On Tuesday, Parliament’s portfolio committee on finance will hear submissions from non-profit organisations on the Katz commission’s proposed tax relief. Barry Streek reports
In a remarkable display of unity shortly before Tuesday’s meeting of the National Assembly’s portfolio committee on finance, non-profit organisations (NPOs) from across the spectrum of South African society have endorsed the Katz commission’s proposals to extend tax benefits to NPOs.
Some amendments have been proposed, mainly by the Non-Profit Partnership on behalf of the organisations, but these are mostly technical or slightly extend the Katz proposals.
As remarkable as the NPO unity on the issue is the response of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants, which has strongly endorsed the commission’s proposals and has urged the government to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations “sooner rather than later so as to bring certainty to this sector”.
The institute says it is clear that the Income Tax Act has not kept abreast with developments in South Africa, particularly in regard to the large number of NPOs created to deal with the upliftment of impoverished communities, and other organisations which do not fall within the current wording of the Act.
The portfolio committee on finance is to sit in Parliament on Tuesday to hear oral submissions on the Katz commission proposals, which calls for a simple definition of tax-exempt organisations and that the narrow definition of tax- exempt donations to “educational, ecclesiastical or charitable institutions of a public character” be replaced by a more general definition of public benefit organisations.
The main report on the proposals from the NGO sector was drafted by a task group, co- ordinated by the Non-Profit Partnership in conjunction with the South African National NGO Coalition, an umbrella body representing 4 000 organisations, the South African Grantmakers Association, the Charities Aid Foundation, the Development Resources Centre and the Legal Resources Centre.
In its submission, the partnership says: “Social and developmental needs cannot be provided by the state alone; international experience shows a high correlation between private giving and tax benefits of non- profit organisations.
“Both South African and international findings show that the non-profit sector is a major contributor to employment, economic growth and gross domestic product.
“South Africa’s business sector commits significant financial and other support to social development, but this has been skewed in favour of educational institutions qualifying for Section 18A donor deductions. Greater tax incentives for donors would lower the cost and encourage higher levels of donations to NPOs and direct funding to a broader range of national needs and priorities.”
It also said the Katz report supported the view that a more favourable tax regime for NPOs “will, rather than reducing the financial capacity of the fiscus, increase the capacity of civil society to participate in reconstruction and development and reduce demands on the state”.
The partnership’s proposals have been supported by the 32-member Forum of Northern Donors in South Africa, all foreign funding organisations, which welcomed the Katz proposals and pointed out that the non-profit sector has had to rely on a much-reduced pool of external funding.
The forum says it is concerned about the long-term sustainability of its partners, but the Katz proposals would help provide an enabling environment in which the sector can be sustained.
“A vibrant, active and healthy civil society is vital to the sustenance of South Africa’s young democracy. Providing incentives for giving by allowing companies and individuals to make tax deductible donations to organisations involved in poverty alleviation and development, will have the added advantage of encouraging a much-needed tradition of corporate philanthropy and greater involvement by business in the country’s reconstruction and development.
“Such incentives would also encourage individuals and families to consider giving to needs and causes of their choice,” the forum says.
The Non-Profit Partnerships submission has been endorsed by, among others, the Aids Consortium, the Association for Rural Advancement, the Co-operative for Research and Education, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, the Joint Education Trust, Kagiso Trust, the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Children’s Rights Committee, the National Land Committee, the National Welfare Social Service and Development Forum, Operation Hunger, Project Literacy, the South African Congress for Early Childhood Development, the South African National Council for Child Welfare, and the Women’s National Coalition.
It is indeed a most impressive cross- section of civil society in South Africa, and a very united cross-section at that. It now remains for the Department of Finance to react, and for Parliament, through the portfolio committee on finance, to take the lead that would put the non- profit sector on a much healthier and more sustainable footing.
@Six billion and still counting
Khadija Magardie
The world’s six-billionth person – a boy – was born in a Sarajevo hospital on Tuesday last week. This marked a doubling of the global population in more than three decades.
Internationally, attention will focus on key challenges facing regions, such as the threat of HIV/Aids. But what has been fairly neglected in terms of not only research, but also sufficient funding, is the provision of access to quality reproductive health care, for both men and women.
According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), contraceptive use in developing countries has increased, but the needs of many nations and communities, particularly in sub- Saharan Africa (also experiencing one of the fastest population growths), are still not being sufficiently met. This refers not only to the availability of free contraceptives, but also in ensuring that the contraceptive options are safe.
The South African public health system, like others in the region, provides an effective reproductive health service – including a wide variety of contraceptive options. A visit to three of the major family planning clinics in hospitals around Gauteng found no less than five birth control options available – including the post-coital “morning after” contraceptive pill. How-ever, with only one exception – that of the clinic at Hillbrow hospital – insufficient information or education is given on the different options.
At Coronation hospital clinic I was merely handed the various package inserts of the pills and hormonal injection – and this only upon request. Upon even the slightest scrutiny, it becomes evident that the pharmaceutical jargon requires lengthy explanation. Women coming to the clinics for contraceptive advice are merely instructed on use and, in some cases, given a pregnancy test beforehand.
In most cases, women who give birth in public hospitals are counselled about contraceptive options -some even prior to the births: clinic cards demand that women tick what type of contraception they plan to use in future. They are also made to sign an indemnity form – ostensibly to avoid patients changing their minds and blaming hospitals for complications.
While the availability of contraceptives is not the problem – there are birth control clinics scattered countrywide – what is sorely lacking is effective education surrounding the effects of their use, particularly oral and hormonal options.
Because the issue of contraception is still regarded by many cultures and societies as shameful and clandestine, it is not often that women know enough about the exact effects of the options they choose. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the medical practitioner administering the method to provide accessible information – and not only upon probing by the patient.
Women’s health advocacy projects have long campaigned for further research to be done into the effects of the contraceptive pill – both the combined and “mini” pill, and the hormonal injections, such as Nur-Isterate and Depo-Provera. In the case of the latter, for instance, the delay in a return to fertility after coming off the drugs is still not sufficiently understood by many women. Some women in traditional societies even suffer anxiety attacks, thinking that contraception has rendered them infertile forever.
At Hillbrow hospital, staff not only provided package inserts, but also provided step-by-step instruction leaflets, explaining the side effects, in simple English and other languages. The medical practitioner on duty also informed me that I would be medically examined, weighed, and have my blood pressure taken before I was administered with the hormonal injection. Contrary to this being mandatory (according to at least the Depo-Provera insert, which also says a pap smear should be taken – which no public hospitals routinely do unless requested), Hillbrow hospital was the only one to mention this. Other clinics confirmed that, aside from a pregnancy test, no other examination was necessary.
Just how much government funding and research goes into the examination of the safety of the different methods is masked in obscurity. Some contraceptives – such as the intra-uterine device (IUD) – have been proven to have negative and harmful side effects for women’s reproductive health, but are provided freely in public hospitals, with no more than instructions on their use.
A major area also neglected in terms of education is that of male involvement and responsibility. The anti-Aids, safer sex campaign pushes condom use – but more as a deterrent against sexually transmitted diseases and HIV than pregnancy prevention. Most clinics acknowledge that the numbers of men visiting birth control clinics are extremely few. This, however, does not detract from the fact that the government family planning system targets women – placing the burden of fertility control squarely on their shoulders. The justification for this has been the assumption that “whatever it is, men will not agree to using it if it affects their hormones”.
Moreover, limited investment has been made into the research of new fertility regulation methods for men, as well as female-controlled barrier methods (less damaging to women’s bodies than hormonal contraceptives or IUDs).
A report to reflect the state of South Africa’s population, written jointly with the country’s leading population and development researchers, will be released in December. It is unclear whether this report will reveal the extent of government spending on reproductive health. What is pressing is the need to establish the safety of all the methods, coupled with training reproductive health educators with more than a rudimentary understanding of the effects of the contraceptive.
For it is only under such conditions that women, and men, are able to make choices that are not only free, but informed.