes’. And earlier this year, in a presentation to parliament, the DBE stated as one of its ten strategic aims for ECD, ‘a single streamlined system of registration – for centres, programmes and practitioners.’ 7. Whilst the Bill as introduced in Parliament now includes a single ECD chapter, the proposed amendments, rather than simplifying and streamlining processes, instead result in further duplication and incoherence in the regulation of ECD. The Bill still does not tackle the major challenges the sector faces: unattainable registration requirements, a complicated dual registration process, underutilised pro-poor mechanisms in the Children’s Act, 2005 (the “Children’s Act”), amongst others. Moreover, it adopts a one-size-fits-all approach to ECD provisioning, perpetuates onerous health and safety requirements, and siphons infrastructure support from partial care facilities on private land. It also fails to respond to the imminent shift of responsibilities in respect of ECD services from the Department of Social Development (“DSD”) to the Department of Basic Education (“DBE”). 8. We urge the Honourable Chair and the members of the Committee to consider these issues carefully and to hold DSD accountable for establishing more comprehensive, well-considered and holistic legislative reform measures to ensure the best interests of the child are served at all times. Why a specific Portfolio Committee engagement on ECD is required 9. While the ECD-related amendments contained in the Bill were presented by DSD to this Committee at a briefing held on 6 October 2020 (the “Briefing”), fundamental issues with the Bill’s proposed amendments were not adequately addressed. 10. DSD also failed to adequately respond to questions raised by various concerned Committee members. In particular: 10.1. Member Masango’s question about why clause 35 of the Bill amended section 78(4) of the Children’s Act to turn the obligation to prioritise funding to poverty declared wards into a discretionary power, went unanswered; and 10.2. Member Abrahams’ questions on the infrastructure grant being inaccessible to private property owners, on onerous municipal requirements as barriers to registration, and the implications of the ECD function shift on the current amendment process, were not addressed. 11. In addition, we are concerned about the inaccurate and misleading information presented to the Committee with regard to the implications of the Bill on the ECD sector. Examples of some of the inaccuracies or lack of clarity include: 11.1. That the Bill provides that partial care facilities taking care of less than six children must be registered. This is incorrect. The Bill states that a facility operated or managed by the Department, a provincial department, or a municipality may register if there are fewer than six children in its care. The vast majority of facilities do not fall into this category and therefore will not have to register; 11.2. That there did not appear to be a clear understanding about the important differences between conditional registration and registration with conditions, and the implications of the Bill’s provisions in this regard; 11.3. That clause 39 of the Bill fills a gap relating to conditions for registration and that the amendment constitutes a conditions checklist. There is no such provision in the clause. The proposed amendment only makes minor adjustments to wording and does not change the substance of the existing section in the Children’s Act; 11.4. That clause 45 of the Bill (which includes amendments to section 91(3) of the Children’s Act) is necessary to provide different ECD programmes according to different age groups. This not the effect of the clause and no such provision is included. The amendment to section 91(3) simply brings the definition of ECD programme in line with the definition in the National Integrated ECD Policy; 11.5. That clause 47 of the Bill gives power to MECs to provide funding for ECD programmes, including in rural areas, and that DSD has an obligation to provide ECD programme funding. The proposed amendment actually has the opposite effect. It diminishes the existing duty on MECs to fund ECD programmes in poor areas, by turning it into a discretionary power. There is no obligation to fund ECD programmes; and 11.6. That the new Part II (103A-103M) on the registration of ECD centres had been inserted because there was no provision of this nature for ECDs previously. This is not accurate. ECD centres are considered to be partial care facilities in Chapter 5 of the existing Act; therefore, all ECD centres are currently subject to the partial care regulatory regime. The new Part II simply repeats all of the partial care registration requirements in a different part of the Children’s Act specifically for ECD centres. This will make no difference to the registration system on the ground. Instead, the overlap in definitions and provisions introduced by the Bill creates significant confusion in respect of the regulation of partial care and ECD centres. 12. We believe that the proposed amendments in the Bill will adversely affect the ECD sector and the interests of the children this sector seeks to serve. Further engagement by the Committee on the ECD components of the Bill is therefore warranted. 13. Accordingly, we strongly urge you to call a special meeting of the Committee, similar to your suggested focused meeting in respect of foster care, dedicated to adequately ventilating the issues relating to ECD reform. In particular, we urge the Committee to: 13.1. require DSD to adequately respond to the concerns alluded to in paragraphs 5, 8 and 9 above; and 13.2. allow members of the ECD sector, including practitioners, representatives of the undersigned organisations and other possible stakeholders, to present at this meeting to assist the Committee in grappling with these complex issues. 14. We also encourage the Committee to invite the DBE to the special ECD session to ensure that both the DSD and DBE are considering the implications of the Bill. 15. We are all committed to advancing the best interests of children and want to ensure that the opportunity before us to further ECD reform is not squandered. In order to achieve this, we believe that engaging on the issues facing the ECD sector and the inadequacies of the current Bill, is critical. It will also prepare and empower the public to constructively engage with the Bill in the public comment process. 16. In light of the public participation process which has already commenced, we kindly request your urgent response by 9 November 2020. Sincerely, Rubeena Parker Equal Education Law Centre [email protected] Tess Peacock Equality Collective [email protected] Zaheera Mohamed Ilifa Labantwana [email protected] Rodgers Hlatshwayo SmartStart [email protected] Lizette Berry Children’s Institute [email protected] Cc: Ms. Alexandra Abrahams Member of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development By email: [email protected] Cc: Ms. Laetitia Arries Member of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development By email: [email protected] Cc: Ms. Nkhensani Bilankulu Member of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development By email: [email protected] Cc: Ms. Altia Hlongo Member of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development By email: [email protected] Cc: Ms. Jane Manganye Member of the Portfolio Committee on Social