Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President and hon colleagues, as we debate the Appropriation Bill before us, we note, once again, that no formal submission has been received from any of the parliamentary committees on budgetary issues in relation to their respective portfolios. Hopefully, with the establishment and appointment of the director in the Parliamentary Budget Office, this situation will change as we consider next year's Appropriation Bill. It was stakeholders and certain departments which made submissions, and it is on the basis of these submissions that our committee's report was based. Having said that, we as the IFP will support the 2013 Appropriation Bill, but wish to express concern with regard to many areas that were identified during the hearings. One such area, which underpins the budgeting process, is the lack of proper planning by many departments. Underspending and the inability to achieve key performance indicators are commonplace in many government departments.
This has an impact on service delivery and hence the plethora of service delivery protests across the country, with many of them becoming violent. This lack of appropriate and effective spending is an indictment on this government. Therefore it cannot be business as usual and heads must roll, from the executive to administrative levels, where incompetence and laissez faire attitudes exist.
Yet, in all of this, the use of consultants goes on relatively unchecked. For example, we heard in the committee that most of the basic jobs in carrying out the community works programme are farmed out to consultants. Crucial functions like the internal audit functions are contracted out to consultants. The internal audit is the core responsibility of any head of department.
I am reliably informed that an exercise conducted reveals an expenditure of almost R1,5 billion on the use of external internal audit personnel over a three-year period. This would have been considered kosher, if only one were able to see improvements in governance and particularly in audit outcomes. This is sadly not happening across spheres of government and mainly in the local government arena.
It cannot be business as usual as we move forward. What has happened to the former President Thabo Mbeki's vision of ``business unusual''?
Another area of concern resides with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The concern is that the department certainly does not seem to have the capacity, administratively and from a budgetary point of view, to deal with claims that were lodged prior to 31 December 1998. Yet there is an intention to reopen the lodgement of land claims. While this may be for noble reasons, and we agree with these reasons, the lack of past planning leaves one wondering whether meaningful implementation would follow. Currently there are claims which have been finalised and the department does not have the funds to settle such claims.
National Treasury, together with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, needs to urgently quantify all contingent liabilities in this regard. I am sure that this would run into billions which have not actually been appropriated.
Moving forward, the IFP contends that taxpayers must be assured that their contributions are used effectively and efficiently in promoting economic growth and meeting the needs of the disadvantaged in our communities.
Whilst we agree that safety nets have to be provided for the poor, the amount allocated to social welfare payments makes one to come to the conclusion that we are fast becoming a social-welfare state and not the developmental state that is desired. It is projected that, by the end of March 2016, about 17,2 million people will be relying on social grants. This is certainly not going to be sustainable in the medium to long-term. Self-help and self-reliance must be the order of the day whilst providing these safety nets.
With the above remarks, the IFP also indicates that, at the moment, the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, allocation should be ring-fenced under Vote No 6, and not under Vote No 1 in the Presidency as is the case at the moment. This is because meaningful debate can take place under Vote No 6 on a very important agency that provides hope to the youth of the future. The IFP will support the Appropriation Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]