Chairperson, firstly, let me thank all of the colleagues on both sides of the House for the spirited debate.
As the hon Luyenge was rounding up and started talking about a better life and what we, as the ANC, have done, it reminded me of a day just over 19 years ago when I first entered this Chamber as a member of the Transitional Executive Council. I sat up there looking at a very different House. Nobody of your colour was around at that time. [Interjections.] We were here to witness the passing of the Electoral Amendment Bill, I think, and the Independent Media Commission Bill, all of which were necessary in order to smooth the way to creating the conditions for the first democratic elections on 27 April 1994. Now, nobody on either side of the House can say that we have not travelled well since that day in 1994. [Applause.] Nobody can say that South Africa has not become a much better place for its 50 million people since then, whatever our differences. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
So, it is in that spirit ... [Interjections.] You know, it is interesting to hear different members on both sides of the House refer to a six-pack that is going to stand us in good stead - which we as the ANC have no problem agreeing with. It is something that we need to strive for. We have no problems with the sentiment which says we need to sink or swim together, and we want to swim, not sink, because we have a huge responsibility to 50 million South Africans to make sure they swim.
We also agree with the sentiment by the hon Swart, which says let us call on those in the mining industry to reach an agreement that is affordable to all so that all of them can lead a sustainable life. We can agree with the sentiment that says let us deal with municipalities on an apolitical basis, so that they actually do serve the citizens that they were elected to serve.
We have no problem with the hon James - he actually belongs on this side of the House, by the way - when he said let us share in austerity; let us share in saving; and let us share in attracting investors to this country, because all of our futures will be much better if we can speak with one voice on those issues, rather than waste seven, eight, nine minutes talking about one topic. An immense amount of time must have gone into the calculator to calculate the hours and days, etc, to score a simple political point, rather than focus on the big issues of the day, which will help us to take this country forward. [Interjections.]
So, it is true that sentiment and perceptions do matter. I spent weeks overseas recently, talking to investors and interested people of all kinds, who have an interest in South Africa, either because they have billions of dollars invested here, or would like to invest in South Africa because they understand that South Africa has the biggest economy on the African continent and South Africa, with the sophisticated business infrastructure that it has, is the best place to come to.
Now, we need to make up our minds on both sides of the House as to how we contribute to a positive sentiment. How do we contribute to positive perceptions? How do we contribute to the constructive narrative that South Africa is a good place to come to; South Africa is open for business; and that, despite our political differences, we are interested in advancing the country, not just narrow political interests? That is something that I think all of us need to talk a lot more about and ensure that in fighting our very many, very, very minor political battles in the overall scheme of things, we are not actually uttering public statements and not engaging in disruptive activity in the mining sector, or any other sector. It is not just the labour unions that we must keep pointing to. All sides must take responsibility to ensure that they create the right climate for this affordable-for-all solution that we are actually looking for.
On the question of growth, the serious challenge which all of us are talking about, is, on the one hand, yes, how we get the confidence and the investment; but on the other hand, there are two things that we need. Firstly, we need to ignite growth in the short term, whilst many of our plans will probably materialise in the medium term.
Secondly, we do require a new energy from below, from amongst our people, where our masses become energised; where they become innovative; where they become entrepreneurial; where we, as institutions, create the conditions, not to haggle in Parliament, but to create concrete conditions on the ground for them to actually advance their futures. Again, that is something that we need to talk about, as well.
When we talk about jobs, we talk about it fairly glibly. Do you know that 70% of the South African economy is the private sector in South Africa? If we are to get jobs, we must get investment in our economy, investment in creating new enterprises, because we have fewer enterprises than we actually need in South Africa. Some of that is related to our past, so let us not deny the past. Some of it is related to what we do not do adequately now. So, let us admit that also. [Interjections.] The more important thing, however, is not to focus on our negatives. Let us focus on exactly what it is that we need to do together in order to create a very different climate to energise people on the ground. [Interjections.]
The hon Mr van Rooyen from the ANC is obviously on the side of the majority in this House, and when he gives you an undertaking that something is going to happen in relation to the youth employment incentive, take his guarantee at his word and let us see where we get. To make this whole debate a single- issue debate, however, is a regrettable practice that does not get one anywhere at the end of the day. We agree that more needs to be done on small business and to reduce compliance costs, and much is being done in this regard by many people in government.
The hon Ross, I think, in terms of the 150%, as the Deputy Minister pointed out, we just need to help you to check that number. Our current debt is at 40%. If you consolidate all of our debt, it still does not reach 60%. Clearly, there is pressure on the currency at the moment. I think the response of the markets is a bit of an over-reaction, but there is no doubt that sentiment is dragging some of these issues. Therefore, all of us, like I said before, need to take the trouble to manage our utterances in a way in which we contribute positively to these sentiments. The hon Koornhof, I think your six-pack is an excellent concept, of course, except that the hon Singh is waiting for the wrong kind of six-pack after this debate! [Laughter.] There is just one correction, hon Singh. You referred to underspending on civil pensions. This is, in fact, a saving, and the saving is due to the fact that pensioners who were entitled to post- retirement medical benefits were moved to the Government Employees Medical Scheme, Gems, which is a cheaper option for them. So, I hope that information helps you.
The hon James is not here. Much of his analysis might well be correct, but the key issue is not about who stands where. Politics is often a confusing and contentious business and there are many different views, even within the left-hand side of this House, and many variations of ideology there. So, they cannot all say they come from the same background. We know some of them very well and we know where they come from. The key is how we focus on the main issues of the day and how we ensure we get enough consensus, but more importantly, action to move forward.
The hon Alberts, hyperbole is often the resort of the bankrupters, they say. I do not understand where this pyramid scheme is. I do not understand when you say this is not government's money. All governments in the world, as long as there have been democracies and taxation, get their monies from the taxes that people pay. The only question is how they account for that money and how that money is spent. It is never government's money at the end of the day. So, perhaps we need to do some public finance education in this regard, as well. [Interjections.]
Educate President Zuma! What about Nkandla? [Interjections.]
Hon Minister, I am sorry. Heckling is fine, hon members; shouting is not permissible, please. Thank you, continue.
We can talk afterwards. [Interjections.] We do not get intimidated easily. We have been through much worse than that, hon member.
The hon Greyling, regarding your point about 7% to 10%, we would agree with that ambition. It is a question of getting there and finding the resources, but more importantly, making the shift - as we have said repeatedly - making the shift from consumption to investment. As government and as the public, we need to work harder at that. With great respect, you are a bit too glib on public-private partnerships, PPPs, and how they work. The ANC- led government has actually implemented PPPs in many parts of the country, but regrettably, it is in the Western Cape that more recently you opposed a PPP in respect of this proposed toll road. So, perhaps you are having some ideological difficulties in there. [Interjections.]
Finally, let me thank the hon Mufamadi and De Beer and their committee for the excellent processing of our Budget Vote; the Deputy Minister, the director-general, the acting commissioner of Sars and the head of the Financial Intelligence Centre, FIC, for all their contributions. Let me repeat what the hon Luyenge said: It is the ANC that will guarantee a better life for all. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.