Social Grants Bill Slammed. 16/4/10

Last year the department revealed that there were more than 42 000 outstanding.

Mail & Guardian

The department of social development has tabled an amendment to the Social Assistance Act that civil society organisations believe may worsen the department's enormous backlog in responding to grant appeals. Last year the department revealed that there were more than 42 000 outstanding.

In March Edna Molewa, the social development minister, introduced the Social Assistance Amendment Bill, which defines the term "disability" and attempts to further regulate eligibility for disability grants.

Ratula Beukman, the Black Sash's advocacy programme manager, said one consequence of the proposed amendment was that it would prevent people with chronic illnesses, such as asthma, hypertension or even HIV, from accessing disability grants.

"As a society, we simply can't afford not to invest in people who are chronically ill by providing them the lifeline that a chronic illness grant would represent; with the proposals as it stands it means that people have to become functionally disabled before they can receive social assistance,” she said. This represents a "serious gap within the social assistance system that needs to be addressed".

But Umunyana Rugege, an attorney at the Aids Law Project, said changes to the Act would not necessarily affect people with chronic illnesses who currently received disability grants. "It depends on the interpretation," said Rugege, whose main concern is that the legislation is not clear enough.

The Social Assistance Act of 2004 did not define the term "disability". The amendment Bill now seeks to define disability so that "in respect of an applicant, it means a moderate to severe limitation to his or her ability to function as a result of a physical, sensory, communication, intellectual or mental disability rendering him or her unable to obtain the means needed to enable him or her to provide for his or her own maintenance or be gainfully employed".

Rugege said the definition is not useful because it uses the word disability to define disability and does not make clear whether people with chronic illnesses fall into the definition.

"We will ask for greater clarity because it leaves things too open for interpretation by administrators," Rugege said. "Clearer guidelines are needed to assess disability so there is less confusion and less clogging up of the system."

Rugege said that the Aids Law Project was also concerned that the Bill would introduce a "double process for appeals" in a system already plagued by backlogs.