Chairperson, hon President, hon Deputy President and members, it struck me as odd when I was perusing the annual report of The Presidency to note that there are so many vacant key posts in the organogram of The Presidency. I certainly did not expect that from the highest Office in government. I would be happy if these are now filled, yet I wish to understand if this has been due to scarcity of skills. If not, what could have been the reason? I cannot understand how we continue to have vacant positions in various government departments when the very same government is committed to creating jobs and we know of many skilled and qualified graduates who are without jobs.
Similarly, there is the reshuffling of Ministers before the end of their term. I, as a UCDP member, support this but we have to look into other issues, especially the disadvantages that come with such a reshuffling. Firstly, when a new Minister comes in, he or she brings along new officials and this forfeits the valuable skills and experience of the old people who have been serving in the department. It also increases the unemployment numbers when some people loose their jobs. Also, because the new Minister and the new administration are still learning the ropes, service delivery suffers. It is interesting that the President's mission is to ensure accountability among all spheres of government and that the President has reiterated and emphasised over and over again how government must have zero tolerance for corruption. However, citizens are inundated with media reports of executive heads and other senior government officials squandering state resources. This is such a concern. What is more concerning is that The Presidency does not seem to be swift and true to its word and commitment when dealing with such individuals.
We see that the government had committed resources to the development of transport services, but the disappointment in many areas and provinces is that such developments seem to be focused on privileged road users. It caters for those who are already in positions of convenience, while masses of our people living in rural South Africa still have no proper roads and transport. This means that the poorest of the poor continue to use unsafe roads and pay a lot more for transport costs. Look at the Bus Rapid Transit System, for instance. It is basically in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban, which are all urban areas. You wonder if this government thinks that the poor in the rural areas do not deserve similar services.
I have read in the annual report that government is setting aside R25 billion over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework to stabilise the rail passenger transport service. I want to know what percentage of that will be used towards ensuring that rural villages have train access or any other safe transport service.
On another note, we commend The Presidency on the work it has done on the co-ordination of the energy supply deficiencies. Of course many areas have not yet experienced the dreaded load shedding. Eskom and the other agencies involved seem to be well on track. However, I want to know what intervention strategies the government has come up with in order to cushion the poor against the price hikes implemented by Eskom.
We applaud government for the intended digital migration and the intention to subsidise poor households on box sets. This is the kind of proactive thinking that the poor deserve - something we started to see deteriorating in service delivery. We hope the jobs that will be created in this process will be sustainable and that such a process will be sealed against corrupt tendencies, which could cloud attempts at bettering the lives of poor South Africans.
We welcome the suggestion of one election for all three spheres of government and hope that with proper preparation we will not have the confusion of having more than three ballot papers. With this contribution, the UCDP supports Budget Vote No 1: The Presidency.