Chairperson, I would like to thank all hon members from all sides of the House for their contributions. There were some excellent inputs, and some of that we will obviously consider and come back to discuss with the portfolio committee. I would like to respond to some issues right now, either by theme or by directly responding to the contributions of specific members.
The members Maluleke, Khoarai and Bam-Mugwanya referred to the reputation of our country as a value-for-money destination, although they approached it from different angles. Let me just say that it is a very important reputation for us to protect. We have never marketed ourselves as a cheap destination, and there is a huge difference between the two.
I would like to really commend the private sector for taking the initiative recently to get the industry together to address this issue, because we have picked up internationally that there is - it is not a dominant or very prominent perception yet - a response, reaction or impression in certain markets that some of our products are becoming too expensive. We must be honest about it, we must be transparent about it, and we must deal with the issue. We are a value-for-money destination, and that is what we must work hard to protect.
I would like to deal with some comments from the hon member Krumbock specifically on the statistics, and I think that we will be the only two who will get excited about it. You raised some questions, and they deserve an answer.
Let me just put the context of where we are operating and what is happening globally, and I would like to offer my apologies to those who attended a meeting recently in which I used the same examples. It is important to understand what is happening in the world in travel and tourism. It contributes just under 9% - 8,8% to be precise - to global GDP and just under 9% of jobs worldwide. So, it is a massive worldwide industry. It has grown, and many countries haven't even recognised the importance of this sector. In 1950, we had only 25 million arrivals internationally. That grew over the course of 59 years to 880 million international arrivals in 2009. However, what took us 59 years, from 1950 to 2009; we will now achieve in just 11 years! In 2020, we will have 1,6 billion international arrivals, so that tells us how fast this industry is growing. If we manage it correctly, the same thing will probably happen in South Africa, and we must manage that reality.
In 1950, only 4% of all people born travelled outside of a 100 km radius of where they were born. The other 96% were born, worked and died within a 100 km radius of where they were born. So, the world has changed, and it is our industry.
In saying that we have to manage that reality, we also have to say to ourselves that this industry is on a winning wicket, and we must manage it to ensure that we share fully in the benefits of what will be produced.
The hon member Krumbock said that we must compare apples with apples, and he is absolutely correct. We look at our performance as a country, but it is difficult to compare ourselves as a region, as the African region, with other countries, because we are part of the African region, which gets only 2% of international arrivals and, obviously, we can do much more to improve that. However, South Africa has outperformed each and every other region in the world.
Now, the hon Krumbock is absolutely correct that when we deal with statistics we must always carefully analyse those statistics and then extract the truth from them. Therefore, even if we subtract the Fifa World Cup, we have done something remarkable. We have registered growth in each and every month in 2010, not only up to the Fifa World Cup in June and July, but also every month after that in 2010. That is a quite remarkable achievement.
The hon member referred to the World Cup hosted by Germany. Something was very different during the German World Cup - there was no economic recession. This is something different, which we are experiencing now and which we have to deal with. Secondly, Germany is Germany within a bigger Europe, but we are a long-haul destination, and we still achieved growth each and every month in 2010, so that is quite remarkable. [Applause.]
Let me say that I also don't think that we can subtract a mega event like the soccer World Cup and say, when we subtract it, that on the one hand we have done well, but on the other hand the statistic is not much higher than the global average of 6,7%. Mega events are part and parcel of the tourism menu, the tourism programme, in every country.
If we really want to succeed, that is what we must attract in future. This year, for instance, we will be hosting the International Olympic Committee in Durban in July and the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December. Those will also do well for the tourism industry. Over the next five years we have already secured 200 meetings and conferences with 300 000 delegates who have already been confirmed, and that will hopefully translate into an income for us as a country of about R1,6 billion.
The hon member also raised the issue of this budget. His argument was basically as follows - and it is not the first time that he has used this argument as it was in his speech last year too, and he frequently puts it in committees, which is a good thing.
I want that side of the House to support us, because Parliament will now have a much more decisive role in finalising the budget. As a tourism industry and as the department we want to say that we need all the support that we can get.
What we must also understand - as a Cabinet where some of us are present, such as my colleague and I, and as a Parliament - is that we can debate the issues, but there comes a point where all of us have to say that we have debated all the issues and take coresponsibility. This is especially so when it comes to a budget. When it comes to a budget, a Cabinet can never go out and say in public that it thinks it deserves more. Once we agree to that budget, all of us as the Cabinet have to defend the budget. However, it is a new procedure in Parliament, and therefore it will probably also be so in Parliament, depending on how we vote.
I also think it is false to argue that because we contribute a specific percentage, we must get that specific percentage. If that argument is true, our department must get 8,8% of the national Budget. It is simply unrealistic.
Where we differ from the examples that the hon member mentioned, and Australia was one example that he mentioned, is that Australia doesn't have our history. Australia doesn't have millions of people that it has to lift out of poverty. Australia doesn't need to provide the houses, other infrastructure and other social services that we do.
Moreover, say for instance in our country the agricultural people stand up and say that they must get back what they contribute to GDP or if mining stands up and says that they must get back what they contribute, I think we will have a totally skewed national Budget.
That doesn't take away from the reality that all of us would obviously like more money to market the country. That is the kind of debate that we should have and that we would like to encourage in Parliament, but we do it from a position of responsibility where, as a Cabinet, we take coresponsibility for our Budget, and hopefully that will be the same in Parliament.
Then the hon member also mentioned - and it was picked up by one or two other members as well, although in a more subdued way - the issue of what harms our country when we have to market the country. The hon member mentioned certain songs, and I will say something about that. He also spoke of the Dewani murder and the public sector strikes.
Let us just pause here for a moment and remind ourselves that there is party politics and an absolutely legitimate debate. However, there is also a reality when it comes to the national interest, and I am very cautious about using the term "the national interest" because some people will say that it is hiding behind the national interest. When it comes to the national interest of our country, I think all of us must have the ability to say that in this case we must stand together for the sake of the country. In this debate it has actually happened, I have to admit, by all parties.
Let me deal with the issues one by one, the examples that the hon member mentioned. The Dewani murder, tragic as it was - and the courts must still deal with the issue - didn't have any influence whatsoever on tourist arrivals. That is the one thing I need to say. We track all these incidents very carefully. We have an instrument for reputation management at SA Tourism, and obviously we can have a discussion with the portfolio committee if they want the details.
Let me just draw a comparison where we as South Africans should be very careful. Whenever these incidents that are wrong happen in our country, even if it is our own people and not foreigners, we should really refrain from using them in a way that will harm our image. What happened in Florida just this week? Two British tourists were killed by a 16-year-old. Should we suddenly say to people that they shouldn't visit the United States? I think we should be very balanced and careful in how we deal with issues like this. [Applause.]
On the issue of the public sector strikes, I must say that all of us, in the ANC as well, were shocked at the conduct of some of those people and what they did on our streets. It was completely wrong. Having said that, our job is to market our country notwithstanding. When we talk about it, it is important how we talk about it.
After that I also have to remind myself that France sees public sector strikes every year. France is the most successful tourism destination in the world. So, I think that these things are part and parcel of open democracies, and then we have to remind ourselves that we should deal with them and manage them notwithstanding some of the headaches that they present.
Let me deal with the songs issue. It is in court, so I don't want to make any comments on the merits of this issue, but just speak in general. Obviously, all of us understand the emotions around some of these issues. The question that we as South Africans have to ask ourselves is: Where do we settle the issues? We have to talk about them, and we have to settle the issues. Where do we settle the issues? I don't know whether the courts of law can be considered the correct forum to settle them.
Let me use an example. Many of you may recall that during the first rugby and cricket tours that we had after 1994 there were many people with the old South African flag who went to these matches and very enthusiastically waved that flag. I remember there was a debate then, and some of the people in the ANC stood up and said publicly that we needed a new law in Parliament that would ensure that nobody ever waved that flag again at national sporting events. Colleagues, it would have been the completely wrong response. We would have seen many more people waving that flag, because they would have felt that Parliament and the government had no right to decide for them what they could and couldn't do.
We should probably look at many of these things and say that sometimes, even if we dislike something intensely, the court of public opinion will over time deal with them. Then, probably, the people who are among those being irresponsible will deal with those issues, because they understand the damage that those issues do to the fabric of the country. Let us sometimes just keep a cool head in dealing with something that is clearly and obviously an emotional issue and one that many people intensely dislike. Those are the issues that the hon member raised.
I now turn to the issue of the department, its structures and budget. The President decided that we needed a stand-alone department. If we look at the profile of tourism - that it is now one of the six growth areas in the growth plan - and its contribution to the GDP, it seems to be the right decision. It definitely raised the profile.
The issue of budget probably can be raised with regard to all departments in government. We all need more money. All provinces need more money. The Western Cape needs more money. The Free State needs more money. So that is an ongoing debate.
In regard to the budget, the Department of Trade and Industry will now transfer its tourism branch to our department, with its budget, staff and operational budget as well. Those were most of the issues that the hon member raised.
Then, on the issue of improved co-ordination with other government departments, there is much improvement in our co-operation with other departments and in the co-ordination. With regard to transport, and I mentioned it in my initial contribution, on the issue of frequencies, airlines flying here and co-ordinating with the national carrier, it is quite important that we do that. There is improved co-ordination.
I would now like to refer to a particular department, because in a recent portfolio committee meeting some members referred to complaints. In my view, there is a huge improvement in how the Department of Home Affairs is dealing with some of our issues. If we look at international airports - and I don't know how members who travel overseas and come back are experiencing it - my impression is that the customs and passport control at our international airports is much improved. The training of the staff and how they deal with the queues are much more efficient than they were in the past. I think we should point that out. [Applause.]
Also, in regard to the visa requirements from a security point of view, because there is a strong security dimension here, there are visa requirements for many other countries. Colleagues, honestly, I think from a tourism point of view, which should in my view be compatible with security considerations, there are some blanket exclusions that we really should reconsider. Many of these countries are in the developing world. We have formed a working team with the Department of Home Affairs to look at the reconsideration of visa applications for many of these countries, which we have raised with them. Hopefully we will soon be in a position to make an announcement in that regard. Chairperson, I would like to conclude. I think there is still a little time left, so if any member would like to raise a question, I will gladly answer that. My colleagues here say no. The indaba is two weeks from now, and it will be the major platform. We expect good business to be done there for the country again, and I hope that members of the portfolio committee will once again attend that flagship event. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.