Chairperson, let me start by thanking the hon members across the aisles for their support. Let me also thank those members of the opposition who made criticisms for the tone in which they did so, which I think was quite thoughtful. I want to try to respond and disagree with them in a similar way.
The hon Harris said that we had a legislative programme which was too ambitious and that we should be focusing instead on improving institutions and reducing red tape. Well, I'm afraid to say that, actually, improving institutions and reducing red tape very often require that we make legislative changes. I think that is the case in the example that Mr Smalle gave.
If we were to simply leave the legislative framework for the Companies and Intellectual Properties Registration Office, Cipro, untouched, our efforts - which were ongoing and, by the way, were yielding some results in solving some of the problems in that institution - would be much more difficult than if we moved towards the new regime of company registration through the new commission that we launched yesterday. That remains the case even if some members, apparently, have less energy than this excellent public servant, Zodwa Ntuli. We have to go ahead with the legislative programme, and I thank those members who have said that they are committed to working with us on this.
There was also a question of whether we should now be constructing a new organogram for the DTI, merging divisions and separating others, and so on. That is exactly the exercise that DTI went through some years ago. I think it's important to note that that exercise does not happen without a significant number of costs in terms of morale in the institution, in terms of the relocation of people, and so on. We have taken the view that we should rather focus on continual improvement within the existing institutions, and then when there is a case for making those changes, we will make them.
One case which I think was overwhelming was the separation of the Industrial Development Division from the Enterprise and Industrial Development Division, the old EIDD. The old EIDD was just far too big and too cumbersome. Through separating these, we have been able to give a renewed dynamism to industrial development.
In fact, more generally I want to say that I think our process of continual improvement has borne results. The bit of the speech which I didn't have time to go through was going to indicate some of that. The figures for the vacancy rate are not one in five. In fact, what has happened is that the vacancy rate has gone down from 25% to 16%. It is still too high, but it's moving into the right direction.
On the question of corruption, there was a corruption study conducted by the Public Service Commission about minimum anticorruption levels. The DTI was ranked second after the SA Revenue Service as the top government department. Just to give another example: The Office of the Premier of the Western Cape came in at 31st. [Laughter.]
On the question of our involvement in these particular mergers, let me say that it is not motivated by opposition to inward investments. The hon MacKenzie made an important point when he said that there is a distinction between greenfield investments and mergers. Mergers are recognised in our competition law. Maybe they have positive implications, maybe they don't. Therefore there is an injunction on the competition authorities to consider a whole range of factors in terms of mergers and approvals for mergers, including their impact on industrial development and employment. It is exactly there that we have decided that it is necessary that this regulatory process proceed.
The fact that some players in these transactions are foreign is immaterial. It's a large merger that may have those consequences. Certainly, what we can't do is to discriminate against South African players in such a case by saying, okay, they're foreign; we must just butt out. I think that that would be wrong. We have to follow those processes through.
Let me come to the hon Oriani-Ambrosini. I have to say that whether he called on some unnamed authority in the University of California, Los Angeles, or not, the fact of the matter is that everything that he has said has a call for withdrawal of the role of government and indifference as to whether or not we have a consumption or production-led growth process. There is absolute indifference to that. I'm afraid that the reality is that what he was saying to us would take us on the path of continued unemployment, continued inequality and continued poverty.
I want to just agree with what the hon Fubbs and the hon Radebe said. There is no country anywhere in economic history that set itself on a path of increasing returns to scale, as opposed to diminishing returns, without having a targeted approach to the development of value-added activities. And this has also been involving the active support by the state. I'm pleased to see that the DA is not objecting to that either.
Those countries that thought it was okay to let manufacturing go in favour of focusing on derivative trading in the financial sector are the ones that are struggling now in the recession. Those are the ones we cannot afford ...