Hon Chairperson, hon Minister T W Nxesi and other hon Ministers present, hon chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works, hon members of the portfolio committee, acting director-general and distinguished guests, in 1994 the ANC introduced the Reconstruction and Development programme. This programme included an important component, the National Public Works programme. Its design was to ensure job creation. The NPWP had two strategic thrusts. The first thrust related to a community- based Public Works programme, whose intention was the swift provision to - and visible relief for - those in society who were the most economically marginalised and destitute.
The second thrust related to building the capacity of communities for development. In this programme public expenditure was channelled into infrastructure projects and programmes using labour-intensive methods. These programmes were designed to bring into the labour cycle those workers who were either semiskilled or unskilled.
The ANC's 51st national conference in 2002 resolved that there should be a large-scale expansion of the use of labour-intensive construction methods to alleviate unemployment and to address the backlogs in infrastructure in previously disadvantaged areas.
The goal of the EPWP was to alleviate unemployment for at least one million people between 2004 and 2009. This goal was to be achieved by generating work opportunities in four sectors of the economy. That is infrastructure, the environment, the social sector and the economic sector. Labour- intensive methods were to be used in the provision of public goods and services.
The first five years of the EPWP, known as Phase 1, started in April 2004 and ended in March 2009. Phase 2 of the programme was launched in April 2009 at the University of the Western Cape. At the time, President Jacob Zuma said that through the EPWP, government aimed to make use of public- sector funding to expand the job absorptiveness of the various procurement services that government was involved in on a regular basis. He also called on the municipalities to identify and implement labour-intensive projects that would enhance the spirit of the EPW Programme and fulfil its original objectives.
The strategic difference between Phase 2 of the EPWP and earlier models relates to the Phase 1 incentive grant model, which was a Schedule 8 incentive model. The challenge with the Schedule 8 incentive model was that in order for one to access an incentive grant, one was supposed to spend one's own capital budget as an institution to create job opportunities and then later claim the incentive grant. This model only allowed metros and capacitated municipalities to access incentive grants, leaving poor municipalities without a revenue base and not able to access the incentive grant. That is why in the 2010-11 financial year, only 48% were accessed by provinces and municipalities.
Although the model was made to promote hard work in the institutions implementing the EPWP, it ended up having the unintended consequences of promoting and supporting the haves and leaving poor municipalities as they were. The new model has an improved and simplified schedule. The method of allocation is also different in the sense that the old model of incentive allocation was regarded as indicative only. The new model gives greater certainty.
With the previous model, public bodies planned the number of jobs to be created from the existing budget allocations. With the new model, planning for job creation will be mainstreamed within existing planning processes. In addition, the department will implement "assisted and simplified EPWP planning" and guide planning by setting out focus areas and project selection criteria. With the new model, 40% is paid at the beginning of the year on approval of the public body's EPWP business plan, and further payments are conditional on the public body implementing its EPWP projects and spending its initial allocation of 40%. Emphasis is on meeting job- creation targets.
Grants should address the issue of public bodies that are not earning their allocations and enhance "packaged" technical support to the public bodies, particularly small and rural municipalities.
The new EPWP conditional grant operates similarly to a normal Schedule 5 or Schedule 6 grant. The grant allocation is determined by taking into consideration past performance, the potential to create work, and the need to inject employment opportunities and funding into poor rural municipalities. Public bodies will need to mainstream the EPWP into their existing planning processes and plan to use the grant in line with the criteria set by the Department of Public Works.
There is a special focus on supporting poor rural municipalities in this new model. A structured technical support programme will identify structures and agree on the support for public bodies. It aims to prioritise support to those municipalities as part of the special dispensation. So, hon Minister, we welcome the R1,4 billion allocated to infrastructure and the R1,4 billion for the EPWP incentive grant for job opportunities. This means that we are going to increase job opportunities in our country. [Applause.]
Although many achievements have taken place, there are still challenges, hon Minister, in terms of the EPWP. The biggest challenge facing the EPWP is how to mobilise relevant national, provincial and local government bodies to implement the programme. A deepening of consciousness is needed to overcome the tendency for the EPWP to be regarded as a Department of Public Works programme rather than as a programme of government.
The tendency for people to view unemployment as the responsibility of somebody else remains a challenge. In addition, we still find people involved in infrastructure programmes maintaining that their task is to deliver infrastructure projects, not to alleviate unemployment.
We must address the widely held perception that labour-intensive methods are more difficult to manage, take longer, are more costly and result in inferior - quality products. This incorrect perception must be tackled as part of the implementation programme and allocation of funds to programmes.
Also, there is a challenge, hon Chairperson and hon Minister, in terms of the inequality of the stipend within the EPWP programmes or projects. Some provinces and municipalities are getting different stipends for the same job in the same sector. This leads to rural people subsidising people in the urban areas. You will find that in the rural municipalities they get a minimum of R60, but when it comes to the cities they are paid up to R150 or R160. This is because the determination is between R60 and R160. This can be abused if we are not careful about it. We therefore request the hon Minister and his department to review this determination and to have a common national approach around the issue of the stipend in order to guide everybody.
Creating more and better jobs must lie at the heart of any strategy to fight poverty, to reduce inequalities and to address rural underdevelopment. Moving forward during 2012, the challenge is to ensure that the expansion of the EPWP has as wide a scope as is financially possible. The EPWP has been designed to function within the budgetary constraints of the MTEF.
Key initiatives, as outlined in this year's state of the nation address and in our macroeconomic framework, the New Growth Path, mean that going forward the EPWP must promote Public Works programmes in infrastructural development and create productive, labour-intensive approaches. Creating jobs and reducing poverty lie at the heart of these programmes.
The ANC is the only hope for all the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] [Applause.] It is the only organisation that will change the lives of the people of our country for the better. [Applause.]
I want to respond to what the hon Dreyer said. It is not through your wisdom, hon Dreyer, that you know what the challenges of the department are. Remember, these were tabled in the portfolio committee. They told us these things themselves.
Also, hon Dreyer, regarding the issue of capacity and the recommendation you put before this House, the hon Minister presented the turnaround strategy to the portfolio committee in detail, indicating how the challenges of the department would be turned around. So, the recommendations you came up with were tabled by the Minister himself in the portfolio committee. [Applause.] So, hon member, you know that the recommendations you were making to this House were covered in the turnaround strategy by the hon Minister. [Interjections.] What you were supposed to do, hon member, was to say to the hon Minister: "I second what you have tabled before this House", rather than coming up with these things as if they were due to your own wisdom. [Applause.]
Also, the concerns raised by the DA - the shortages of schools, the lack of capacity, poverty, unemployment and inequality - are the legacies of the apartheid regime. These social ills were constructed and forcefully instilled in our people through apartheid legislation. [Interjections.]