Deputy Speaker, the South African industrial policy has fundamental flaws in both its implementation and ultimate goal. Economic activity will suffer as a result of this. The Ipap of 2007 has not delivered the promised results. The problem is not that there is not enough money involved, far from it; neither is the range of industries available a challenge. South Africa has a remarkably diversified range of manufacturers.
The problem is rather the goal of the ANC-driven industrial policy to ingrain the bureaucracy of the state into otherwise health business activity.
The shotgun approach to industrial policy - giving small bits of help to everyone - is not the solution. We do not need bigger budgets for industrial policy, but we need smarter and more targeted policy to help those industries which would be able to sustain themselves. Only then will South Africa be able to create more sustainable jobs by building competitive and lasting industries. The jobs that are created must be able to include those unskilled workers outside of the economic activity. Transferring skills is real empowerment.
The DA certainly supports the focus on labour-intensive industry, but the question remains: Why does a certain company or sector need support in the first place? It is not to say that an industry must be labour-intensive; crime is also labour-intensive.
The companies that receive taxpayers' funds must add value to South Africa's economic development, and must be able to exist on their own after an initial period of government assistance. If this is not the rule and not followed, then the so-called industrial policy is nothing other than a protectionist scheme for businesses kept alive unnaturally at the expense of taxpayers.
The true test of whether an industrial plan is working is not the number of firms that rely on government assistance to survive, but the number of firms that progress to be strong enough to do without further government help. The South African industrial plan has failed in this regard so far. The revised Ipap seems to be little more than a continuation of the previous regime. Dr Davies said that Ipap 2 builds on the policy framework of 2007, but there seems to be little more than a few minor alterations.
Minister Davies further argues that the exchange rate is to blame for South Africa's lack of competition. That is certainly not the whole truth. We are now just another competitor in the global environment. It is, amongst other things, the stringent labour market regulations and failing infrastructure that are problems in this country. And that certainly requires government's intervention.
Finally, Minister Davies seems to think that government can lift the competitiveness of South African companies by enforcing import tariffs more stringently. Our interaction with business has shown that what is needed is to ensure equal opportunities for South African enterprises to compete equally with the rest of the world.
A blanket enforcement of import tariffs is not the solution. What is needed is active participation by the department in trade negotiations, amongst other things, at the World Trade Organisation, WTO, and beefing up the South African adjudicators, International Trade Administration Commission, Itac, together with Sars, to guard against dumping and unfair business practices of trade competitors.
Die DA het die wil en die insig om konstruktief by te dra. Ek kan u verseker dat ons alles in ons vermo sal doen om aan die debat deel te neem, sodat ons uiteindelik beter aksieplanne op die tafel kan sit. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The DA has the will and insight to make a constructive contribution. I can assure you that we will do everything in our power to participate in the debate, in order for us to table better plans of action at the end of the day. I thank you. [Applause.]]