/ 22 October 2003

Outrage at ‘mutilated’ Children’s Bill

Child rights groups are increasingly alarmed at attempts by Social Development Minister Zola Skweyiya to fast-track the Children’s Bill ahead of next year’s election.

The Children’s Bill — meant to replace the Child Care Act of 1983 — is a holistic approach to the rights of all children. Among other things it would have put in place a new child-friendly court system.

Skweyiya is apparently calling for the finalisation of Parliament’s work on the Children’s Bill by February at the latest. The director of Resources Aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (Rapcan), Carol Bower, said the minister seemed unaware that the Bill in its current form was nothing like the version

prepared by the SA Law Reform Commission.

”The Bill as it now stands has been mutilated to such an extent that most of the research and consultation on which it was originally based have been ignored and what is left is barely recognisable.”

Children’s Institute spokesperson Paula Proudlock said the elimination of vital aspects of the Bill was very short-sighted.

”We can save money by focusing on prevention. You don’t need the big machinery of courts and social workers if abuse was cut.”

She said the Bill had originally included a chapter on child rights.

”Originally 20 rights were listed, that has now been cut to five. The original chapter took the constitutional rights of the child and expanded and explained them. On the ground service providers do not know what the rights mean and how to put them into practise.”

She said if South Africa’s above average rate of child abuse and child mortality was to be reduced, the root causes of the problem had to be looked at. The Bill now focused on the rights of the child only once he or she had been abused or orphaned and entered the system.

”The original Bill recognised that all children are the responsibility of the State. They did not become state responsibility only once they have been abused or orphaned.”

A national policy framework mechanism to enable government departments to work together to provide for the needs of children was also removed. She said children needed interventions from all the departments not just the Department of Social Development.

”Street children need social development to see to their needs for shelters, but then they need access to schools and education. Then the Education Department must come in. If one department fails in its duty then the whole chain breaks down,” Proudlock said.

The Bill also originally had a social security chapter which made provision for a child support grant to anyone who cared for a child.

”The chapter recognised that poverty was the underlying cause of child vulnerability. Poverty is why they end up on the streets.”

She said the grant would have made it possible for anyone who cared for a child — a grandmother, an aunt — to have access to money for food and shelter.

The major frustration of social workers was that they would go into house where the family would need basic support in the form of food and money.

”They need to be able to give families material, basic support and they are not able to do it. They have to just walk away.”

She said the Bill in its current form could not be passed and needed to undergo a intensive repair process.

”The truth is that the Bill has been so badly damaged that if it goes through as it is it will have very limited impact on the plight of children in our country.”

She urged the minister to allow more time for the Bill to be considered.

”A shoddy Children’s Act at this stage will amount to a betrayal of the children the minister seeks to help, and it will do him no credit whatsoever.” – Sapa