Deputy Speaker, the answer to part (a) is that I have no plans to present any proposal to privatise state-owned enterprises, SOEs. With respect to part (b), the department is in the process of reviewing the broad-based black economic empowerment, BBBEE codes, with a view to elevating enterprise development, preferential procurement and skills development elements in those codes. More precisely, we are creating subminimum requirements for performance in these areas as a tool to support and incentivise the creation of more opportunities for black entrepreneurs in small companies that are engaged in productive activities.
Furthermore, some of the amendments to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act - which will be incorporated in a Bill that will be tabled before Parliament in the near future - seek to promote a shift in emphasis in BBBEE transactions from the creation of passive shareholders to more sustainable and active empowerment of BBBEE beneficiaries within established companies, also with the aim of stimulating an entrepreneurial culture and ensuring that black people who benefit from BBBEE deals end up participating meaningfully and productively in the economy.
The National Empowerment Fund, NEF, has, however, facilitated a BBBEE public offer share scheme, called the Asonge Share Scheme. It is a retail product meant to empower black people by allocating some MTN Group shares to them. If and when such opportunities emerge in the future, the NEF could be expected to play a similar role with respect to other transactions. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Davies for his response. I take the point, hon Davies, that state enterprises do not fall under your department, and therefore you had no comment to make in that regard. But the Minister would surely agree that the greatest single Act, the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, for which the Minister is, in fact, responsible, will only be possible if we create the opportunity to release share equity locked up in underperforming state enterprises like SAA, SA Express, and Alexkor - which, by the way, is the only unprofitable diamond mine in the world - and others to responsibly place these assets as highly geared finance shares in the hands of ordinary South Africans, especially black South Africans, or is the Minister happy to continue on the current path of state capitalism for the already empowered cronies of a special type?
Deputy Speaker, I think that the model that I outlined suggested a rather different path in terms of supporting economic empowerment than that which the hon James is proposing. We don't believe that the way forward in terms of empowerment is simply to be allocating a number of shares to people who own them in some portfolio but nothing else happens. We think that the empowerment tool can become a tool that can support the development of real entrepreneurship. It is exactly in relation to those parts of empowerment codes that relate to supply development and enterprise development that we have seen underperformance by existing players in the economy.
So, our approach now is to elevate those elements so that we can create real momentum where big companies in the private sector support small companies, much along the lines of the model that successful Asian economies have implemented. We want to try and turn black economic empowerment from a tool of allowing simply passive ownership of assets of companies that are owned and controlled by other people, in which black people have no real rights of ownership, into a tool that promotes much more effective real productive involvement in the economy. That is the approach that we are following, and I don't think that the approach of selling off a bunch of shares in state-owned enterprises is a serious alternative. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, I have listened to the reply by the hon Minister, but yesterday Brazil, which has been offered in this House many times as an example that we must follow, announced that they now have a 2% growth rate, and they are embarking on privatisation in trying to solve their problems. So, do you think they are making a mistake?
Deputy Speaker, I think, as the point was made earlier on, that the responsibility for state-owned enterprises is not under our portfolio. I think that we, on this side, have repeatedly said that the decisions about nationalisation or privatisation will be taken on an evidence-based, case-by-case basis with the facts and evidence on the table. I don't think that there is any significant evidence at this point in time that a round or a bout of privatisation of state-owned enterprises is going to yield us any benefits compared to the importance of state-owned enterprises as vehicles of promoting infrastructure development and strategic economic development in the country.
Deputy Speaker, with regard to the comment that the Minister has just made, the Brazilian example is actually instructive. The example of the privatisation of the Brazilian airport, where a 51% stake was sold and the equivalent of R70 billion was raised, which would be equal to a quarter of our entire infrastructure budget that this government is currently trying to finance, is evidence. So, if the Minister is asking for some evidence, there it is. Also, the National Development Plan handed over in this House this morning supports an approach to economic empowerment which places the wealth currently accumulated in the hands of the government in the hands of the people.
The Minister said that he does not support that approach today. Is he therefore confirming that it is his department's policy to ignore the approach suggested in the National Development Plan and to pursue some different plan?
Deputy Speaker, that is just a load of absolute nonsense. I pointed out that the responsibility for the management of state-owned enterprises falls under the Department of Public Enterprises; our department is not responsible for that. I pointed out that the approach that we support towards black economic empowerment, to seek to promote an entrepreneurial culture and to encourage people to end up as real productive players in the economy, whether they are in receipt of share ownership deals in private companies that are established by the companies, or whether this is through the indirect route of procurement decisions that need to be taken and supply development decisions that need to be taken by bigger companies in relation to smaller companies. That is the direction in which we are moving, the direction that has a lot of broad support across the country. I think that is something that can unlock a huge amount of creative and productive capacity in the majority of people who were disadvantaged under apartheid and colonialism.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have two concerns which I would like the Minister to answer or respond to, if he wishes. The first one is in relation to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Bill that he has referred to. It underpins a very important debate that we are beginning to have here now, but it has been delayed in our portfolio committee for about two years, and we are going to deal with it next year, even though it has been ready at the departmental level, I understand, for three years and even though there is general recognition that it is an urgent Bill to complete the entire scheme of black economic empowerment. The concern is that it has been cynically delayed, so that the debate which will be developed around it will shape part of the electoral debate, thus polarising voters along racial lines.
It is a potentially divisive Bill, and it would make sense to anticipate any conflict which can emanate from it as soon as possible so that it does not become part of the electoral platform for any political party, in the interest and for the sake of the country. You will have to read about the second concern elsewhere. Sorry. [Laughter.] [Time expired.]
Deputy Speaker, I think there are no inordinate delays in the Bill. The Bill passed through Cabinet at its last meeting, and it is on its way to the House. I have signed the documentation necessary for it to be tabled in the House. There is no conspiracy to keep the Bill back or present it at a particular time. It is an important piece of legislation, and we want it to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It is now going to be in the hands of Parliament and the portfolio committee.
Hon members, I wish to advise that we will not proceed with Question 169 today and that the matter has been discussed with hon Kilian. [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Based on which Rule of this Parliament has this question been withdrawn, because hon Kilian was informed, not consulted?
I am not able to answer that, but I know here they are saying that they have discussed it with Mrs Kilian. I am not going to respond to that now. [Interjections.] I do not have the answer. So, I am not going to be discussing that; I am moving on to the next question. If there is something that needs to be answered, we will answer it later on because ... [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, this question was placed on the Order Paper. If that was wrong, why was it placed on the Order Paper and then withdrawn today? [Interjections.]
Hon member! Hon member! Was hon Kilian not consulted before this time?
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of explanation, may I address you? I received a call at about 14:14 from Mr Xaso of the NA Table, indicating that the Speaker's Office was approached by the Minister at 13:00 today to request for the question to be removed, because it is serving before the ethics committee. First of all, I believe that we must really object to the late notice, because it was already on the Question Paper.
Hon Kilian, I am reading what is written here. It says they have discussed it with you. There might be some shortcomings in that, but it is not for me to solve it here on this platform. I hope you had objected to Mr Xaso so that something could have been done before this plenary started. I am not able to do anything now - at this point. So, can we just proceed? We will attend to that later, but not before the House.
Yes, Deputy Speaker, we can do that. But I just felt that it was actually improper because one of our other Cope questions should then have been supplemented in that space. [Interjections.]
It is fine. All I am saying is that this is something I can't solve now, this minute, whilst I am busy with this. It is something that we need to discuss with the Speaker, who withdrew the question upon request. Can we just get an understanding on that? [Interjections.]
That is fine, Deputy Speaker. We have an understanding.
Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: The point, as hon Kilian would know, is that the Rules do not allow us to deal with the matter, because it would prejudice the Minister, but also because it is before a committee of Parliament. If hon Kilian - because I think it is incorrect for her to be having a dialogue with a presiding officer during a meeting - had a problem, she should have discussed it and gone directly to the Speaker so that this matter could have been dealt with there. So, I think she is out of order in terms of how she is dealing with the matter. [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? [Interjections.]
Hon member, I am closing this matter. Hon member! [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, may I address you on a point of order?
Hon member, I am not listening to you. [Interjections.]
But I have a right to rise on a point of order, Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
Hon member, what is your point of order?
Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that this particular question ... [Interjections.]
No, hon member ... [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, you have not even given me a chance to speak. You said I should state my point of order. I am trying to state the point of order, and you are not allowing me to speak. [Interjections.]
Hon member, I thought you were going to speak on the other point of order, not this question.
Deputy Speaker, there was no point of order; it is a point of disagreement. She never rose on a point of order; it was a point of opinion and disagreement. [Interjections.]
Hon member, sit down. Question 151 has been asked by the hon Koornhof to the Minister of Public Enterprises.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order ... [Interjections.]
What point of order?
Deputy Speaker, I would like the point of order raised to be heard. It is my right as a member to raise a point of order, and it is your duty to rule on the point of order. It is your duty to listen to it and rule on it. I would like proceedings in this House to be conducted by the Rules and not by the whim. Thank you.
Hon Oriani-Ambrosini, sit down, please. Minister of Public Enterprises, please continue.
Intentions regarding assistance to company to take advantage of fleet procurement offset prospects
151. Dr G W Koornhof (ANC) asked the Minister of Public Enterprises:
Whether his department intends to assist a certain company (name furnished) to take advantage of potential government-related fleet procurement offset prospects with specific reference to the requirements of the (a) SA Air Force, (b) SA Airways and (c) SA Express Airways; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the strategic economic and social benefits that will accrue to the country through government investment in the aerospace sector?