Madam Deputy Speaker, the previous speaker spoke about the strength of our Public Service. Let's talk about that. But first, I would like to start my speech by handing a bouquet to the Minister of Mining, Minister Shabangu.
Her comment, that mines would not be nationalised in her lifetime, showed, I think, extraordinary leadership. It shows that she understands that international capital markets are fickle, that markets like certainty, failing which, investment capital is hesitant or comes with a high risk premium. For this, she gets top marks. By contrast, Julius Malema is shown to understand as much about markets as he does about woodwork. [Laughter.]
I regret that the President didn't actually speak his mind on this vital subject. Proponents of nationalisation have not outlined a cogent case to show how such a move will create jobs and reduce poverty. Surely that is this country's highest priority? Yet the proponents of nationalisation continue to trumpet it as the panacea for our country's socioeconomic problems.
These calls appear to be based on the assumption that the state has the ability to run mines profitably and state-owned enterprises effectively. The truth is that our state-owned enterprises have, over the last 15 years, lurched from one crisis to another. Over the last three years, R243 billion has been spent on rescuing parastatals.
They have been a drain on the state's limited financial resources, rather than a net contributor to economic prosperity. Yet these institutions are supposed to be the vanguard institutions of the developmental state.
There are two fundamental problems that stand in the way of state-owned enterprises advancing the ANC's developmental state, namely financial and governance problems - and, incidentally, they are interrelated.
Financially, SOEs lack capital and are investment hungry. Eskom's current funding difficulty in infrastructural expansion has clearly exhibited that neither it, nor the government, has the capacity, hence Eskom's endeavour to get private sector investment for Kusile, and, no doubt, other power stations. We welcomed this.
Secondly, the issue of governance speaks directly to the issue of cadre deployment, as opposed to a fit for purpose approach, where merit, skill and ability are the determining factors for appointment. It also speaks to the fact of regular interference by political office bearers in the day-to- day running of SOEs. Boards get turned into lame ducks as politicians meddle in the running of these entities.
This is exemplified by the paralysis we have seen in the long list of parastatals without chief executives. Armscor recently joined the list of Transnet, SAA, Eskom, Denel, SA Tourism and the SABC - and we have seen the turmoil there.
Last Thursday, the chief executive officer of the Road Traffic Management Corporation took voluntary leave pending investigations into allegations of gross financial mismanagement, procurement irregularities and misappropriation of funds.
In all of these examples there is a consistent pattern - parastatals being mismanaged into the ground or brought to their knees by political interference and corruption, only to be bailed out and the management and the board replaced at great cost. For a country that has yet to find a successful formula for running existing SOEs, the creation of more SOEs in the name of the developmental state, is laughable.
Against this backdrop, question marks must be raised over the ANC's renewed determination to build a bigger and even more interventionist state. The state is currently struggling to fulfil some of its most basic functions. Too many institutions as well as government departments are already incapacitated and overwhelmed. To give them additional responsibility and power of intervention when they cannot even execute their core function, is likely to cripple them altogether.
The state lacks critical management capacity. It does not have a skilled, efficient and meritocratic bureaucratic elite - prerequisites for a developmental state. On the contrary, the ANC's policy of cadre deployment has ravaged the Public Service, fuelled corruption and stalled service delivery.
No, Mr President, instead of government trying to nationalise or control everything, we need to open the economy, promote opportunity, create competition and give choice. Mr Speaker, one of the most critical tasks facing our nation is economic growth and the creation of jobs.
Now I hear the President boasting that the government has created 480 000 Public Works job opportunities. What do opportunities actually mean: work for one day, one week, or one month? The truth is that the economy lost over 870 000 real jobs. The truth is that government's capacity to create real jobs is limited - either 500 000 supposedly for last year or 4 million by 2014.
It is the private sector which is the engine room in this regard, yet it is looked upon with suspicion by this government and threats of nationalisation are thrown about. We welcome the President's proposal of a wage subsidy for younger workers, but this is nothing new. Indeed, we, the DA, set out detailed proposals in this regard in 2005 in the Budget debate. Let me read to you Mr Manuel's response to its introduction by me in this House. I quote:
What you are saying is: Give a tax incentive to people to employ others at home. What you're looking for is a colonial mindset. You want to be waited on hand and foot by black people who will carry and fetch and the more you employ the more the state will subsidise that lifestyle. We will not do it for you in our democracy.
Now you go and tell the President that, Minister Manuel. A wage subsidy is an important intervention, but it is, at best, a palliative. We need to grow the economy. To do this, we need increased investment and higher productivity.
However, government is focusing on neither because tripartite unity is the issue of primary importance and giving a strong lead on either of these two key issues would mean confronting the protective trade unions and quashing talk of nationalisation, all of which will threaten tripartite unity.
Mr President, we need leadership. I thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Deputy Speaker, hon President, a primary school child visited Parliament and sat in the gallery. He watched how the Speaker entered the Assembly, nodded to the right, nodded to the left and then asked for a moment of silence for prayer.
Back at school, he wrote an essay about his visit:
The Speaker is as despondent about the future of South Africa as my father is. The Speaker walked in, looked to the right at the ANC government, and shook his head in dejection because he could see that they were not going to solve the country's problems.
Thereafter, full of hope, he looked to his left at the opposition parties, but also became despondent when he saw that there was no hope that they had any solutions. That's when he said the only thing left for this country is prayer; let us pray together.
[Laughter.]
Now, sir, may we never reach that point, where there is no longer any hope or solutions for South Africa's problems.
In his state of the nation address, the President was very precise in his proposals as to how certain problems could be resolved, but also very vague about others. I'll give you an example: The FF Plus welcomes the emphasis on education, and the specific measurable objectives which have been set. The FF Plus would like to add specific objectives for more mother tongue education.
We would also like to congratulate the government on the fact that almost 33 000 fraudulent social grant payments to the value of R180 million have been terminated. It's a small but important step in eradicating large-scale corruption.
The FF Plus welcomes the outcomes-based approach of government; it makes it possible for opposition parties and the public to measure and evaluate the government's success. Many other problems were identified correctly, but the solutions are still very vague.
Volgens meningspeilings is misdaad, en die feit dat Suid-Afrikaners nie meer veilig in hul huise voel nie, een van die ernstigste probleme in die land.
Rooftogte by huise het verlede jaar met 27% toegeneem, en as die syfer oor drie jaar geneem word, is dit 54%. Moord het effens afgeneem, maar die Suid- Afrikaanse moordsyfer is steeds 37 uit elke 100 000 van die bevolking, terwyl die wreldgemiddelde vyf uit 100 000 is. Dit beteken dat 50 mense vandag in Suid-Afrika vermoor gaan word en 50 elke dag vir die res van die jaar.
As daar na moord op plaasboere en hul werkers gekyk word, gaan die syfer op na oor die 200 per 100 000 van die bevolking - ten opsigte van plaasmoorde wat op die wreedste maniere gepleeg word.
As die President dan slegs enkele sinne in sy toespraak aan misdaad wy, beteken dit daar buite dat misdaad nie 'n prioriteit van die regering is nie.
Waarom kan moorde op plase nie as afsonderlike polisie statistiek gegee word nie? Die boerderygemeenskap aanvaar dat die rede is dat plaasmoorde - van wit en swart - nie vir die regering belangrik is nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[According to opinion polls, crime, and the fact that South Africans do not feel safe in their homes anymore, is one of the most serious problems in the country.
House burglaries increased by 27% last year, and when the figures are taken over three years, it is 54%. Murder has decreased slightly, but the murder rate in South Africa is still at 37 per 100 000 of the population, while the average internationally is five per 100 000. This means that 50 people will be murdered in South Africa today and 50 every day for the rest of the year.
When we look at the murder of farmers and their workers, the figure rises to 200 per 100 000 of the population - in respect of farm murders which are perpetrated in the most brutal ways possible.
So when the President devotes only a few sentences in his speech to crime, the perception out there is that crime is not a priority of the government.
Why can't police statistics on farm murders be reported separately? The farming community believes that the reason for this is that farm murders - of white and black - are not important to the government.]
Rural development is rightly one of the priorities of the government. In my contact with farmers throughout the country, they affirm the importance of this and offer their assistance.
For rural development, it is important that especially commercial farmers create more job opportunities. The commercial farmers ask me how one can create more job opportunities and expand one's farm, if, after 15 years, one is still not certain that one will keep one's farm; if one's neighbour is murdered and one is not certain whether one will experience a farm attack at night; if one's children have to be sent to a school 300 km away because the Afrikaans school close by has been closed by the government.
If the Minister of Human Settlements then also comes and falsely accuses farmers of being the main cause of squatter camps, the commercial farmers' offer to help with rural development is then lost, while they have to fight just for their own survival.
Urbanisation is an African phenomenon. Kibera, adjacent to Nairobi, is the largest squatter camp in Kenya, with more than 600 000 people living in an area of four square kilometres. There are no South African farmers there.
How many people have moved from the former Transkei to the Western Cape? How many foreigners from Africa have streamed over our borders and settled in squatter camps? Are farmers also being blamed for that?
Twenty-one African states have already made offers to lure South African farmers to their countries. Even Mr Gaddafi, of Lybia, is promising the sun and the moon. He is promising diesel at 50c a litre and a pipeline to make unlimited amounts of water available. How do I answer these farmers?
The FF Plus welcomes the President's proposal to subsidise the cost of hiring young workers. Does this proposal include all young people or are young white people excluded from this? For what reason can young people who were born after Mr Mandela's release - the so-called "freeborns" - be excluded from this? The black wealthy and middle class is already considerably larger than the white rich and middle class. Affirmative action at present only takes race into consideration and not economic capacity. For what reason should a black millionaire's child be advantaged by these measures, while a poor white child is disadvantaged?
The government is making a mistake if it does not take notice of the growing opposition and polarisation that affirmative action is causing, especially amongst the youth. Read the letters in the newspapers and listen to the debates on university campuses.
Let me read you a part of Selna du Toit's letter, dated 12 January of this year, in the Afrikaans newspaper, Beeld. She writes:
Last year our son completed his matric. He obtained seven distinctions and scored 97% in the Maths paper. He cannot get a bursary to study computer engineering. At this point, there is bitterness in his heart because nobody wants to give him a reasonable chance.
I therefore direct an urgent plea to our government and all those large companies that only give bursaries to students if it will give them points for black empowerment: Rise above this destructive form of intimidation and give bursaries to all deserving students in South Africa. Give everybody hope that there is a future for all in this beautiful country. What answer should I give Selna about her son? When will there be equal opportunities for the young freeborns? And when will we learn not to use the race card when we differ in opinion from someone else?
When Mr Malema differs from Mr Cronin, he calls him a white Messiah. When Mr Jimmy Manyi differs from Mr Godsell concerning the firing of Mr Maroga, he calls Mr Godsell a racist. When Judge Motata differs from the person who testifies against him in his drunken driving case, he calls that person a white racist - even though he does not know him at all.
Why should all 36 university campuses in South Africa be English? When I argue that at least two or three of these campuses should be largely Afrikaans, with white, brown and black South African students, it is labelled as hidden racism by the government spokespeople.
When you host an Afrikaans cultural festival, it is suddenly racist, but a Zulu festival in KwaZulu-Natal is not racist.
Rightly so, Mr Vavi, of all people, says:
The using of the racial card when there really is no racism makes it difficult to combat real racism.
This approach forces the South African population into different camps that oppose one another. The same happens with ill-thought-out name changes.
In his state of the nation address in June last year, the President said:
We will ensure a common national approach to the changing of geographic and place names. This must provide an opportunity to involve all South Africans in forging an inclusive national identity, to deepen our understanding of our history and heritage.
But names changed without this having taken place. The FF Plus understands that all groups' names should be given recognition. But there is a very big difference between a name such as Pampoenfontein, and one like Pretoria. Names such as Pretoria, Potchefstroom, Pietersburg and Piet Retief were named after Afrikaner heroes and carry a lot of Afrikaner history and emotion. Why are these names specifically targeted, if it is not meant to elicit confrontation?
The FF Plus believes that with negotiation guidelines can be developed to manage the sensitivities around these issues. For example, names which offend should be changed; names which have great historical value for a specific group can only be changed in consultation with that group; names cannot be changed after a specific cut-off date etc.
The way name changes are being approached at present will, for the next 20 years, from town to town, cause conflict between communities. It is bad for relations and causes an ever-increasing polarisation between communities.
All kinds of compromises are possible, with examples worldwide where towns have double-barrelled names and where both heroes and traitors are acknowledged because they are part of history. For example, in London, at the one end of Whitehall, you will find a statue of Charles I, the king who was beheaded; at the other end of Whitehall you will find a monument to the man who did it, Cromwell. Cromwell stands in front of the parliament which he disbanded.
Sir, remember, you have not converted a man because you have silenced him or tried to wipe out his history.
The previous government - and here is a lesson I learnt - could not change Mr Mandela's views with his incarceration. In the same way, no part of the South African population can be bullied into nation-building. If they feel accommodated it will be easy and there will be a lot of co-operation. Nation-building is always a voluntary process. Let's try to achieve this. Thank you very much. [Applause.]