ANC said “no” to an increase in the Child Support Grant

Issued by David Maynier MP – DA Shadow Minister of Finance
25 May 2018 in News

This is an updated version of the Budget Vote Speech that was delivered today by DA Shadow Minister of Finance, Hon. David Maynier MP, on the Appropriation Bill.

1.  Introduction

We are here today to debate the Appropriations Bill [B3-2018], which is the final stage in the budget process in Parliament.

We were required, in terms of the Money Bill Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (No. 9 of 2009), to have passed the Appropriations Bill [B3-2018] by 31 July 2018.

However, rather than taking time to properly consider the implications of each budget vote we chose to do a rush job.

We squeezed the debates on the budget votes into a sausage machine of so-called “mini-plenaries”.

And the truth is that most of the so-called “mini-plenaries” turned out to be a complete shambles.

2. Grants

Whatever the case, we recall that on 22 February 2018 former Minister of Finance, Malusi Gigaba, announced an increase in the Child Support Grant in Parliament.

The announcement included: an increase from R380 per month to R400 per month from 01 April 2018; and an increase from R400 per month to R410 per month from 01 October 2018.

However, the increase in the Child Support Grant remains below the “food poverty line” of R441 per month in South Africa.

3. Proposals

We have powers, in terms of the Money Bill Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (No. 9 of 2009), to amend the Appropriations Bill [B3-2018].

We, therefore, proposed 170 amendments to provide for an adjustment in the amount of R5.36 billion to the Appropriations Bill [B3-2018], to provide for an increase in the Child Support Grant to a level that is in line with the “food poverty line” in South Africa.

The amendments we proposed were “budget neutral” and would have been funded by reprioritizing expenditure within the existing budget, and would have had no effect on the fiscal deficit for 2018/19.

4. Savings

We proposed the following savings to fund the proposed R5.36 billion adjustment to the Appropriation Bill [B3-2018]:

  • a “spending freeze” on VIP Protection Services [Vote 23, Police, Programme 5, Sub-Programme 1], Prestige Policy [Vote 11, Public Works, Programme 5] and International Relations [Vote 6, International Relations and Cooperation, Programme 2], which would generate a saving of R 17.4 million;
  • a 5% “haircut” on cost containment items including advertising, communications, entertainment, travel & subsistence and venue & facilities, except national departments “firewalled” from spending cuts, which would generate a saving of R708 million; and
  • a “general spending freeze” on current spending in all national departments, except national departments “firewalled” from spending cuts, which would generate a saving of R4.6 billion in 2018/19.

We were careful to ensure that the proposed savings did not have a negative effect on service delivery by “firewalling” certain key national departments[1], and certain key national programmes[2], from any spending cuts at all.

The key national departments included:

  • Basic Education [Vote 14], Higher Education and Training [Vote 15], Health [Vote 16], Social Development [Vote 17], Correctional Services [Vote 18], Independent Police Investigative Directorate [Vote 20], Justice and Constitutional Development [Vote 21], Office of the Chief Justice and Justice Administration [Vote 22], Police [Vote 23][1], Water and Sanitation [Vote 36], Human Settlements [Vote 38] and Rural Development and Land Reform [Vote 39].

And the key national programmes included:

  • National Disaster Management Centre [Vote 4, Programme 4], Community Work Programme [Vote 4, Programme 6], the Expanded Public Works Programme [Vote 11, Programme 3] and the Citizen Affairs Programme [Vote 5, Programme 2]

5. Motivation

There are too many children who suffer from malnutrition and who go hungry every day in South Africa.

The value of the Child Support Grant was derived from an objective measure – the “Household Subsistence Level” – in South Africa.

However, determining the value of the Child Support Grant based on an objective measure fell by the wayside.

That is why we proposed an increase in the Child Support Grant to R441 per month in line with an objective measure, in this case the “food poverty line” in South Africa.

6. Reaction

One would have thought that a proposal to increase the Child Support Grant to a level that is in line with the “food poverty line” would have received serious consideration by the Standing Committee on Appropriations.

But the truth is our proposal to increase the Child Support Grant to a level that is in line with the “food poverty line” was rejected without any serious consideration because it was just too much effort for the Standing Committee on Appropriations.

One member of the Standing Committee on Appropriations from the governing party bizarrely suggested that an increase in the Child Support Grant to a level that is in line with the “food poverty line” would “undermine humanity” in South Africa.

The fact is that last year the Standing Committee on Appropriations could not wait to approve a R10 billion bailout of South African Airways, but this year the Standing Committee on Appropriations would not lift a finger to approve a R5.36 billion increase in the Child Support Grant.

7. Conclusion

So we want people to know:

  • The DA said “yes” to an increase in the Child Support Grant. But the ANC’s Yvonne Phosa said “no” to an increase in the Child Support Grant.
  • The DA said “yes” to an increase in the Child Support Grant. But the ANC’s Ndabakayise Gcwabaza said “no” to an increase in the Child Support Grant.
  • The DA said “yes” to an increase in the Child Support Grant. But the ANC’s Sheila Shope-Sithole did not even bother to show up to say “no” to an increase in the Child Support Grant.

So, in the end, we want people to know:

  • the DA said “yes” to an increase in the Child Support Grant. But the ANC said “no” to an increase in the Child Support Grant.

[1] The national departments “firewalled” from spending cuts including: Basic Education [Vote 14], Higher Education and Training [Vote 15], Health [Vote 16], Social Development [Vote 17], Correctional Services [Vote 18], Independent Police Investigative Directorate [Vote 20], Justice and Constitutional Development [Vote 21], Office of the Chief Justice and Justice Administration [Vote 22], Police [Vote 23][1],, Water and Sanitation [Vote 36], Human Settlements [Vote 38] and Rural Development and Land Reform [Vote 39].

[2] The national programmes “firewalled” from spending cuts include: National Disaster Management Centre [Vote 4, Programme 4], Community Work Programme [Vote 4, Programme 6], the Expanded Public Works Programme [Vote 11, Programme 3] and the Citizen Affairs Programme [Vote 5, Programme 2].