Thank you, Deputy Chairperson, I hope he listens very well when I speak.
Let me say from the start that we support the Bill. We also support the National Treasury's proposed amendments to improve the oversight over conditional grants and agree to the rationale thereof. The fundamental principles thereof are also very sound. I have to caution them, however, that the withholding of funds for underspending by provinces must be very carefully implemented, since the impact of such withholding may have severe consequences and could impact negatively on service delivery and job creation - which we all agree is government's main priority for this year.
As a province, we proposed that in terms of clause 16(3) of the Division of Revenue Bill, consideration must be given to extending the notice period from seven to 14 days, to allow provinces to make proper representation as to why the allocation should not be withheld. The important issues that must be considered by National Treasury before withholding funds include the following: the impact thereof on service delivery and, very importantly, the expectations of communities; the impact of funds for the financial commitment and other unintended financial consequences. The root cause of the underspending must be investigated thoroughly and possible alternatives or solutions must first be considered before funds are withheld.
With regard to the proposed measures to strengthen oversight over the infrastructure grants through the introduction of the new sector-specific grants, and the reasons for the splitting thereof - the so-called 40/40/20 - we understand and fully support the principles thereof. The problem we have is that the new proposed grant completely deprives the provinces of any discretion and therefore ignores provincial priorities and specific needs.
I'm of the opinion that the National Treasury's "one size fits all" approach in this regard is not in the spirit of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act or the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA, and could even in the extreme be considered unconstitutional.
Deputy Chairperson, allow me to raise an issue which I think needs urgent attention, namely the role and functions of provincial committees in terms of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act. The first problem is the very tight timeframes provided for by the Act with regard to the division of revenue. For example, in section 9(3) the Act requires that the Division of Revenue Bill must be passed by Parliament within 35 days. Given the fact that the annual Division of Revenue Bill is a section 76 Bill and, taking into account the six-week-cycle Rule of the NCOP, very little time is allowed for provinces to have proper public hearings, as required by the Constitution. The Division of Revenue Bill is probably the single most important Bill to be referred to provincial legislatures each year, since it is from this Bill that provinces and municipalities derive most of their annual income. Sufficient time must therefore be allowed for provinces to conduct public hearings, as prescribed by the Constitution.
The second problem is the nonexistence of any role for provincial committees in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement process. The process is - as we are all aware - the basis for the division of revenue. Section 6(10) of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act requires that the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses, within 30 days of the tabling of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, MTBPS, report to the House on the proposed division of revenue and conditional grant allocations to provinces and municipalities.
However, and this is the bone of contention, this process is done without any reference to or input from provincial committees of finance. Surely if we all agree on the importance of the Division of Revenue Amendment Act in provinces and municipalities, then provincial committees should be allowed the space and time to participate in the MTBPS process. Without the provincial participation, the question arises: On what basis does the provincial permanent delegate participate in the NCOP select committee on this matter, considering the fact that the Division of Revenue Bill is a section 76 Bill, which in itself entails certain constitutional requirements?
The importance of the participation of provincial legislatures in the process around the MTBPS is critical in light of the fact that section 6(2) of the money amendment Bill requires that, in addition to the proposed fiscal framework for the next three years, the MTBPS also includes the proposed division of revenue between the three spheres of government, including grants. The importance of this matter - to my mind - warrants the attention of the National Speakers' Forum because I think it is not only the Free State that has a problem with that but all the other provinces too.
In conclusion, since I know the SA Local Government Association, Salga, is represented in this House, may I raise my concern regarding the level of participation of provincial Salga in the public hearings process in our province. Considering the importance of the Division of Revenue Bill for the funding of municipalities, it was - to say the least - very disappointing. I cannot believe that Salga in the Free State had no inputs of their own to make to the Bill from which the municipalities derive most of their increases.
Let me come to the issue that I said I will raise regarding the issues raised by the DA. The DA has this poster on poles everywhere you go, which says that they will provide services to all. I think it is necessary for us to really unpack this "service to all". If we look at what happens here in the Western Cape, let me start with the most obvious: "toilet without walls". Is that services to all? No! Hon Deputy Chairperson ... [Interjections.]... because it is in the township. They will not build it in other townships or ... [Interjections.]
Let me go to the second issue: They forcibly removed people from Hout Bay and left them out there. Is that services to all the people? They built the cycle lane for the rich in Milnerton. Is that service to everybody? That is why I'm saying they are misleading the public and also this House. I thank you. [Applause.]