Madam Chair and hon members, the latest Global Competitiveness Index provides a useful opportunity for this House to honestly assess South Africa's economic condition. A careful diagnosis is a necessary precursor to a coherent prescription. Some quarters of our current leadership are so divided over the diagnosis that the ruling party has produced no less than four different macroeconomic frameworks since 1994.
The two currently on the table, the New Growth Path and the National Development Plan, could not be more ideologically opposed, despite the spin doctors' attempt to reconcile irreconcilable differences. This demonstrates a problem of leadership, for the lack of policy co-ordination is primarily a function of poor leadership. The World Economic Forum itself notes that this year's global deceleration to a large extent reflects the inability of leaders to address the many challenges that were already present last year. The fact that we are not alone is no excuse for our national acceptance of a leadership vacuum. Improving South Africa's competitiveness will require an honest assessment of the problem and a humble acceptance of the evidence, in order to improve the situation. Again, this requires leadership and political will, both of which are severely lacking, from the hon President down, at the present time.
The World Economic Forum categorises South Africa as a Stage 2: efficiency- driven economy. We must put mechanisms in place to truncate the curve and move us to an innovation-driven economy as rapidly as possible. Human capital development is critical to this mission. Meanwhile, the education system fails our learners. A cursory glance at the index reveals that we are in 52nd place overall out of 144 countries surveyed, two places down from 2011. With no further exploration, this may seem a reasonable place to be.
However, even a superficial examination reveals that we perform worse that Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and Oman, not exactly bastions of inclusive growth and democracy. Chile, structurally and historically comparable to us, comes in at 33rd place, nearly 20 positions better than us. The latest global investment monitoring index reveals that Chile has attracted an 82% increase in foreign direct investment since 2010, whilst over the same period, South Africa has suffered a decline of 43,6%. Interestingly, we scored 84th for basic requirements. Our overall score is pulled up by efficiency enhancers, where we were placed 37th, and innovation and sophistication factors, where we were placed 42nd. The promise of the latter would have a more optimal effect off a stronger base of human capital.
A slightly deeper exploration, even on the basic requirements, starts to paint a picture that requires humility to stomach, without which we deny ourselves the opportunity to learn. The ruling party's leadership has a tendency to criticise methodology and sentiment, instead of engaging with it. That attitude will not lock us in on the correct trajectory. We scored 43rd for basic institutional competitiveness. Given the importance of institutions for sustainable economic growth, this is concerning. Our infrastructure constraints place us in 63rd place on that score. The macroeconomic environment, in part reflecting endemic policy incoherence and uncertainty, places us in 69th place. The most concerning variable here is health and primary education, in which we rank 132nd, behind Senegal, Rwanda, Paraguay, Pakistan, Zambia, Liberia, Libya, and even Zimbabwe, which is 13 places above us. Madam Chair, this is not acceptable.
In addition to our woeful performance on education, our labour market regime is a painful reminder of how much work we have yet to do. We rank 113th for labour market efficiency, which includes scores of 143rd for rigid hiring and firing practices and 140th on flexibility in wage determination by companies. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon Ministers present here, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to be part of this debate on this topic, especially during the exciting times in our country when we are experiencing political jittering and uncertainty among our opposition parties. Their crisis is showcased in the types of topics they now choose to put before us to discuss in this august House of Parliament.
Today we are called on to debate the so-called Global Competitiveness Report, produced in terms of the World Economic Forum, WEF, Global Competitiveness Index on our country's competitiveness. I must say that we see this as an act of opportunism and desperation on the part of the DA. We say so mainly because we have been ranked 50th on average for the past three years. That is to say, in 2010 we were ranked 54th, in 2011 we ranked 50th and this year we are rated 52nd.
The question is, why didn't the DA put the matter up for debate last year, when the country was ranked 50th? This confirms that they see nothing unusual and extraordinary about these rankings, but rather are seeking attention that they are scarcely getting during serious debates. [Applause.]
According to the report, South Africa is the most competitive economy in Africa and it is more competitive than two other Brics member countries, Russia and India. Can you believe it? It further gives us a better ranking than some of the developing countries and it ranks us the first on some indicators globally, a fact that I think my colleagues who will speak after me will acknowledge.
We welcome this as the ANC. However, we feel the report is not an objective study but an amalgamation of business opinions and some data analysis. Some of our areas of contention are as follows: Firstly, at the general level, the World Economic Forum Index has a major problem, being that its underlying assumption is that markets are efficient and that policy intervention, where necessary, must be market-friendly.
Secondly, at the heart of the report is a survey of opinion of local business people. In South Africa, it is simply an opinion of 45 large formal sector business executives - only 45, in this report that Dr Rabie is talking about. Those opinions account for some three quarters of the basis of each country's ranking.
We feel that, as much as it is important to know what some business executives think, it cannot be an objective yardstick of competitiveness. This report is masterminded by academics and remains entirely a business school product. Some developing economies are also sceptical of attempts to quantify competitiveness. This is because they are rated at the same level as developed economies. Here the scepticism seems more justifiable, though there is a strong case for constructing indices that reliably and objectively benchmark national performance.
While the Global Competitiveness Report is well-written and contains useful material, its competitiveness indices do not merit the attention they attract and the policy concern and debate they generate. The strong point of the World Economic Forum analysis is its emphasis on the microeconomy as the vital determinant of competitive performance. It is also correct that getting the macroeconomic situation right, while necessary, cannot by itself lead to sustained growth in countries with serious deficiencies. The economic structure has to be changed and improved because there is a large and positive role for government in doing this by improving markets, remedying market failures and strengthening institutions.
The qualitative data used to generate indices, held up as one of the report strengths by the World Economic Forum, are of dubious origins and it is surprising that the WEF chooses to rely on questionnaire responses for some items on which hard data are available, especially from the governments concerned. We therefore would like to call upon the World Economic Forum to improve their methodology of work. They need to be as inclusive as possible in gathering and using data to support their final opinion, and when setting up indicators, let them set them for the like-minded economies so that they can get fair outcomes.
As the ANC, we recognise that we have done well in building parts of the economy into competitive hubs. We really do not need to be told by a few people. One excellent example is in the automobile sector, where large companies have increased their investments and created more jobs in the past 12 months. Again, investment in infrastructure and skills development by this ANC government is an active measure to build long-term competitiveness. Hence we have cause to reflect, to celebrate, to work hard to strengthen economic performance, and also to address inequality and poverty.
In conclusion, as the ANC, we would welcome a real debate about competitiveness wherein we are going to debate hardcore business issues from our country, by our country, for our country, and not based on assumptions. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, you know, the hon Coleman says, "as the ANC". Actually, listening to what she was saying, she should say, "as the SACP", because the ANC is not a communist party. It supports the free market, but she doesn't.
Madam Chair, I don't think it helps to trash the World Economic Forum. Google "World Economic Forum" and read what they are trying to do. They are deliberately trying to find out what makes a country less successful and more successful. And they give us good marks but they also point out our deficiencies. And when we look at the statistics report and see how many refrigerators, cellphones and televisions, South Africans have, and in increased numbers, the thing that breaks my heart is that there could be many more refrigerators, cellphones - well, I don't know about cellphones, at 90% - and televisions, were it not for the influence of the communists on ANC economic policy. [Interjections.]
I ask myself why we have not grown more in South Africa, why we haven't grown as fast as the Asian economies, and the only reason I can come back to is the influence of the left on our national policies. The members of the SACP are some of the most hardworking, interesting and best informed members of this Parliament. But they are like that valley of dry bones - dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. [Laughter.] Their policies are old, dry bones in terms of the world economy, and that is my real concern with our economy. And when people go to Mangaung, do they know if they are ANC or SACP? [Laughter.]
You know, as far as the DA and the ID are concerned, the ID like to say they have dual membership. And the old DA, or DP, and the New NP had dual membership. But that was for a transitional purpose. The alliance between the SACP and the ANC is finished! When it came to power in 1994, the ANC had just published a book - two years before. The ANC had said: Ready to Govern! Ready to Govern! Now, I believe that if they had not been dragged down by the SACP they would have governed much better.
My challenge to the ANC is that they should get rid of dual membership. If you are going to be a member of the ANC, you must be a member of the ANC. You can't hide as a member of the SACP in the ANC. Not only that, but it will bring life into the dry bones because the SACP members can resign from the SACP and join the ANC. [Interjections.]
Chairperson, on a point of order, are we discussing the ANC or the report on competitiveness?
That is a very good question, Madam Chair, but it's not a point of order. Let me get back to it because the World Economic Forum ... [Interjections.]
Hon McIntosh, I will decide whether it is a point of order or not. Will you please continue with the subject at hand. You have exactly ten seconds.
Thank you. The point is that the World Economic Forum tries to work out why countries are more or less successful - that is the purpose. It is an objective, fair assessment ... [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Madam Chairperson, I don't know if I am going to sing like that, but I think it would be good for us in considering this report that we are not selective in our interpretation and understanding of the contents of this report. And I say this to both sides of the House, because there are good outcomes in this report and there are bad outcomes.
If we look at this report and we look at the question of the Auditor- General, we are number one out of 144 countries, on the strength of auditing and reporting standards. [Applause.] That is something that we must stand on the roof and shout about. When it comes to legal rights index we are number one, when it comes to regulation of securities exchanges we are number one out of 144, and when it comes to soundness of banks, we are number two out of 144. So, we must not cut off our nose to spite our face when we speak on this.
Having said this, Madam Chair, in some instances we are number 144 out of 144, and that is where there should be cause for concern. These sectors are mainly in the areas of education, health and inefficient government bureaucracy. Let us not be like ostriches, bury our heads in the sand and think that the problem will run away. We have got to come up, as government and as this Parliament, with aggressive interventions in those areas so that we can go up the ladder from number 144 in some instances to being number 44, because that would be an improvement.
I think this report of the World Economic Forum needs to be taken very seriously because it is read widely; it is read by people who invest in our country. The foreign direct investments, FDI, comes mainly from people reading these kinds of reports, and we must not just rubbish it on both sides just for the sake of rubbishing the report.
Madam Chair, we are number one in sub-Saharan Africa, but is that good enough? Are we good enough in the education sector? We have not been delivering textbooks on time; there is a whole lot of inequality in education between the rural areas and the urban areas; there are a lot of infrastructure needs that are required; our hospitals are not performing up to capacity; our labour laws need to be relooked at to make us more competitive; so these are the areas and arenas that we should be focusing on. And I am glad that members of the executive, like the senior member, the hon Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, are here, because Cabinet needs to take this very seriously, together with the departments.
We would like to thank the hon member for raising this particular motion in the House. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, let me start by clarifying that the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Economic Development is a member of the ANC and represents its views in this Parliament. The fact that she is a communist is not an issue. I am not sure whether Mr McIntosh has not understood the Bill of Rights, which allows her the freedom of association. The tripartite alliance was forged and founded on a long experience of hard struggle for the liberation of our people and this country. You are now the beneficiary of that hard and long, difficult struggle. [Applause.] Then you stand here and attack the chairperson of the committee. Maybe you should explain where you come from yourself.
South Africa is ranked 52nd according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index. It is ranked the highest in sub-Saharan Africa and therefore the most competitive in the region. It is placed third among the emerging Brics economies. Chairperson, let me attend to the criteria that were used to decide on South Africa's rankings, particularly labour market efficiency.
Compared to the rest of the world, South Africa is not doing well according to one of the criteria used to measure competitiveness, namely labour market efficiency. Its ranking on this criterion is 113 out of 144 countries that were surveyed. This is one of the criteria used to downgrade South Africa to the 52nd spot. However, it should be noted that on one of the very important criteria used, namely the macroeconomic environment, South Africa is positioned even better than some of the developed economies such as the USA, the UK, Portugal, France and Spain, to mention a few.
The opinion survey used by the World Economic Forum seems to be based on the opinion of a small number of South African business executives. Whilst the opinions of these executives reflect positively on what our government has been doing to create sound systems, sound institutions and functional markets, they however reflect negatively on the labour market efficiency. This is so because those who favour labour market deregulation often claim that our labour laws are the most rigid in the world. However, chairperson, the most authoritative comparative assessment of South Africa's labour laws, done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, countries, concludes that our employment protection legislation is significantly more flexible than that of some countries that the World Economic Forum ranks better than South Africa.
One of the challenges we continue to address as a country is skills development, and that is why a National Skills Accord has been signed between the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Higher Education and Training to ensure that the skills we develop correspond to the required efficiency in the labour market. We must also intensify our efforts to vigorously manufacture value-added goods as identified in the Industrial Policy Action Plan and the New Growth Path in order to eliminate unemployment, poverty and inequalities precisely because labour market efficiency should, among other things, address these challenges rather than suggest that efficiency would be achieved only by labour flexibility.
The recent consultations between the government, labour and business led by the President of the Republic will go a long way towards addressing tensions between labour and business and therefore strengthen labour- employer relations and restore labour market efficiency. We also wish to commend the Minister of Labour, business, Cosatu and other union federations who are currently engaged in efforts to restore confidence in our labour market.
We are convinced that all of these efforts will, in the medium to long term, contribute to the efficiency of our labour market and convince the World Economic Forum to upgrade our country in world rankings. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson and hon members, the introduction of the 2011- 12 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report states that -
policymakers are struggling to find ways to manage the present economic challenges while preparing their economies to perform well in an increasingly complex global landscape.
South Africa is no exception, as its policymakers have to steer our ship to safety in a very difficult global economic environment. It is a pity, ladies and gentlemen, that when we discuss a very important topic like this, the House is almost empty, because we are really discussing some of the weaknesses that need our attention. Now people are not here. I don't know what reasons people will give when we really do some introspection, because we are really doing introspection here, and people do not want to look at themselves, to look deeper into themselves, so that we can correct our mistakes and forge forward with pride.
It is not surprising that our performance in this report consists of a mixed bag of successes and failures. For example, according to this report, South Africa is ranked first out of 142 countries in respect of the regulation of securities exchanges. We are ranked first in respect of auditing and reporting, and our banks are ranked second in the world for soundness. These are some of the good things that we must really listen to and pat ourselves on the back for, but people are not here.
The fact we are ranked fourth on financial market development is a good reason for us to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. However, the fact that we ranked 95th on labour market efficiency, ranked 138th for rigid hiring and firing practices, and ranked 138th for lack of flexibility in wage determination clearly shows that our labour laws are too rigid, and they need to be relaxed. In their current form, our labour laws make it difficult for employers to fire workers even when absolutely necessary, which deters rather than attracts investors.
The rigidity of our labour laws has caused many businesses, big and small, to mechanise. In cases where mechanisation proves too expensive, business owners try to keep the number of employees below certain minimum thresholds, which means they end up employing fewer people than they potentially could. Unless we address these problems, government's job creation effort will continue to fall short of expectations. Thank you very much for the one minute extra you gave me, but I still wanted an extra minute. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers present, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members of this House, comrades and friends, South Africa has undergone substantial changes during the last 10 to 15 years, transforming itself from an international pariah during apartheid rule into a democratic regional power with well-developed economic and political ties to countries in the region and beyond. Unlike many other African countries, South Africa has a large private sector and a growing private tax base.
According to the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, IFC, Enterprise Surveys of 2007, only 17% of the companies operating in South Africa identify corruption as a major obstacle to business operations, compared to a regional average of more than 34%. These figures are supported by the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2012- 13, where companies rank corruption as the fifth most problematic factor for doing business in the country.
I want this House to know that when we talk about the security of the country, we are not talking about the SAPS only. We are talking about the whole security structure, which we call the peace and stability structure. The SAPS over the past 10 years showed significant increases in the number of police personnel, which contributed to the higher cost of the SAPS. However, it can be expected that in the coming years these numbers will be maintained, rather than significantly increased. The SAPS further made a significant investment in the forensic field. The forensic scientific laboratory opened in the Western Cape is considered to be one of the best and most modern in the world. Investment in human capital was also made in this field in the training and recruitment of forensic science experts. This investment, in the long term, will lead to higher conviction rates and quicker turnaround times, and act as a serious deterrent to criminals.
Within the SAPS information technology and supply chain management environments, steps were taken to tighten the controls of those environments. These environments play a crucial role in the modernisation and effectiveness of the SAPS as a whole. Cost-saving measures, improved integration of needs-specific solutions, and integration of the existing systems are part of the solutions going forward.
The 52nd national conference of the ANC in Polokwane resolved that a single Police Service is established. This will address the cost or the expenditure on various police sectors. Many countries have taken steps to ensure that there is integrated and effective management of the border environment. The pressure to do so comes from the rapid increase in the number of people and goods that cross borders and the need to manage the resulting risk and exploit the opportunities. The risks are multiplied by the rise in transnational crime conflicts, food and insecurity, and global warming. The border environment has a number of dimensions that must be understood. The most basic is the distinction between the borderline and the air, sea and land ports of entry that are the only legal crossing points. There is also an international dimension, starting with the areas adjacent to borders in neighbouring countries and extending to a foreigner applying for a visa at a foreign mission abroad.
The Constitutional Principles adopted by the ANC in 1991 sought to establish a judicial system that advances the ideals of a national democratic society and social justice. In particular, the principles provided for the following:
Without interfering with its independence, and with a view to ensuring that justice is manifestly seen to be done in a nonracial way and that the wisdom, experience and judicial skills of all South Africans are represented on the bench, the judiciary shall be transformed in such a way as to consist of men and women drawn from all sectors of South African society. In a free South Africa, the legal system shall be transformed to be consistent with the new Constitution. The courts shall be accessible to all and shall guarantee to all equal rights before the law.
Hon members, I just wanted to respond to hon member McIntosh and say that the ANC is the leader of the alliance. So, there is no competition in terms of who's leading what. Hon Singh, I think that where perceptions are relevant, we need to take them seriously. It is a real concern that the 45 business respondents have substituted their prejudice about the labour market instead of seizing the opportunity to build real partnerships with their workforce. You can see ...
... Bab' uKganyago ukhala ngokuthi abekho abe-ANC. Ngibona sengathi nguwena wedwa ilungu le-UDM elikhona. Kungakuhle ubozibheka ngaphambi kokuthi ujikijele. [Uhleko.][Kwaphela isikhathi] (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[... Mr Kganyago, you are complaining that the ANC members are not well- represented. I think you are the only member of the UDM present. You had better make sure that the business of your own house is in order first before levelling your criticism against other people. [Laughter.] [Time expired.]]
Hon Chairperson, the hon Coleman is very disparaging about today's topic of debate. Hon Coleman, the truth is that the technical programming committee of Parliament, which consists of the National Assembly, NA, Table and the ANC programming Whip, approved the topic for debate, and that decision was approved by the ANC Chief Whip. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with him.
Chairperson, once she had finished attacking the premise of the debate, hon Coleman turned to undermining the existence of the World Economic Forum and the methodology of the survey. This is typical of the denialism of the governing party. They can't tolerate any analysis of their failures, even from this independent, not-for-profit, altruistic organisation. The truth is, as hon Singh explained, South Africa's performance is a mixed bag. The members on this side of the House can't applaud the areas where we do well, but dispute the areas where we are the worst in the world. As far as global rankings go, the members of this House will have become used to our country appearing at the top of the tables, the best in the world, in terms of financial regulation, national accounts and equity markets.
In the report we are debating today, the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13, we are ranked first or second for financial regulation, auditing standards and corporate governance. [Interjections.] Are you listening to me? Our budget processes won first place in the 2010 Open Budget Survey. It's an incredible achievement. But ... [Interjections.]
Mr Harris, just excuse me for a moment. I would appreciate it if hon members in that corner ... [Interjections.] You know who I am talking about. Could you stop retorting to every comment made by the speaker? Don't turn around; you know who you are. Thank you. Carry on, Mr Harris.
Thank you, House Chairperson. The members will also, however, have become used to South Africa appearing at the bottom of rankings as far as education, labour markets, productivity and crime are concerned. In these rankings we are considering today we are ranked last in co-operation in labour-employer relations; second last in quality of math and science education and in hiring and firing practices; and fourth last in flexibility of wage determination.
In the World Bank's Doing Business 2012 rankings, for starting a business we have dropped ten places in the past year. But it's not hard to see why we are ranked so low in these last sets of measures. The ANC government's failure to hold teachers accountable, to reform the labour markets and to fix the problems with company registrations at the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission is well documented, hon Fubbs. This is a clear indication that the ANC is mismanaging our economy and is too distracted by the upcoming leadership elections at Mangaung to implement constructive policy reforms in the foreseeable future.
House Chairperson, perhaps the more interesting question is why a middle- sized, middle-income country on the bottom tip of the least developed continent in the world, ranks so high on measures of financial institutions. The answer, I think, is primarily because National Treasury has done a decade and half of hard work to introduce a world-class national Budget and strong regulatory structures for our economy. In addition, South African auditors, educators, lawmakers, regulators and corporates deserve credit for putting us on the top of the world in this regard. But on the flip side, where South Africa is failing, it is because key reforms advocated or supported by National Treasury have had their implementation blocked.
There is a simple recipe for improving our rankings. This government needs to introduce Treasury's proposals in this year's mini budget to introduce microeconomic policy reforms, reduce the cost of regulatory compliance for small businesses, remove trade barriers and introduce active labour market policies like the youth wage subsidy. These ideas are formally tabled in the Budget by the Treasury. They have the full support of the opposition. That this government's incapacity and ideological opposition from the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Cosatu, will prevent them from being implemented is a national tragedy. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mutshamaxitulu, Xandla xa Mutshamaxitulu, Vaholobye lava nga kona na swirho swa huvo, ndza mi xeweta. [Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Ministers and members of the House present, I salute you.]
Listen to this quotation for the one thing that is perfectly shared between the predecessors and the present people of South Africa:
If anyone can be accused of laying the foundations of apartheid, it was that most English of Englishmen, Cecil John Rhodes.
In 1887, 61 years before the Nationalists came to power in South Africa, he stood before a packed House of Assembly in Cape Town and declared:
These are my politics on native affairs, and these are the politics of South Africa ... The native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise.
I am just putting things into context so that people must know where they come from, in case they don't know their grandparents. [Laughter.] Very soon after that Dr Verwoerd, as if he did not want to be outdone, said:
What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice?
I listened to hon member Harris speaking about mathematics and science. I am just teaching you what you may be avoiding to learn, and that is the value of history.
Let's move on. For pessimists like the DA, it is the worst of times. They see gloom everywhere. But for the optimists, the ANC, it is the best of times as we celebrate the many positives that have been articulated. Let us celebrate. You are welcome to join us in the celebrations. [Applause.]
Hon McIntosh, when we are sitting together in the committee you often say that you like me. [Laughter.] But what you do not know is that this means that you like a communist. As hon Coleman indicated, we have been convened here to debate the opinion of 45 wise business people. Where is labour in this thought formation? Are they the custodians of thinking for everybody? Who gave them that authority? Workers and the working class can also speak for themselves.
Chairperson, let us celebrate our achievements, for example the innovation which is a driver of future growth and jobs. We need to consider taking further action to convert this strength into opportunities for job creation. This means investing in research and development and in products whereby South Africa can be a leading player. It is about creating competitive advantage from our strengths. Education, skills and development areas need to be improved. Implementation is an area in which we are going to improve. We acknowledge the weaknesses that we have in South Africa that we inherited from 300 years of oppression. Often, reforms mean reducing and ... [Interjections.]
Please be quiet in that corner.
Often, reforms mean reducing and amending laws to the detriment of workers who are being casualised daily. It is about time that, when you think of reforms, you think about how reform should benefit the majority in South Africa. Critical in that matter should be the working class.
I want to emphasise that the World Bank has said that focusing solely on improving the business climate is not going to take us anywhere. It cannot only be about the business climate. It must also be about the climate for the working class. If that climate is proper, it will reverberate into proper health, education and infrastructure.
It is clear that the same criticisms are applicable to the global competitiveness report. Note that as these tables are formulated, there is no space indicating where the gold and diamonds that have been stolen from Africa are. [Applause.] The table needs to be improved. It should not only be designed by these 45 people of wisdom. It can't be right. Earlier we heard that the global competitiveness report ranked us very lowly with regard to labour market efficiency. Once again, the World Bank's independent evaluation group discussed the Doing Business report. They said in the report that there is no relationship between labour market and deregulation and any genuine improvement in economic performance such as higher growth, investment and employment rates. This is not what the global competitiveness report and its author, the World Economic Forum, want us to believe. It says we should deregulate and keep on deregulating. They never say it is enough. Take away protections and leave it to the market in order to improve our competitiveness and our rankings on the table. [Interjections.]
Is it not the market approach that has engulfed the whole world in an economic crisis? Is it not this wonderfully described market economy that has engulfed the whole world in the economic crisis? More than 20 years ago, Michael Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School and a global authority on company strategy and competitiveness, recognised that competitiveness does not mean economic well-being.
Let me show and illustrate to you something about the DA. You must stay away from the DA because some people here still have hope. Don't be too close to the DA. One has to ask ... [Laughter.] [Time expired.]
Madam Chair, first and foremost I would like to thank all the hon members who participated in this debate. I think some of the inputs are worth mentioning. First and foremost my colleague, Mr Singh, what you said regarding the public sector and the reports of the Auditor-General is extremely relevant. My colleague, Tim Harris, said that the sectors that are doing well are those that have minimal interference from government, and this is also noteworthy. I think this is very important.
Madam Chair, the fact remains that we are part and parcel of the global village. We cannot negate the importance of that. We need trade. At the moment we have profound problems in this country. We have an unemployment rate of almost 30%. All political parties here and the private sector must join hands. We have to solve this particular problem.
The hon Mr Ntuli said that we have a narrow tax base. I agree with him. We only have about five to six million people that pay tax. Our social grants are getting out of hand, and these sorts of things. There is a generation of 30% which is unemployed and which also has a low skills level, and so forth. We cannot carry on the way we are doing at the moment.
Some people have said we are the most sophisticated country in Africa, but the latest report of The Economist says the chances are that Nigeria may overtake us within 10 years from now regarding GDP.
Madam Chair, these particular things require very strong political leadership. The question that we have to ask ourselves is whether we are getting that particular political leadership. I'm afraid we are not getting it, and I think we are going to reap the fruits of that. Madam Chair, I thank you for allowing me to participate in this particular debate. Thank you. [Applause.]