Speaker, on 23 October 2013 the hon Minister of Finance tabled the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill and the Adjustments Appropriation Bill in this House for discussion.
The MTBPS contains some good features, but also some worrying ones. Worrying features remain the budget deficit, government debt as a percentage of GDP, a sharp reduction in the contingency reserve, the inclusion of extraordinary receipts to balance the Budget and the slow growth forecasts over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework.
Gratifying, however, was the reduction in ministerial perks, the emphasis on aligning the Budget to the National Development Plan, the introduction of a youth wage subsidy, although substantially watered down, and the long overdue recoupment of more than R3 billion from departments who have failed to spend their budget allocations.
Much more can, however, be achieved to balance the Budget by simply starting to align the budget allocations with departmental outputs, as set out in their annual performance plans, and to further penalise those departments who consistently fail to spend their budgets due to plain ineptitude.
In a report to the Standing Committee on Appropriations, the Public Service Commission identified and investigated the 12 national departments most likely to have an influence on attaining the five main priorities of government, those being decent work and sustainable livelihoods; education; health; rural development, food security and land reform; and fighting crime and corruption. Most departments, with the exception of the Department of Economic Development, fared particularly badly when comparing their outputs with their annual expenditure and with the 2012-13 national Budget.
The relevant figures are as follows. The Department of Trade and Industry spent 99,2% of its budget but achieved only 64% of its outputs; the Department of Basic Education spent 91,9% but achieved 63% of its outputs; the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries spent 99,5% but achieved 59% of its outputs; the Department of Human Settlements spent 97,3% of its budget but achieved 53% of its outputs; the Department of Labour spent 95% of its budget but achieved 53% of its outputs; the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development spent 99,9% of its budget but only reached 44% of its outputs; the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs spent 97,4% of its budget but only achieved 43% of its outputs; the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform spent 99,4% of its budget but achieved 31% of its outputs and, lastly, the SA Police Service spent 99,6% of its budget and achieved 22% of its outputs. In many cases, the senior management of these departments received performance bonuses! The nine departments that I have mentioned averaged spending against budget at a level of 97,68%, but they only averaged 48% on outputs.
At the time of compiling the report, the annual reports of the Department of Health and the Department of Public Works had not been submitted, but they have now been submitted. Of the 12 departments, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, received qualified audit reports, whilst the Department of Public Works received a disclaimer. The other departments all received unqualified audit reports, but all with findings.
In respect of the National Anti-Corruption Hotline, details about the departments show that a mere 32% of corruption cases reported were, in fact, closed. Only three of the departments achieved a closure rate exceeding 60%, with the Department of Basic Education closing zero cases and the Department of Human Settlements only 1% of cases referred to it - so much for the fight against corruption!
All senior management service members are obliged to disclose particulars of their registrable interests by no later than 30 April each year, and only a 100% compliance rate is acceptable. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, as well as the Department of Labour, achieved a 0% compliance rate, whilst the Department of Human Settlements dropped from a 100% compliance rate in 2012 to 0% in 2013.
The Management Performance Assessment Tool results, as obtained by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency, confirm that the state of management practices in the Public Service leaves much to be desired. In fact, we have seen deterioration in the MPAT scores in the state of management practices, from 74% noncompliant or partially compliant in respect of the 2011-12 financial year, increasing to 80% noncompliant or only partially compliant in 2012-13. The fields covered by the MPAT assessments included strategic management, governance, human resource management and financial management.
On the MPAT scores, other departments not investigated by the Public Service Commission fared equally badly. The Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, for instance, only partially met 14% of its key performance area objectives, with 86% being below acceptable levels.
The departments investigated by the Public Service Commission are all crucial to achieving the priorities of government, but other departments are equally important in order to attain value for money. Departments generally continue to seek valuable resources, but with no indication of return on investment. The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs is a good case in point, as it has received even higher budget allocations, but remains a persistently poor performer, in particular in not spending its budget on the capital assets so necessary to provide water to all households.
More often than not there is also a lack of appropriate management action in cases of poor performance. It is time for Parliament, and particularly portfolio committees, to perform their oversight role with more vigour, specifically as far as meeting outputs against performance indicators is concerned.
With the economy as tight as it is, all budgets should be geared towards being result-orientated and focused on achieving redress and service delivery, with a high premium on job creation, in order to achieve the objectives of the National Development Plan.
Simply cut the budgets and/or the existence of those departments that are not delivering value for money. Surely we do not want to become a country described by former US President Ronald Reagan, as one where the "government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
We must start operating more effectively. I thank you. [Applause.]