That's right. I'll try my best, Chairperson.
I will start with the issue raised by the hon Krumbock of overexposure to certain markets. We basically agree with that. That is why we analyse the markets every year. We prioritise and reprioritise, if necessary, and our conclusion - as I said in my introduction - is that we will have to look at new markets: African markets, yes, but obviously also at the new markets that everybody is after, such as China and India. We will be opening our new tourism offices in Beijing on 24 May, and I hope it will be a major injection in that market.
Our traditional markets - Germany, the UK, the USA - which the hon member mentioned, will obviously continue to be important, but we must take note of the slower growth in those markets. For the time being, those regions will continue to be our bread and butter markets, but we obviously take note of that input.
There is also the issue raised by other hon members: that we are probably overexposed in terms of some of our traditional products, and that we will have to diversify, to incentivise and to look at new products in the market. One or two members mentioned - as I said in my introductory remarks - that we really have to focus on the convention and the conference markets in the future as well.
Before I deal with the issue of social tourism and the issue of our objectives in terms of growth - the 2015 targets - let me deal with two thorny and difficult issues that were raised by members. I am of the opinion that, if people raise difficult issues, one doesn't run away from them; one deals with them.
The hon member Shinn raised an issue that, I must say, I thought was not raised in the proper manner. I've known the hon member for a year now, and she's been a very constructive member of this portfolio committee. But, hon member, regarding the way that you raised the issue of the CEO of SA Tourism, I think, if you asked your senior colleagues for advice, they would have told you that that is not the way to raise an issue in this House.
There are ways to raise issues, but personal attacks, like the one which took place this afternoon, are simply not done in this House, because people cannot defend themselves. We are a Parliament of all the people and we treat people that we appoint with respect. Also, if we raise issues, we do so in a certain way. So, I would like to respond to that issue very specifically and not run away from it.
I've now been in Cabinet for six years. I have never had an experience in which somebody told me or any other Minister that you can't appoint a person on the basis of race. Never! Not once! We are not bean-counting. What we do when we appoint boards - and I think this is the DA's approach as well - is obviously to look at balance in terms of language, gender and so on. In a country like ours, one must do that, otherwise in the long run there will be trouble.
But when we appoint individuals where they have to do a job, I've never had any quotas enforced or even raised with me. I had a director-general who was white; I had two who were women and African. I introduced you to my director-general this afternoon. When considering those appointments, I have never looked at those factors. I asked myself: Is that the most capable person to do the job? And then I made the appointment. [Applause.]
Concerning the CEO of SA Tourism, it is my view that SA Tourism has one of the best boards of any public entity. I have the highest regard for the person - who will now be leaving our service - whom the hon member mentioned. The fact of the matter is that the board unanimously recommended the appointment that I made, but I also applied my own mind. I have absolute, full confidence in the new CEO and I know that she will be able to do that job. [Applause.]
So, the hon member is free to raise the concerns that she raised, and she should raise them in Parliament, but I think the manner in which she raised them is something that we should be very careful of doing in our Parliament.
Let me now deal with the issue raised by the hon Alberts from the FF Plus. He spoke Afrikaans, and I saw that some members had difficulty switching on their interpreting devices. We all knew what he referred to. He referred to the issue of hate speech and obviously to the recent murder of Mr Terre'Blanche. The hon Alberts is not here; I think he left the Chamber. Oh, there he is!
With regard to the issue of Mr Terre'Blanche, what is very difficult - and I want to be absolutely upfront about this - is that Mr Terre'Blanche never represented the view of the white community in this country. Never! Ninety- nine per cent - conservatively - never agreed with him. His murder was tragic, but this happens to blacks and whites and all South Africans, unfortunately, in our country, very often.
Now, I know the context in which the issue of hate speech was raised, and maybe one should say the following: It's very important in our country that those who are the defenders of our Constitution don't simply start off where those who were previously responsible for hate speech left off. It's very interesting that those people who, historically, were the paragons of hate speech, now want to use our Constitution to always find protection. [Applause.] And it is good; all South Africans now deserve the protection of our Constitution.
But around that whole debacle there's something that I haven't seen anybody notice, and let me be blunt about it: It was an African Minister and an African head of the SA Police Service who went to visit Mr Terre'Blanche's widow. Just think about that. If somebody had said to one of us 20 years ago that on the day Mr Terre'Blanche passes away, you will have an African Minister and head of police visiting his widow, people would have said, "Listen, that's impossible." The Minister and head of police were graciously and very cautiously received by his widow, who was in mourning. Now, even in that there is a message.
The perpetrators have been caught and are now before a court of law, and we are all defending that process. So, even if we say hate speech is wrong, we should always see the hope that is in a certain situation. I think there is a lot of hope in that for South Africans - how we dealt with, and how we are dealing with, those issues. [Applause.]
The hon member Shinn also raised the fact that this is a customer-driven industry - which is absolutely true - and that there shouldn't be too much government intervention. Now let me just convey here, as I conveyed to the portfolio committee, what our government, my own, the Deputy Minister and the department's approach to this industry is: We understand that this is an industry in which creativity is very important. Competition is fierce. You need new products all the time. You need people who are innovative.
So, if you have that, you never overregulate. That's why we gave an undertaking to this industry, not because we had to, but because we know what works. We said to them: "We are going to deal with you, not with a heavy hand, but with a light touch, to allow you to grow." But - and this is probably where we differ - we always said that nobody could ignore the skewed distribution and the result of what history produced in this country. So, in that respect, as a government, we must have programmes to intervene. If we want a better balance in future, if we want to give people equal opportunities, then we must do X, Y and Z, a BEE Charter, the codes of good practice, and certain other interventions.
There is an intervention I would like to mention and on which I would like Members of Parliament to work with us - and it's not socialism. There are many European countries that have this model. The UK's one is very successful. This intervention is to advance social tourism: to give people with limited resources - modest income and physical ability - the ability to be part of the tourism industry and to enjoy what many other people are doing.
I don't think we are doing enough. If I look at our own budget, we have almost R1 billion - over R900 million - over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework period for our Social Responsibility Programme. For the first years of that programme all government departments have decided to invest in a number of smaller projects.