Date: 04/05/2010
Source: The Democratic Alliance
Title: DA: van der Westhuizen: Speech by DA Member of Parliament on Trade and Industry budget vote, National Assembly

The eradication of poverty is one of the most significant challenges facing South Africa. It is only a vibrant and growing private sector that can grow the economy and create wealth. And economic growth is, in turn, closely related to the core issues of this department.

Withdrawing money from the economic cycle in the form of taxes and levies, to fund government, including the funding of this department, is something that limits economic growth. It is therefore of utmost importance that we should be asking ourselves critical questions. Questions such as whether the performance of this Department is really in support of what the economy needs.

The proposed budget, that we are debating today, is much smaller than that of the current year. It is smaller, even if one takes into account that some of the functions and entities of the Department of Trade and Industry are about to be transferred with their budgets to the new Economic Development Department. This budget cut is a good start and opens the door to a serious review of the productivity and success rate of the Department of Trade and Industry. The department is not doing well when measured against the five strategic objectives that it has set for itself. One seldom hears nowadays of AsgiSA (the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa), which was its first strategic objective. The focus may still be on employment creation - its second stated objective - but with 850 000 jobs being lost during the last year, the department also cannot claim success here either.

Its third objective was to raise the level of exports and the promotion of global trade. In this regard the department has also slipped. Even in the 1980s, when sanctions were the order of the day, South Africa's exports grew faster than over the last few years. And our share of the world export trade has been slipping from 2% sixty years ago, to 0,5% in recent years. The Department's fourth strategic objective was to promote broader participation, equity and redress in the economy. Although this is difficult to prove statistically, it is generally accepted that we have not done too well on that count either. The fifth and last objective is to contribute to Africa's development and regional integration within Nepad. It seems as if the government has also abandoned this ideal, as one nowadays seldom hears ministers referring to Nepad initiatives. So we are looking at a department that is seriously in need of new objectives, having failed at its previous ones.

The "buzz" word or term in government is presently "monitoring and evaluation". "Monitoring and evaluation" cannot replace good governance and good management principles. I therefore want to highlight a number of management issues that should be put under the spotlight in the coming year.
The management of staff, including the filling of posts, remains a problem. There can be no defence for a department that is running with 17% of its approved posts being vacant. Secondly I believe that the performance of some divisions is seriously below par. This is seen in the lack of speed with which some processes are dealt with.

To mention just two recent examples of delays that have been harmful to the economy. During November last year the Honorable Minister signed an agreement with his Zimbabwean counterpart. As is customary, this agreement will only come into effect once both parliaments have ratified the agreement. Our Zimbabwean counterparts, despite their enormous problems and internal strife, have already done so. Why has the Department not yet sent this agreement through to the speaker of the National Assembly to put this on parliament's agenda?

A second example. Grain SA submitted an application for a revised import tariff on wheat in October last year. It took ITAC (the International Trade Administration Commission) more than six months to consider this application and to announce the revised tariff. As is so often the case, it will probably prove to be a case of "too little, too late" for this agricultural season. Again, Departmental delays have failed the economy.

Service standards at Cipro, the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office, have deteriorated over the last year. But the most significant damage was caused by the failure of senior officials in the department to act when allegations of the corruption at Cipro were first raised.

People who alleged that their bosses were involved in corrupt activities, were harassed or suspended or had their contracts terminated. The department can expect substantial financial claims for damages in this regard.

Delays in the registration of company names and business entities, and departments not reaching its objectives, are bad for the economy. But these are almost negligible when one considers the damage that corruption has done to some emerging economies in the world. Of cause, there is no place for corruption in the DA's vision of an "open opportunity society".

Which brings me back to my original question: Is the performance of this Department really in support of what the South African economy needs?