Developing social policy for children in the context of HIV/AIDS:

Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town, & Community Agency for Social Enquiry, December 2008
the original fiscal envelope. In the debates on the subsequent changes to the policy or calls
for changes from civil society, the budgetary implications of the change are repeatedly
raised by Treasury as a reason for not extending the CSG policy further. This stance is
continually challenged by civil society’s rights‐based arguments.
In the case of the Children’s Act, the Bill was subjected to a detailed costing exercise which
took a rights‐based approach and which revealed that the government was only financing a
fraction of its existing obligations under the 1983 Child Care Act, never mind the functions
that would be imposed by a new Act. In costing the new Bill, the actual demand and need
for services were factored into the calculations. It resulted in a realistic costing, but one
which was far higher than the current budgetary allocations. The shock of these high figures
could have sunk the entire Bill. However, the costing report pointed out clearly that the
large cost was mainly as a result of existing Child Care Act obligations not being
implemented. It exposed the serious lack of capacity within government in the area of
social welfare services for children and the dire need for reform and a legislative framework
that could address the capacity problems. The fact that the first Bill had already been
passed by Parliament by the time the costing report was released meant that the
foundation of the policy was already cast. It made it more difficult to make major changes
to reduce the costs.
In the latter part of discussions on the Bill, there was also much debate as to the
advantages and disadvantages of changing the words “may provide” to “must provide”.
Financial constraints were offered as a reason for using the word “may”. However, despite
the sharp difference between current expenditure and the costed expenditure, Parliament
did not dilute the Bill in any way to reduce the cost; it in fact strengthened many of the
provisions instead.
In the case of the FCG, there has been no explicit policy‐making process over the last
13 years, and thus no explicit public discussion of budget implications. Nevertheless, the
amount allocated for this grant has expanded at a rate far beyond inflation because
numbers of beneficiaries have soared. The numbers are set to expand further with the
Minister’s declaration that grandparents caring for orphans should get this grant rather
than the CSG, which has a much lower monetary value. The roll‐out of cluster foster care is
also likely to result in a sharp increase in take‐up. The silence in respect of the financial
implications, including from the National Treasury, is thus surprising. The portfolio
committee, however, raised the red flag in its report on the Children’s Amendment Bill
(2007). In recognition of the steep increase in take‐up and the possible lack of sustainability
of the grant, the committee called for a comprehensive review of social security policy for
children, including the foster child grant.
The South African government is in a much stronger financial position than many other
countries. The government’s reported deficit decreased steadily from 3.4% in 1997/08 to
0.3% in 2006/07 (National Treasury, 2007a: 186‐7; National Treasury, 2001: 202‐3).
The 2007 budget predicted a surplus of 0.6% for 2007/08, followed by very small deficits in
the succeeding two years. (National Treasury now refers to what was previously called
45