Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and Deputy Minister, and hon members, the IFP has noted with gratification the fact that in a budget of R651 million, a big slice of R186 million has been allocated to service delivery improvement throughout government. Of the six budget allocations in this portfolio, this is the biggest slice. The department is being congratulated for giving priority to a programme which is not adequately catered for, as is evident from the burning of tyres and blockades by protesting municipal communities. If people's outcry for service delivery is not addressed, our beloved South Africa could go up in flames.
However, the IFP objects to the allocation of R57 million to the programme on labour relations. The objection is directed at the spending on co- ordinating the design of a programme for a single Public Service. The IFP remains opposed to the notion of a single Public Service since such a service will become overbloated, cumbersome and unmanageable, thus resulting in more rampant corruption.
In actual fact, the IFP reiterates that the notion of a single service runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which entrenches three distinctive, interdependent and autonomous spheres of government. The collapse of local and provincial government structures where all officials will be accountable to the national office in Pretoria is seen by the IFP as a centrist ploy to abrogate the powers of such structures and undermine our democracy.
The IFP is of the view that this inclination by the governing party to create a single Public Service might be prompted by the erroneous premise that local government is failing to deliver basic services. While this might be partly true, provincial and national spheres of government are equally guilty of the same charge. The services, which protesting municipalities are clamouring for, such as water and electricity supply as well as roads and houses are competencies of the national and provincial spheres. It is accordingly not clear to the IFP as to how a single Public Service will resolve the impasse in service delivery.
In fact, the IFP argument that this is a sheer centrist ploy to amass all the power in Pretoria finds support in the decision taken by the Department for the Public Service and Administration, DPSA, to shift oversight responsibility from the Public Service Commission and Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy, Palama, to the DPSA in terms of the Public Finance Management Act. This decision poses two challenges according to the portfolio committee, namely, the accountability of the directors- general of the DPSA, Public Service Commission, PSC, and Palama, and the misplacement of the Public Service Commission within the DPSA given its oversight responsibility over the DPSA.
Regarding the issue of accountability, the question arises as to whether the directors-general of Palama and the commission will continue as accounting officers for their respective Budget Votes, as was previously the case, or whether they will surrender this mandate to the Director- General of the DPSA as a result of the amalgamation.
Turning to the misplacement of the commission's budget within the DPSA, the question arises as to whether the commission is still accountable to the National Assembly, as was previously the case, or is it now accountable to the Minister for the Public Service and Administration? Our chair of the portfolio committee has alluded to this in her report and said that this matter is receiving attention and, therefore, there is no cause to cry foul. I mention it here, nonetheless, to demonstrate the inclination by government to take away powers even of this House to which the Public Service Commission was answerable and making it answerable to government.
The IFP supports this Budget Vote.