Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you, Minister, and your two deputies. You have actually grown in this department from being the chairperson of the portfolio committee to the deputy, and now the Minister. Therefore, it means you will just hit the ground running, because you are familiar with this department. I would also want to congratulate Comrade Thandi Tobias, with whom I've worked very well in Public Works. I know she's a hard worker.
Nearly R3,5 billion is going to be spent by the department on enterprise organisation and R1,3 billion on empowerment and enterprise development. What has our economy achieved over the years of government intervention through supply-side measures such as cash payments, cost-sharing grants and tax allowances supported by the enterprise organisation programme? What sort of long-lasting investment have we achieved, year on year? How many sustainable enterprises were developed in the past decade? What kind of competitiveness was realised? What kind of new, lasting export opportunities were developed in the past few years, Minister?
I ask these questions because we need to see cumulative growth in manufactured outputs as a result of these massive investments government is making year after year. As Tseko Nell points out in the Cape Times of a few days ago, and I quote:
Our balance of trade and current accounts tell a story of a nation of consumers of imported high-value-added goods, rather than producers of goods and services to supply our own demands as well as those of our neighbours. The recent economic growth trend of about 5% a year was on the back of growth in consumption expenditure of households, rather than increased productive capacity.
Indeed, our economy has become a mechanised service sector economy depending on distribution of the heavy imports made from the East. Year after year our manufacturing output has continued to decline. South Africa, which was once an industrial giant on the continent, has now become a shadow of its former self. In another fifteen years we may have very little industrial capacity left. That's a very frightening thought. Unfortunately, that's the direction in which we are going.
This is ironic. At that very moment when we became an integral part of Africa in 1994, we started to slide as a centre of industrial output, whereas Russia, China and India are massively increasing South-South trade among themselves. Did we manage with our new-found solidarity with Africa to increase our vertical South-North trade so as to link Cape to Cairo in a highly developed and fully integrated Africa-wide market?
Brazil, Russia, India and China formally agreed to co-operate closely and position themselves strategically on the global economic scene. This bloc, known as BRIC, is even now extremely active in Africa. Where is South Africa in Africa? How did we position ourselves strategically on the African economic scene?
In respect of enterprise organisation, this honourable House needs a 10- year quantification of, one, new enterprises developed; two, the number of new and sustainable jobs created; three, the extent of regional and continental economic development achieved; four, new export markets developed for South African-manufactured goods; five, the number of raw material beneficiation enterprises set up; six, new long-term investments procured, and lastly, the number of formal trade agreements signed with African countries.
From what I can make out, the department is running on the spot. It seems to be spending much of the resources meant for new enterprise development on supporting individual exhibitions, primary market research and what it calls "inward missions". These are all a type of soft, teddy-bear endeavour. There is nothing that is hard and robust. It is sprinkling sugar for the bees to gather rather than planting flowers to attract them naturally so that they can make honey.
Cope suggests that enterprise organisation be subjected to intense scrutiny. A balance sheet needs to be produced to show whether there has been any big "bang for our bucks", as the Minister of Finance is requiring. In all likelihood it would have been more advantageous for our economy if government had spent much more money on starting new enterprises and then sold them off to private enterprises at an early stage for them to develop them further. Development of facilities, for example, for the production of alternative, environmentally friendly energy and the beneficiation of our ores and minerals would have been better investments for us and our children. The money spent would have yielded assets, growth and sustainable jobs.
Incentive programmes, such as those run by the department, are generally self-serving. They rarely exist much beyond the period of the grants. Reports of government over the past decade speak of incentives for take-up by so-called "targeted enterprise". How have these targeted enterprises flourished; what percentage of growth have these enterprises shown; what has been their export contribution; and how many sustainable jobs did they create?
Let me turn to the empowerment of enterprise development. This is another very fine-sounding phrase. This departmental programme has been employing strategies, firstly, to create an enabling environment for small, micro and medium enterprises; secondly, to enhance the competitiveness of local and provincial economies; and lastly, to achieve inclusive shared equity, growth and job creation. The language employed is still that of wishes rather than results, outputs and achievement.
Chairperson, I would like the Minister to take seriously the issue of provincial development agencies, where many of them such as Wesgro, the ECDC and others have funds that are sitting idle and perhaps are supposed to be creating more jobs.
The other issue to take seriously is that the President mentioned in his state of the nation address that we need to look into procurement locally. If we as government, as it is happening in the Free State, are not paying the suppliers in time, how many jobs have we lost in that situation? Because it is we, as government, who are supposed to be the first to see to it that jobs are actually created and kept.
A bold step is needed in that sphere to make sure that when the President speaks, action is taken if that is not already in position.
It is of grave concern that there is no clear line of differentiation between the three Ministries of Trade and Industry, Economic Development and the National Planning Commission. We need to be clear on the lines between those three departments in order for us to be prepared to face the challenges in all these departments. I thank you.