This report replaces the Report
of the Standing Committee on Appropriations on the 2010 Division of
Revenue Amendment Bill that was published on 3 November 2010.
1.
Report of the
Standing Committee on Appropriations on the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill, dated 02 November 2010
Having considered the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill [B35-2010], the Standing Committee
on Appropriations, reports as follows:
1.
Background
Section
12 of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, No. 9 of 2009
(the Act) requires the Minister of Finance to table the Division of Revenue
Amendment Bill together with the revised Fiscal Framework if the adjustments
budget effects changes to the Division of Revenue Act (DoRA) for the 2010/11
financial year. This is intended to foster transparency and ensure smooth
intergovernmental relations. The Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act (1997)
prescribes the process for determining the equitable sharing and allocation of
revenue raised nationally. Sections 9 and 10 (4) of the Act set out the
consultation process to be followed with the Financial and Fiscal Commission
(FFC), including the process of considering recommendations made with regard to
the equitable division of nationally raised revenue.
In enforcing section 77 of the Constitution, the Money
Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act, No. 9 of 2009 was enacted. This budget reform empowers Parliament to amend the
government budget and therefore plays a greater role in ensuring that the most
urgent needs of South Africans are addressed. It provides Parliament with
necessary instruments to oversee government actions and monitor its fiscal
discipline. While this reform is widely welcomed, the Standing Committee on
Appropriations (the Committee) is mindful that this legislation will be phased
in over the years. The Committee’s concern and focus is on the establishment of
the Parliamentary Budget Office that will provide more support to enable the
Committees on Finance and Appropriations to fulfil their legislative
responsibilities.
The Division of Revenue Amendment Bill was tabled in
Parliament on 27 October 2010 by the Minister of Finance during the submission
of 2010 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS).
Clause 1 (the focus of this brief) of the Bill provides
for the substitution of Schedules 1 to 8 of the Division of Revenue (DoRA) for
Schedules 1 to 8 of the Bill. The Schedules to the Bill address the following
matters:
2.
Equitable division of revenue raised nationally among the spheres of government
Table 1:
Schedule 1
|
Sphere
of Government |
Column
A |
Column
B |
Column
C |
|
|
2010/11
allocation |
2010/11
adjustments |
Amount
adjusted |
||
|
National |
R’000 |
R’000 |
R’000 |
|
|
527
001 492 |
519
980 624 |
7020868 |
||
|
Provincial |
260973745 |
265139448 |
-4165703 |
|
|
Local |
30167706 |
30558566 |
-390860 |
|
|
Total |
818142943 |
815678638 |
2464305 |
|
National
Treasury (2010) [adapted]
The
adjustments ended up in a net reduction of R2.4 billion whereby expenditure
estimates levels decreased from R818.1 billion to R815.7 billion. The total
allocations to national departments decreased by R7.0 billion, allocation to
provinces increased by R4.1 billion and allocations to local government
increased by R0.3 billion. In effect the general decrease will not impact on
provincial and local spheres of government like on the national sphere of
government where allocations were reduced. It is clear the reduced allocations
are due to shortfall in the unexpected revenue collected. Budget
spending projections also make provision for about R3.6 billion in under
spending at a national level (including declared savings). Offsetting this R9.6
billion available on the main budget against the R7.2 billion in the
adjustments budget, the total estimated level of spending decreases to R2.5
billion. In terms of section 6(1) of the DoRA if actual revenue
raised nationally in respect of the financial year falls short of the
anticipated revenue set out in Schedule 1, the national government bears the
shortfall and in terms of section 6(2) of the DoRA if actual revenue raised
nationally in respect of the financial year exceeds the anticipated revenue set
out in Schedule 1, the excess accrues to the national government, subject to
subsection (3).
3. Determination of each province’s
equitable share of the provincial sphere’s share of revenue raised nationally
Table 2:
Schedule 2
|
Province |
Column
A |
Column
B |
Column
C |
|
|
2010/11
allocation |
2010/11
adjustments |
Amount
adjusted |
||
|
|
R’000 |
R’000 |
R’000 |
|
|
40134424 |
40789918 |
-655494 |
||
|
|
15959310 |
16217212 |
-257902 |
|
|
|
45134335 |
45869090 |
-734755 |
|
|
KwaZulu
Natal |
56742834 |
57632201 |
-889367 |
|
|
|
33237814 |
33766574 |
-528760 |
|
|
|
21323198 |
21640037 |
-316839 |
|
|
|
7101615 |
7201470 |
-99855 |
|
|
|
17314124 |
17567122 |
-252998 |
|
|
|
24026091 |
24455824 |
-429733 |
|
|
Total |
260973745 |
265139448 |
-4165703 |
|
National
Treasury (2010) [adapted]
The
current adjustments resulted in the expenditure level estimates in provinces
increasing from R260.9 billion to R265.1 billion with each province, KwaZulu
Natal increased by R0.889 billion, Gauteng R0.734 billion, Eastern Cape by
R0.655 billion, Limpopo by R0.528 billion, Western Cape by R0.429 billion,
Mpumalanga by R0.316 billion, North West by R0.252 billion and Northern Cape by
R0.099 billion respectively.
4. Roll Overs held back due to the unspent
conditional grants by local government sphere
Table 3:
Schedule 3
|
Province |
Column
A |
Column
B |
Column
C |
|
|
2010/11
allocation |
2010/11
adjustments |
Amount
adjusted |
||
|
|
R’000 |
R’000 |
R’000 |
|
|
|
4450185 |
4453126 |
-2941 |
|
|
|
2805978 |
2831056 |
-25078 |
|
|
|
5445197 |
5445197 |
0 |
|
|
|
5533344 |
5712667 |
-179323 |
|
|
Limpopo |
3666434 |
3678434 |
-12000 |
|
|
Mpumalanga |
2803310 |
2909548 |
-106238 |
|
|
Northern
Cape |
909198 |
929810 |
-20612 |
|
|
North
West |
2563886 |
2599921 |
-36035 |
|
|
Western
Cape |
30167706 |
30558566 |
-390860 |
|
|
Total |
58345238 |
59118325 |
-773087 |
|
National
Treasury (2010) [adapted]
Except
for Gauteng, all provinces experienced roll overs due to the unspent
conditional grants by local municipalities. Although the Committee has noted
the rolling over of funds; there is still a need for more clarity to further
explain the circumstances leading to such
under expenditure especially with regard to funds that are supposed to
support the extension of free basic service to the indigents. On the other hand,
the Committee need to ensure that these funds target critical needs such as
indigents, repairs and maintenance of ageing infrastructure.
In
Eastern Cape, four municipalities received increased allocations- Sunday’s River
Valley Municipality received increased allocations from R25.7 million to R26.1
million, Nxuba Municipality increased allocations from R16.2 million to R16.3
million, Inxuba Yethemba Municipality received increased allocations from R32.8
million to R34.2 million, Senqu Municipality received increased allocations
from R66.4 million to R66.8 million.
In Free
State, five municipalities received increased allocations – Kopanong an
increase from R72.7 million to R78.0 million, Mantsopa an increase from R53.9
million to R55.1 million, Motheo District an increase from R 152.3 million to
R152.7 million, Phumelela an increase from R44.2 million to R45.1 million and
Metsimaholo an increase from R79.0 million to R143.9 million.
In
KwaZulu-Natal, seven municipalities received additional allocations – Vulamehlo
an increase from R24.5 million to R25.6 million, uMuziwabantu an increase from
R30.3 million to R31.3 million, Zululand District an increase from R198.6
million to R215.4 million, Jozini an increase from R48.5 million to R54.1
million, Hlabisa from R39.2 million to R43.7 million, KwaDukuza an increase
from R50.9 million, and Ubuhlebezwe an increase from R35.4 million to R42.3
million.
Limpopo’s
total allocations increased from R3.6 billion to R3.7 billion where three
municipalities received additional allocations – Makhuduthamaga received an
increase from R107.3 million to R111.8 million, Molemole an increase from R57.0
million to R61.3 million and Thabazimbi an increase from R45.1 million to R48.2
million.
In Mpumalanga,
municipalities received additional allocations from R2.8 billion to R2.9
billion whereby four municipalities received additional allocations as follows
– Mkhondo an increase from R73.3 million to R80.8 million, Thabachweu an
increase from R59.5 million to R62.6 million, Mbombela an increase from R247.6
million to R295.9 million and Bushbuckridge an increase from R339.7 million to
R387.1 million.
Northern
Cape received an additional R612 million whereby five municipalities received
additional allocations – Hantam received an increase from R15.6 million to
R17.4 million, Karoo Hoogland received an increase from R10.1 million to R12.1
million, Ubuntu received an increase from R13.9 million to R16.7 million,
//Khara Hais received an increase from R40.5 million to R45.4 million, and Sol
Plaatjie received an increase from R121.7 million to R130.9 million.
North
West received an additional R360.3 million whereby five municipalities received
additional allocations – Moses Kotane received an increase from R179.2 million
to R186.4 million, Mafikeng received an increase from R96.3 million to R102.4
million, Kagisano received an increase from R42.8 million to R49.4 million,
Ventersdorp received an increase from R35.2 million to R37.6 million and Tlokwe
received an increase from R69.0 million to R82.8 million.
Western
Cape received an additional R390.8 million whereby four municipalities received
additional allocations – Matzikama received an increase from R27.1 million to
R31.3 million, Bergrivier received an increase from R18.7 million to R20.9
million, Overstrand received an increase from R26.9 million to R28.0 million
and George received an increase from R58.2 million to R59.3 million.
5.
Allocations to provinces to supplement the funding of programmes or functions
funded from provincial budgets
This
Schedule comprises of a number of conditional grants and the only grant that
has changed is the Further Education and Training Colleges Grant which received
an additional R31.2 million during the adjustment period. According to the
National Treasury 2010/11 First Quarterly Reports, there was no spending for
Further Education and Training grants as at 30 June 2010. While the Committee
welcomes the increase, the Committee is concern that less expenditure in the
first quarter would negatively impact on the second quarter expenditure
projections.
6. Specific purpose allocations to
provinces: Schedule 5 Grants
Out of approximately
nineteen grants in this category, only three grants received additional allocations
– Comprehensive HIV and Aids Grant, Human Settlements Development Grant, and
Devolution of Property Rate Funds Grant.
The
purpose of the Comprehensive HIV and Aids Grant is to enable the health sector
to develop an effective response to HIV and Aids, to support the implementation
of the National Operational Plan for Comprehensive HIV and Aids treatment and
care, and to subsidise in-part funding for the antiretroviral treatment
programme. This Grant was allocated R6.0 billion for the baseline, during the
adjustment the grant received an additional amount of R40 million.
The
purpose of the Human Settlements Development Grant is to provide funding for
the creation of sustainable human settlements. Although, in total, this Grant
received additional allocations of R15 000 million only Gauteng received an
increase from R3.7 billion to R3.8 billion while North West had its allocations
reduced from R1.2 billion to R1.1 billion. There were no changes in allocations
to other provinces.
The
purpose of the Devolution of Property Rate Fund Grant is to facilitate the
transfer of property rates expenditure responsibility to provinces, and to
enable provincial accounting officers to be fully accountable for their
expenditure and payment of provincial property rates. The grant received an
increase from R1.0 billion to R1.8 billion. The Public Work report shows that
49 per cent of the allocation was spent as at the 30 August 2010 in this
regard. This grant could be the main source of revenue generation for municipalities
and can also reduce the current debt by government departments to
municipalities. While the Committee welcomes the increase in this grant, there
is a need for the relevant Committees and other stakeholders to ensure that
there are systems and plans in place that will enable provinces to spend the
additional allocations efficiently and economically. This will assist the
government to be able achieve value for money in such expenditure and required
outcomes.
7. Schedule 6 Grants: Specific purpose
allocations to municipalities
Two
grants in this category received additional allocations and they are the Water
Services Operating Subsidy Grant and Municipal Drought Relief Grant.
The
purpose of the Water Services Operating Subsidy Grant is to subsidise water
schemes owned and/or operated by the Department of Water Affairs or by other
agencies on behalf of the Department. An amount of rollovers,
R10 billion is added in the water services operating subsidy grants, where R8.4
million is added to the Schedule 6 Grant and R1.3 million is added to
the Schedule 7 Grant: Grants-in-kind.
However,
it will be important to provide a detailed explanation for allocations to
specific projects to the Committee so that the expenditure of these additional
funds can be effectively monitored.
The
purpose of the Municipal Drought Relief Grant is to provide capital finance for
basic water supply in municipal infrastructure for affected households, micro
enterprises and social institutions. The grant received an additional allocation
of R92 million which is specifically allocated to the Mossel Bay Municipality
for drought relief.
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Appropriations
will monitor the utilisation of these additional grant allocations through the
in-year monitoring process which forms part of Parliamentary oversight. This
will enable the Committee to be able to check whether financial legislations
such as Division of Revenue Act (DoRA), Public Finance Management Act (PFMA)
and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) are adhered to by the spheres of
government. The Committee will also monitor the efficiency of administration in
compiling and spending various schedules so that schedules are not incorrectly
recorded, classified or misplaced in the process. This will assist the
Committee to identify challenges and, enhance the level of accuracy and
compliance in all levels of government through making relevant recommendations
during the in-year monitoring process.
9.
Sources
The following source documents were used by the
Committee when considering the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill:
10.
Recommendation
The
Standing Committee on Appropriations, having considered the Division
of Revenue Amendment Bill [B 35 – 2010] (National Assembly – proposed
sec 76), recommends to the House
that it be adopted (without amendments).