I wish to remind members that in terms of the guidelines adopted by this House, the member in charge of the Bill will be allocated 15 minutes to make an introductory speech and to reply to the debate while other members may speak for no longer than three minutes each. There is no speakers' list for the First Reading debate. After the introductory speech, members who wish to participate in the debate must press the "to talk button" on their desks and, when recognised by the Chair, they may speak from the floor microphone.
Hon Deputy Speaker, His Excellency Deputy President Motlanthe, hon members, it is my pleasure today to introduce the First Reading debate of the Infrastructure Development Bill. The Bill is intended to strengthen the capacity of government to implement the roll-out of infrastructure. It is thus at the heart of our efforts to improve the lives of citizens. Infrastructure is critical and has been pivotal to economic development and growth strategies across the world. In South Africa, infrastructure development is one key means to reverse the spatial patterns of apartheid and to address the legacies of privilege and underdevelopment that are part of our painful history.
The importance of infrastructure development is recognised in government policy frameworks. The National Development Plan says that to achieve a sustainable and inclusive growth by 2030, South Africa needs to invest in a strong network of economic infrastructure designed to support the country's medium- and long-term objectives.
Government's New Growth Path identifies infrastructure as the trigger jobs driver that is vital to unlock the potential of agriculture and agro- processing, mining and beneficiation, manufacturing, tourism, the green economy and African regional development, and above all, to improve the lives of citizens.
We have taken steps to implement the commitment to improved infrastructure planning and implementation during this administration, building on almost 20 years of reconstruction and development.
In 2011, Cabinet did the following: Approved the establishment of the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission, the PICC, chaired by the President, which looked carefully at the lessons learnt from previous build programmes, including the 2010 World Cup stadia, the airport upgrades, road construction and the building of the Gautrain, all as part of creating the capable state in the infrastructure space; developed a forward-looking national infrastructure plan that is now being implemented; and began to unblock obstacles that hampered infrastructure spending and used increased spending in the midst of continuing slow global growth to maintain high levels of public investment - an important response to secure and support employment.
We had a number of infrastructure successes in the past 20 years and in the almost five years of this administration. Let me share with this august House the story of electricity as an illustration of the progress we have made.
The hon members may be interested to know that the first municipal electricity in South Africa was provided in 1890. Between 1890 and the onset of democracy, 5,2 million households were connected to the grid. Since 1996, the census year, a further more than 7 million households were connected to the grid. In other words, in less than 20 years of the democracy, more people were able to access electricity than in the previous 104 years of colonialism and apartheid. [Applause.] That is an extraordinary achievement, one which we can all be proud of.
At the start of this administration, solar water heaters were a rare installation, seen only in the homes of a few, green-conscious, generally higher-income households. Today, in many townships and villages across the country, hundreds of thousands of people are able to access running hot water using the power of the sun through the solar water heating system as part of our infrastructure roll-out. [Applause.]
I can similarly point to the progress made both in building social capital - clinics, schools, university buildings - and in expanding economic infrastructure such as roads, rail, electricity generation and bulk water supply.
Spending levels are rising, as we improve the capacity of the state to implement. Public investment now accounts for 7,6% of the GDP, up from 6,8% in late 2010. Moreover, procurement contracts ensure that the purchase of major equipment from local producers, including buses, trains and inputs for electricity generation, improve the impact on economic growth and industrialisation.
Government is acting decisively to tackle corruption, collusion and cartels in the construction industry, using the competition authorities to uncover evidence of price-fixing, and have slapped fines of R1,4 billion on the companies concerned. The authorities are investigating criminal charges against the individuals.
Today our public infrastructure programme employs more than 180 000 people, many of them young people. Kusile Power Station will be the world's fourth largest coal-fired power station - it is being built here in South Africa - and it alone employs more than 7 000 youth on its construction site in Mpumalanga. This demonstrates our commitment to bringing young people into infrastructure jobs. [Applause.]
This Bill before Parliament is intended to build on these successes but recognises that there are still many weaknesses and challenges we must face with implementation. The Bill provides the legal tools to overcome these challenges so that we can do more to achieve our national goals. Let me now outline key provisions of the Bill. What does the Bill seek to do?
First, the Bill establishes, in law, the co-ordination structures of the PICC. It provides for the President to nominate members of Cabinet, and includes the premiers of provinces and representatives drawn from local government. This is done to ensure that all three spheres of government are part of the commission and that all the main executive authorities across the public sector are mandated to meet on a regular basis, to drive the implementation of infrastructure.
Second, the Bill provides for a planning framework for infrastructure, with a long-range plan that moves beyond the work of one single administration, in line with the call in the NDP. This ensures that we move beyond the stop- start pattern of infrastructure. It allows universities and FET colleges to tool up to produce the skills that will be needed for the next 20 to 30 years. Also, it gives investors the certainty that they need in order to commit to long-term investment in the domestic economy.
Third, the Bill provides for the designation of strategic integrated projects, SIPs, through the National Infrastructure Plan, NIP. To date, the PICC has identified 18 SIPs, which bring together hundreds of separate construction projects, which include improving schools across the country, opening the northern mining belt and developing the south-eastern coastal regions. These SIPs allow for better integration of connected projects and for improved monitoring of implementation. These SIPs will be chaired and co-ordinated by different Cabinet Ministers, providing high-level political leadership and encouraging alignment.
Fourth, the Bill sets timeframes for the approval of regulatory decisions affecting the implementation of infrastructure projects. Instead of the sequential approval processes - where you ask for something and it takes a long time, and you then start with your next application - the Bill provides for processes to run concurrently wherever possible. This ensures that the state works towards a common deadline. These timeframes provide for extensive public consultation periods. Fifth, it sets out processes of co-ordination that require regulators and relevant departments to work closely together through steering committees for each SIP that will co-ordinate efforts to speed up the implementation of infrastructure construction and completion. These in turn will be monitored on a quarterly basis through an integrated dashboard that has been developed in the PICC.
Sixth, because many infrastructure projects require land, it provides for the PICC to expropriate land required by the state, but makes such power subject to the Constitution and any Act of Parliament, specifically dealing with expropriation.
Seventh, it contains clear mechanisms to avoid conflicts of interest between decision-makers and the underlying projects, as part of government's anticorruption drive. It provides for tough penalties for corruption, including imprisonment for up to five years.
Eighth, it sets out the mechanisms through which developmental targets can be set for each major infrastructure project, covering issues such as local industrialisation, job creation, youth employment, greening the economy, skills development, rural development and broad-based empowerment.
I have been encouraged by the widespread support for the Bill across party- political lines during the portfolio committee briefing earlier this week. Passing the Bill will ensure the following: that our successful infrastructure roll-outs are sustained and indeed strengthened in the coming years; that are created; that inclusive growth is promoted; that public and private investment levels are lifted; and that we strike a blow against poverty, inequality and unemployment. It is therefore my pleasure to introduce the discussion on the First Reading debate of the Infrastructure Development Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the ACDP recognises that in South Africa, as in every country, infrastructure underpins economic and social development and is the driver of business and employment opportunities. It is critically important for the state to ensure that infrastructure grows sufficiently in order to serve the expanding economy and population. It is also important that it is built, operated and maintained efficiently and cost effectively.
The ACDP supports the principle of streamlined and integrated processes of approval, and supports sustainable and responsible infrastructure development in general.
Now, stakeholders have noted that the Department of Economic Development has taken on board some of the concerns expressed. But concerns remain that the Bill, as it stands, still violates a number of constitutional rights and obligations, making it vulnerable to constitutional challenge.
Over and above the procedural aspects of the fast-tracking proposed in this Bill, it is important to understand the potentially radical consequences of short-cutting established timeframes or the environmental impact assessment, EIA, public participation and appeal. In short, simple terms, poor or inadequate assessments of risks posed to water quantity and quality, particularly in the drier and more variable climate zones of the country, can expose entire communities to loss of access to drinking water.
South African taxpayers are already bearing the cost of poor planning and inadequate regulation of environmental impacts and, ultimately, it is the poor and vulnerable communities who cannot afford to relocate to avoid environmental pressures. The very communities that the strategic infrastructure projects, SIPs, are supposed to assist will bear the brunt.
The ACDP recognises the necessity for improved infrastructure and access to essential services. However, we also recognise the need for suitable strategic and impact assessment processes with expert input and public consultation phases which are crucial in determining the type of infrastructure that is best suited to the region and service. Instead of delaying infrastructure roll-out, these processes can serve to minimise the impacts, environmental risks and long-term maintenance costs of the infrastructure projects.
The ACDP welcomes the introduction of the Bill and appeals to members of the committee to address the issues raised before they become constitutional challenges or, worse, community disasters. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, the DA strongly supports initiatives to improve service delivery. A lack of co-ordination between government departments and between different spheres of government has too often delayed the construction of much-needed infrastructure. Too often those tasked with the planning processes of significant infrastructure projects have not shown the urgency needed to get things done. That is why the Western Cape government has the From Red Tape to Red Carpet programme. That is also why we support the objectives of the Infrastructure Development Bill. However, some questions regarding the Bill still remain and the DA is looking forward to the debates in the Portfolio Committee on Economic Development.
Minister Patel recently presented to the Portfolio Committee a long lists of risks associated with the fast-tracking of infrastructure projects. The Bill is silent on how these will be mitigated. Let me highlight just four concerns which the Minister did not identify.
We will be seeking clarification on the impact that this Bill may have on the competencies allocated under the current legislation to provincial and local spheres of government in terms of planning and zoning processes.
Another concern is the right given to the Presidential Infrastructure Co- ordinating Commission under section 5(4) to expropriate land or rights in respect of land, and that the effect of the expropriation on the value of the land may not impede the progress of these developments. Section 17(1) prescribes that planning processes must now run concurrently in order to save time.
Planning processes do take time but can also be quite costly. The outcome of one planning process may have a huge influence on the thinking and progress of another planning process, which, under normal circumstances, would be running sequentially. This Bill may therefore have the unintended consequence of legitimising wasteful and fruitless expenditure in a country where fraudulent actions are all too rife and which is slipping on the international list of corruption rankings. This risk should be of major concern.
Lastly, the President will be chairing the Presidential Infrastructure Co- ordinating Commission. We will be pushing for Parliament's role in providing oversight as to which projects will be selected as strategic infrastructure projects, Sips, to be strengthened.
Also, the criteria to select the SIPs should be clearer. This is extremely important, especially in the light of a recent infrastructural upgrading of a private residence belonging to the President. Nothing in this Bill prevents the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission from including and fast-tracking similar projects in the future. We trust that our concerns will be addressed during the deliberations on this Bill. I thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, our need for an Infrastructure Development Plan that is fully co-ordinated should be encouraged and welcomed. However, centralisation of this kind of infrastructure development should not compromise transparency, accountability and efficiency.
Cope believes that clean and ethical governance should be the order of the day during this process. All tenders must be opened to the public and all information during the evaluation stages must be readily accessible. If these principles are thrown out of the window, then the rot will set in.
Further, Cope believes that we need to have strong guarantees that will ensure that all South Africans in general and the poor in particular will be able to benefit from this process. Also, Cope believes that the Ministers, especially the drivers of the identified strategic integrated projects, must be held accountable. There must be no gagging of the media with secrecy laws and the National Key Points Act. The clock must be set and projects delivered within the agreed budgets. Cope believes that there should be consequences for such Ministers, and any Ministers that step outside the line must be made to fall on their swords.
We have the examples of the Hitachi and Chancellor House experiences, the nuclear pebble bed reactors as well as the Joule electric car project. These cost the nation billions because of vested interests, overdesign and vanity projects. These have to be avoided.
The dynamic involvement of communities in projects as a manifestation of citizen democracy has to be visible. Too often, projects are seen as belonging to the government rather than to the people. This erroneous belief has to be reversed.
Communities have to take ownership and exercise the monitoring of projects. Rural communities in particular, are part of South Africa. Their serial neglect is an indictment of government. We cannot tolerate this indifference to their plight.
For now, Cope supports the Infrastructure Development Draft Bill, provided that all of the risks that we have alluded to and those which the Bill itself also alludes to, are taken into consideration. We thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, infrastructure development and maintenance remains a continuous process with little or no room for lethargy. The South Africa of today finds itself on a sink-or-swim trajectory with very ambitious but absolutely required economic growth paths and development plans.
With government planning to spend nearly R5 trillion over the next two decades on public infrastructure projects, it became wholly necessary for the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission to be established and tasked with the development of a 20-year infrastructure pipeline. Many social infrastructure projects are lagging behind, which has negatively impacted on schools, hospitals and communities in general.
Corruption has also played a role in undermining progress, with some contractors not delivering on their mandates while receiving money from a department which does not hold them accountable. The need for infrastructural development is great in our country. Government must not only communicate better with communities with regard to development, but must also work alongside them to meet the goals of the National Infrastructure Plan.
With the success of the strategic infrastructure projects, we will see greater economic and social development. With entrepreneurs getting better access to economic opportunities, especially in black rural communities, such communities will be helped to be truly more self-sufficient. The IFP supports the Bill. I thank you.
Adjunkspeaker, ek dink in hierdie raad verskil ons oor baie sake en ek dink dis deel van die demokrasie. As dit egter oor infrastruktuur gaan, behoort daar baie min verskille te wees, omdat dit so 'n belangrike deel van ekonomiese groei is. Almal besef dat daar nie ekonomiese groei gaan wees sonder infrastruktuur nie.
Waaroor die VF Plus in die verlede krities was - en ook in die toekoms krities sal wees - is die planne wat hier gemaak is of Kabinetsbesluite wat pragtig deur ons almal gesteun is en dan langs die pad wegraak en eintlik nooit op die grond geindig het nie. Die redes was dikwels rompslomp. Baie keer was dit 'n gebrek aan kordinasie waar departemente in silo's [afsondering] werk of wanneer goedbedoelde projekte wat tot almal se voordeel sou wees, iewers langs die pad gekanselleer moes word.
Hierdie Wet probeer juis dit oplos. Dit probeer daardie probleme tot niet maak. In daardie opsig sal die VF Plus dit onvoorwaardelik steun.
Daar is detail wat nog uitgepraat moet word. Ons glo daar is geleentheid in die komitees en die debat om die detail uit te praat, maar dis vir Suid- Afrika so belangrik dat ons nie agter raak, wat infrastruktuur betref nie. Ek dink die beste voorbeeld bly die Wreldbeker waar ons gewys het, toe ons onder druk was, dat stadia en infrastruktuur gebou kon word. Die geheim daardie tyd was dat daar wel spesifieke spertye was en ons het sekere van die beperkende maatrels van die regering opgehef om seker te maak die infrastruktuur werk.
Ek glo hierdie is so belangrik dat ons dit selfs moet oorweeg om sekere maatrels op te hef om suksesvol te wees.
Suid-Afrika is tans nog die ekonomiese reus in Afrika. Ons het rede om trots daarop te wees. In sommige berekeninge is ons nog steeds twee keer sterker as Nigeri, drie keer sterker as Egipte en omtrent vyf keer sterker as 50% van Afrika-lande saam. Maar volgens projeksie gaan Nigeri ons binnekort verbysteek, met die huidige groei. Ek wil nie onnodig in 'n kompetisie wees nie, maar dit sal 'n refleksie wees op hierdie Parlement as die rede daarvoor is dat ons nie infrastruktuur voorsien het en nie die Wet deurgevoer het om dit moontlik te maak om billik te kan groei en die reus wat ons tans in Afrika is te kan bly nie. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[DR P W A MULDER: Deputy Speaker, I am of the opinion that in this council we disagree about many issues, and I think it is part of the democratic process. However, where infrastructure is concerned, there ought to be very few disagreements because it is such an important part of economic growth. Everyone realises that without infrastructure no economic growth will take place.
That which the FF Plus criticised in the past - and will also criticise in the future - are the plans which were drawn up here or decisions taken by Cabinet which were spectacularly supported by us all, only to then get lost along the way and actually never come to fruition. Red tape was often to blame. Often it was due to a lack of co-ordination because departments were operating in silos, or in isolation, or when projects with good intentions which would benefit all, had to be cancelled along the way.
This Act indeed tries to find a solution. It tries to get rid of those problems. In that regard the FF Plus will support it unconditionally.
There are details which still need to be dealt with. We believe the opportunity exists in the committees and the debate to deal with the details, but it is of such importance to South Africa that we do not fall behind where infrastructure is concerned.
I think the best example remains the World Cup when we showed, when we were under pressure, that stadia and infrastructure could be built. The secret at the time was that specific due dates existed and we abolished certain restrictive measures of government to ensure that the infrastructure was operational. I believe this is of such importance that we should even consider abolishing certain measures in order to achieve success.
At present South Africa is still the economic powerhouse in Africa. We have reason to be proud of this. According to some calculations we are still twice as powerful than Nigeria, three times more powerful than Egypt and about five times more powerful than 50% of African countries put together. But according to statistics Nigeria will soon overtake us, present growth considered. I do not want to seem unnecessarily competitive, but it will be a reflection on this Parliament if the underlying reason is that we did not provide infrastructure and did not promulgate the Act in order to enable us to have moderate growth and to remain the powerhouse which we are in Africa at present. I thank you.]
Hon Speaker, the purpose of the First Reading debate on any Bill needs to speak to the essence of why the executive believes the said Bill has brought to Parliament for introduction. In this respect, the policy origin of any Bill is critical. The 53rd ANC national conference has firmly declared its support for the National Infrastructure Plan and the development of the 10-year project pipeline by the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Committee.
This requires all government administrations to focus on the implementation of the National Infrastructure Plan, instead of each administration developing a new plan. This will facilitate market certainty, allow for long-term planning for skills and supplier industries, and provide basic needs to communities.
The National Infrastructure Plan should be used as a major driver of industrialisation through local component requirements, and also by making logistics and other projects available to local manufacturers. Skills development must be a mandatory outcome for major projects with clear targets given to all contractors and penalties for nondelivery.
As the ANC, we believe that state-owned enterprises should be developed in the built environment using the existing capacity as a base. The Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission aims to develop a 10- year pipeline of priority infrastructure investments and to ensure that public investment pays close to 10% over the coming years and increases capacity for infrastructure development at local and provincial levels.
Our economic transformation programme seeks to promote a geographically inclusive economy. This will require that infrastructure development be rolled out in phases in targeted areas In this connection, we must optimise the investments that have already been made in the establishment of industrial development zones through special determinations relating to incentives, and access to adequate and affordable basic inputs such as electricity and water, as has already been mentioned by the Minister.
Nodes that will be the basis for the connection of the outlying areas to the major industrial hubs and enable more rural development must be promoted through this programme. Specific transformative infrastructure programmes should be identified in these nodes and be included in the budget programmes. Composition of expenditure should be changed in favour of infrastructure development.
It is going to be difficult to finance infrastructure initiatives from the fiscus only, thus the question of funding infrastructure and appropriate pricing of infrastructure is key. It would be important for employment creation and for long-term economic growth prospects that infrastructure expenditure be clearly funded through a combination of fiscal allocation, borrowing and user fees.
In conclusion, let me say that whilst the committee must still engage with the contents of the Bill, the Infrastructure Development Bill will assist to remove the red tape and ensure an integrated, co-ordinated implementation of infrastructure projects. The ANC welcomes the introduction of the Bill. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, I would like to appreciate and welcome the generally supportive comments on the Infrastructure Development Bill from all the speakers. I think it points to the importance of infrastructure to the nation and all the political parties. The portfolio committee will clearly have an opportunity to address some of the more detailed concerns that have been raised. But I think it is worth recalling the process followed when drafting this Bill.
The Cabinet took the decision to set up a PICC. It worked as a team of Cabinet members together with provinces and local government to fast-track the existing infrastructure programme and to develop a longer-term plan. Out of this, we have learnt some enormously valuable lessons. You could say we did a test drive of how to co-ordinate best, and many of those lessons - where some of the things were done wrongly, yes, and others correctly - we have been able to still capture in the Bill. Therefore, both the processes and the structures set out what we have learnt in fast-tracking the infrastructure process over the past few years.
The hon Coleman raised the issue of skills development. It is clear to us that as we tool up for infrastructure, we also have to ensure that we have the skills base to do so. But importantly, infrastructure is not only a consumer of skills, a user of engineers and artisans. It is a very important training space; a programme that produces the nation's next generation of welders, mechanical engineers, civil engineers and project managers. We therefore see this infrastructure not just as living a legacy of ports and rail lines, but as a legacy of skills and industrialisation.
I am sure that some of the other detailed comments are to be considered in the committee. But I would like to point out to the comment made by the hon Mulder. I think that he correctly pointed to the challenge of silos - that the central crux of the Bill is integration, bringing things together by creating machinery for unified and co-ordinated decision-making.
The hon Dudley has raised the issue of risks, and I note that the Infrastructure Bill is one of a number of steps that the government has taken which, together, in our view constitutes a detailed response to the risks that we have identified. We were therefore very open about the risks some of which are covered by the Bill and others of which are covered by policies and actions in government. For example, this Bill will not deal with the risk of collusion by the private sector because the Competition Act would be the tool that we will use to address that risk. There is no clear consonance between the list of risks and the Bill, because the Bill can only deal with one part of it.
The hon Van der Westhuizen pointed out the need to ensure that we do not take away power from any sphere of government. I think we are making a point that it is not power that is being taken away but it is power that is exercised in combination; it is cutting the red tape in the public sector to ensure that we actually deliver.
The hon Ngonyama would be pleased, when he looks at section 13, to see a very detailed response to the issues of ethical governance, corruption, stiff penalties and very clear and transparent rules that would apply.
I would like to thank all the speakers for the comments that they have made, and we are looking forward to the debate continuing at the portfolio committee. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.