Deputy Chairperson, MECs and hon members of the NCOP, our municipal representatives, thank you very much for a very interesting debate. Elections make things even more interesting. [Laughter.] We suddenly find facts from all over to support whatever argument we have.
However, I think we should remember that there are no angels on earth. We all have excellent things that we do, but we all have weaknesses that we need to resolve. In that sense, I don't think there is anybody here who can say that he or she has got everything right or perfect.
Furthermore, we shouldn't bluff the public by claiming that any one political party has something going that is better than any other, except that the ruling political party can say that it is playing a major part in bringing us to 16 or 17 years of democracy. Apart from saying that it will deliver to all, it can certainly say that it has committed itself to a better life for all, something which, I think, is a huge difference. [Applause.]
It is going to take us many years of hard work to really uplift all of our people and all of our areas in accordance with all of the challenges that we actually talked about here. Nonetheless, I think it's commendable that the NCOP has connected, if you like, and taken up the challenge that the money Bills process presents to all of us. It has got more involved, got into the details and connected with provinces to hear voices from the ground and to reflect them in the way in which this debate occurred. This was the intention when we crafted the design of the NCOP many years ago.
So, congratulations to Mr Chaane and the Select Committee on Appropriations, and, indeed, to all of you from the provinces for the excellent work that you have done. We certainly appreciate the feedback that you have given about adjustments that National Treasury might need to make, or the voices that we need to listen to, in the process as we go forward.
The division of revenue process is, of course, a very important process in our fiscal governance. It is based, ultimately, on the fiscal framework, which stipulates the framework or picture within which we, as South Africans and like every family, want to live. During the division of revenue process we need to note the amount that we earn; take into cognisance that we want to spend in a way that ensures that we don't borrow too much; and ensure that we will be able to pay back what we borrow, together with the interest that we owe.
We have wonderful examples in the world at the moment, which show that if you don't follow that simple formula, you get into serious trouble. Ireland, Greece and Portugal are some of those examples. Today's Business Day talks about the possibilities of Italy finding itself in trouble. Those are countries that many hon members referred to as democracies that have been around for many years.
Yes, we can proudly say that it's now 16 years of good governance in South Africa. The ruling party has certainly given us a fiscal framework and a fiscal stability that we can all be proud of. We are second to none in the world in that regard.
It is going to be impossible to address all the concerns that all of our colleagues have raised. However, let me emphasise what hon Molusi said about removing un-freedoms and the importance of impacting on the daily lives of our people.
Hon Mabe pointed out that Bantustans were a reality in South Africa. They did leave us a particular legacy and where they existed is where most of our challenges come from in terms of delivery, the level of development, capacity and our ability to meaningfully uplift people in those areas. So, let's not deny that reality. In fact, let's share them with all South Africans so that all can share the burden of history. That is how they will recognise that this is a collective burden that we have to take on.
While we might want to point fingers at one another during election time, it doesn't really help at the end of the day. We all have to take up the challenge of asking: What does this generation of South Africans do to uplift those people and put them on a completely different footing?
Hon members have raised certain concerns about some issues which I will tackle quickly; for example, the withholding of grants. Remember that the process of withholding grants is both a political and an administrative process, and there is money that still hasn't been spent at the end of a financial year. However, it is not necessarily a punitive process. We have been trying to make this a political football and, I think, that is unfortunate.
The real intention of withholding money is to allow space for discussions and recommendations. Since provinces have spare money, if you like, in their bank account, which was supposed to have been spent in a particular way and at a particular time, all that we ask is to sit down with them and work out how they are going to spend that money. Furthermore, we ask them to allow us to support them in whatever way possible so that they can spend their money better and in a more focused way. We also ask them about the kind of technical assistance they require so that they can spend their money better.
It is also about giving provinces an opportunity to say where they want to direct these monies. We offer the provinces an opportunity to indicate whether they want to direct these monies to where they were originally intended or to new priorities that they have.
It is also an important feedback for the Infrastructure Delivery Improvement Programme, IDIP. We need to upscale this programme, put in more assistance from the Development Bank of Southern Africa, DBSA, and ensure that provinces can meet their delivery targets in a way that all of us expect them too.
The equitable share is an issue that many hon members have referred to. However, as one hon member said, that's the framework we have got to work with; that's the framework that we have got to live with. If anybody wants more money, you either have to take it from another province, or you have to take it from another sphere.
Perhaps one other thing that we need to have discussions about - even informal discussions - is whether money is really the challenge in South Africa. The more I go to different parts of the country - regardless of who governs in that part of the country - it's about how we spend the money. It's about what value we get for our money. It's about the efficiency of our systems. We must recognise that these are significant challenges that we have.
I'm assured by the staff in the Treasury and a whole lot of data that I can give you that all the concerns we have raised about Mpumalanga, or Limpopo, or Gauteng, or the Western Cape are, in fact, taken into account in each annual revision of the equitable share. We might not see it because of its technical nature. But, perhaps, that's an area that we need more technical discussions around so that we have a better understanding of what underpins this.
Of course, money is also something that we can never be satisfied with, and we must admit that. Even if we put extra into a particular area or province, we are still going to say we need more. However, it is the search for that "more" that enables us to ask how we do these things on a more efficient basis than we might have done.
Hon Chaane referred to the question of the equitable share and I hope that the reasons and approaches that I spoke of will actually help us to understand where we are coming from. Hon Lees asked questions about the effects of economic growth. Well, we have all said where we want to go. We have a growth path and we say we want to restructure the economy. I think if we become just a little more positive and less cynical about what we want to do, then we will identify with the growth path; we will identify with the necessity to create jobs.
The real issue now is not to ask where we are going but to ask: What options do I have? What answers do I have? What solutions do I have? What innovations do I have? You can again say to each of us that we dismissed your particular plan. However, the ANC is certainly very serious about creating jobs and increasing our level of growth in this country. We will do our best, and we would ask others not to play political football with this issue as well. We would like others to come to the party with concrete and better ideas. I doubt whether you can, but let's give it a shot.
You raised questions about teachers' salaries, and so on. If we go back to the last three years, billions of rand have been spent in the occupation- specific dispensation, OSD, for the improvement of teachers' salaries, and a whole lot of commitments have been made about how we will improve teacher training as well. That doesn't remove the 50-year legacy of Bantu education but it begins to address it. We are not going make Bantu education suddenly disappear from our midst - as if with some magic wand - because we have the money. And, again, don't play political football with this issue as well. These are the things that affect every young person in South Africa and their ability to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. The more we can find solutions together, the better it will be.
The MEC from the Eastern Cape, hon Masualle, also talked about the equitable share and some of the challenges of providing services in rural areas. Several other hon members raised this question as well. I think the rural areas do pose very specific and serious challenges to us. Although we have made many adjustments and policy changes as we go, I think there certainly is room for further interrogation of whether we could do better, or whether we could do things differently, or whether we could be a lot more effective than we are at this point in time.
The same applies to rural municipalities. We have got to recognise that there is a special set of challenges. I think it will be useful for provinces like the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and others to engage in a series of really deep, searching exercises, which will go beyond the normal paradigms, and ask what they must fundamentally change in order to address the lives of people in those areas.
Hon Makhubela raised certain questions about funds between spheres, and so on. Again, there is lots of information that is available to you, hon Makhubela. Please contact us afterwards because we don't really have the time to go into the details, save to say that we have R94,1 billion available for distribution at the moment. The Expanded Public Works Programme, EPWP, amount has been shifted to municipalities because we believe there is greater potential there if we can help them absorb that incentive and spend that money. We have tried at the provincial level, now let's try the municipal level and see if we could actually do better.
Hon Winde also challenged us on the equitable share and immigration into the Western Cape. As the data seems to indicate, we may have taken those factors into account. Congratulations, hon Winde, on the hospitals that you are building, but, you know, you are about 20 years too late. Nonetheless, I suppose it's better late than never as far as our people are concerned.
Hon Mahlalela has addressed the question of clean audits versus unqualified audits. We thank him very much for his assistance in that area. So, Mpumalanga is not that sleepy after all - they are on the ball! I think all provinces and provincial leadership will commit themselves to acting a lot more assertively on the question of corruption. Again, we need to get the public involved and playing an active role in this regard.
Hon Prince Zulu is worried about Nkandla. I have got to be careful because that is where our President comes from. However, we recognise that, in the allocations, Nkandla has a particular challenge in terms of the level of poverty. It is something that I believe has been taken into account. However, it becomes part of the more general challenge that we pick up as well.
Hon Van Rooyen has made some very useful contributions. However, the one that I want to respectfully challenge is when he says that the so-called one-size-fits-all approach might be unconstitutional, and so on. I can assure hon Van Rooyen that there is nothing unconstitutional. So, before somebody goes out and prints in the press that there are unconstitutional things going on, it would be useful if you checked with us about these matters because we might be able to give you the evidence that you require. At least, we don't want you to lose sleep in the Free State because of these sorts of issues. However, thank you very much for raising some of the issues. I'm sure we can address some of those questions as we go on.
We want to agree with hon Nemadzivhanani that we don't want spaza-shop finances. We have seen what it did to countries like Greece. Again, we would like to work with the provinces and ensure that the division of revenue process is truly engaged with. I'm sure that as we go into the fourth, fifth and sixth year of these processes, we will certainly take that one further.
Hon Mahlalela has particular concerns about potholes and we certainly take that into account. However, we want to agree that that will ultimately be done, sir. That is where Transnet needs to come to the party.
Sports infrastructure has a strong set of recommendations from the Select Committee on Appropriations. We will take some of those into account. Many thanks to you all, hon members, and I apologise if I haven't addressed some of the specific issues. I have got them all here, but the time is limited.
Thank you for agreeing to support the Division of Revenue Bill. This is a very important process in our democracy, where we ensure that we allocate the revenue pool in a transparent way. In fact, that is taxpayers' money, and we think of them. This is how we allocate it. This is where it is going to be spent. Yes, we are also frank with our taxpayers that we do, in fact, have many challenges. We are not going to run away from them. We have every determination to make sure that, as we go through each year, we will improve the way we explain our expenditure, the way we spend our money, and the way we undertake delivery so that they can, indeed, have a better life. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.