Date: 22/10/2002
Source: Ministry of Health
Title: Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Amendment Bill


SPEECH BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF HEALTH IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY DURING THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE OF THE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES IN MINES AND WORKS AMENDMENT BILL

Madam speaker, honourable members,

I have pleasure in presenting to the house the proposed amendments of Occupational Disease in Mine and Works Act of 1973.

At the onset, I would like to thank the Portfolio Committee on Health for the matter in which they processed this Bill and for reaching unanimous agreement on the amendments to be effected.

In particular, I would like to thank the Chairperson, Hon. James Ngculu, for guiding the discussion on this Bill.

In the past, occupational health has often been neglected, and yet the fact remains that globally over one million workers die from work-related diseases and injuries, and there are over 160 million cases of work-related diseases annually.

In South Africa, the burden of diseases resulting from working in mines is unacceptably high. Approximately 25,000 compensation applications are made per year for occupational lung diseases resulting from working in mines. The types of diseases that commonly occur are silicosis, which is caused through inhalation of dust, asbestosis, chronic obstructive airways disease, and coal workers pneumoconiosis.

In the past, compensation for these occupational diseases was a privilege of a few. Prior to 1993, only white mine workers were entitled to be examined by the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases (MBOD), and received compensation if they had a certifiable disease. The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act was amended in 1993 to allow all mine workers, both black and white, to be examined by the MBOD.

In 1997 the Mine Health and Safety Act was implemented, which took the responsibility of benefit medical examinations of current mine workers away from the MBOD, and placed this responsibility on the employer. This change greatly improved the efficiency of the system.

In order to continuously improve the efficiency of the system and prevent backlogs, consultations were held with all relevant stakeholders.

A Tripartite Committee, comprising the workers (viz. the National Union of Mine workers, and the Mine Workers Union), the employers (the Chamber of Mines), and government (Department of Health and Department of Minerals and Energy), was initiated in 1997, to consider sections of Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, which affected its efficient administration.

This was necessitated because of the amendments that had been effected to the Act in 1994, which made its interpretation and administration difficult. The Tripartite Committee made three main recommendations that are required for further amendments.

In summary these recommendations related to:

a. Firstly, the period between medical examinations;
b. Secondly, placing the responsibility for medical care costs on the employers where the disease was contracted; and
c. Thirdly, but most importantly, making it a criminal offence if any person who assists the miner charges exorbitant fees.

Madam Speaker, I will expand on each of these amendments and explain the need and rationale for the changes.

The first amendment relates to the change in the period for re-examination of the ex-mine worker.

* Currently the Act states that the ex-mine worker can be re-examined after six months.
* The World Health Organisation (WHO) has produced guidelines on public health surveillance for people who have been exposed to dusts like silica and asbestos, and recommend that re-examinations should be performed every 24 months.
* The reason for this is that there is a slow progression of diseases caused by these dusts, and that X-ray changes, which are essential for the diagnosis of the diseases do not show up within a short period. Therefore, examinations performed every 6 months will not have a significant value.
* " There are better chances that some changes can be detected on the x-rays if such examinations are performed every 24 months, and this will also help immensely in quantifying disability.
* In addition, frequent X-rays are discouraged because we know that frequent use of X -rays negatively affects a person's health, and for these reasons, we are therefore amending Section 32 of the Act, from 6 months to 24 months.
* Madame Speaker, the house can be reassured however, that under section 32(3) of the Act, provision is made so that, if the doctor who examines the ex-miner realises that the ex-miner's condition is getting worst, and the application is then supported in writing by the examining doctor, the Director of the MBOD has to give permission for an examination, even if the period is less than 24 months.

The second amendment relates to the issue of who is responsible for payment of compensation.

* Section 36A of the principal Act is amended to provide that the owner of a mine or works, shall for a period of not more than two years from the date of commencement of a compensatable disease, pay the reasonable cost incurred by or on behalf of a person in his or her service, in respect of medical aid necessitated by such disease.
* A further amendment is made to place responsibility on the employer of the mine where the disease was contracted. Currently, the employer where the miner is working is responsible, regardless whether the disease was contracted at another mine.
* Section 36A(1) is therefore, amended to provide that the owner of the mine where the compensable diseases was contracted, should continue to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the miner or on behalf of a person in his or her service, even if the miner has moved to work in another mine.

The third, and I believe, the most important change, relates to problems we have been experiencing around the unscrupulous behaviour of certain persons.

* It has saddened me to discover that many people who have been compensated ended up receiving a small amount of money due to the "so called" community representatives and attorneys who invariably take a lion's share of the claimant's benefits, as a fee.
* I am sure that you will agree, that this kind of practice, of exploiting the most vulnerable must be stopped.
* Hence, Section 124 (1) of the principal Act is amended to provide that if a person who in exchange for services rendered in respect of assistance in claiming any benefit of this Act, charges a fee or claims a remuneration from a person which is in excess of 0.5% of the benefit awarded to such a person, he/she shall be guilty of an offence.

Madame Speaker, these are the amendments that are tabled to the house. They may appear to be minor amendments, but they have far reaching implications, as they will unblock some of the problems experienced thus far.

Finally, Madame Speaker, I must thank the NUM/COSATU delegation for making a lucid presentation to the Portfolio Committee and for agreeing with the Department of Health to change the period for the re-examination of an ex-miner from 6 moths to 24 months, even though their original proposal was for 36 months.

In their own words, they said: "This Bill represents a significant step in addressing the unnecessary problems and limitations imposed by the Act, and facilitates the harmonization of the compensation system in our country".

I am also aware that the Portfolio Committee has considered the submission, which was made by the Chamber of Mines.

I am confident that the Honourable Members will agree that there are sound and rationale arguments for these changes, and will support these proposed changes.

These changes are also essential to ensure that overall we create greater efficiency in the system, and more importantly carry out our mandate as elected representatives, to protect the public.

I Thank You.