Chairperson, hon President, Deputy President and members, one of the stated key priorities of the Presidency is, and I quote:
To promote nation-building and social cohesion and a partnership with the people towards the collective achievement of a common identity and caring society.
To achieve this objective, the President appointed the National Planning Committee in April 2010 to, in his words:
... take a broad, crosscutting, independent and critical view of South Africa, to help define the South Africa we seek to achieve in 20 years' time and to map out a path to achieve those objectives.
Mr President, when the commission's Diagnostic Report was launched by Minister Trevor Manuel and was debated last week, I raised concerns and questions about the racial classification and profiling in the document which, I acknowledged, is helpful in assessing the challenges and gains made by different race groups, since the dawn of our democracy. To reiterate the concerns I raised, I am going to repeat some of what I said, particularly because one of the challenges raised in the report is that South Africa remains a divided society.
The concern the ACDP has is the way the word "African" is used, as it appears to be used exclusively for black people. The four race groups mentioned in the document are African, white, coloured and Indian.
The question that arises from these groupings is whether whites, coloureds and Indians who were born in Africa are not Africans. If they are not, then we must be told what they are because they regard themselves as Africans too. The ACDP believes that an African is anyone born in Africa, be they black, white, coloured or Indian. We have to build a national consensus on who is an African before we can truly become a people united in diversity.
Only a collective effort from all race groups in our country, black, white, coloured and Indian, who love Africa, can narrow the divide between South Africans. The national identity that hon Mufamadi referred to can only be fostered by all race groups in our country who are accepted as Africans because they were born in Africa.
The other concern I want to raise is what appears to be a disproportional budget allocation to the three programmes in The Presidency. The highest budget allocation of 47% went to the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, followed by the administration programme, which received 42,2%. The smallest portion of the budget, 10,2%, went to the National Planning Commission.
In my opinion, the almost 37% difference between the budgets allocated to NYDA and the National Planning Commission is way too big. We do not understand why NYDA was allocated 47% of the President's total budget when their performance indicators cannot be easily translated into measurable outcomes. It is also difficult to monitor NYDA's specific achievements in terms of job creation. How many jobs, if any, have been created for the youth as a result of direct interventions by NYDA?
The structure of NYDA seems to be top-heavy when one looks at their staff complement, which consists of board members, executive management, senior management and middle management that consume 47% of their budget. What measurable outcomes are there to justify such a staff complement? Are taxpayers getting value for their money?
Lastly, I want to ask you a question that is being asked by many South Africans who heard you speak at the late Mama Sisulu's funeral. Mr President, in the list of acknowledgements you mentioned by name the foreign heads of state that were present, but when it came to acknowledging former South African deputy presidents, you did not mention their names. The former President was not even acknowledged. Is this normal protocol or are there reasons for these omissions, particularly when one views them in the light of unity and nation-building? Thank you. [Applause.]