Madam Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment. As a fellow South Coast citizen, it's good to see you sitting right up there, looking down upon us.
The two Bills being debated translate the tax proposals made by the Minister of Finance in his 2008-09 Budget into law. As a general observation, I would like to comment on the role of the finance committee in processing these Bills. The committee created an opportunity for public experts to make submissions for our consideration, which were then carefully scrutinised by members and officials from the National Treasury and Sars. This was a very thorough process and I do not think that any interest group that had made submissions could fault it. Our chairperson, the hon Nene, deserves praise for this phase of public consultation.
I must also mention the positive and professional role played by Treasury and Sars officials who briefed us and commented in great detail on proposals contained in the public submissions. While they, of course, had their instructions, they tried their best to be accommodating and, in many instances, accepted the public advice and our recommendations.
The IFP will support these Bills, but I just want to make reference to a few of the provisions in the Bill. The business incentives related to the acceleration of urban development, the simplified 5% depreciation regime for residential housing units, and, more importantly, the accelerated 10% depreciation regime for low-cost housing are welcome. Any tax regime to promote housing development must be supported.
Secondly, the incentives and the VAT zero-rate for land purchases for reform purposes - I think the Deputy Minister will be happy - lessen costs associated with land reform and should make more land and money available to previously disadvantaged farmers.
We support the amendment dealing with preretirement withdrawal benefits. But, Hon Minister, initially we welcomed the original proposal exempting life insurance from estate duty. But there were subsequent amendments, and this is now being removed. We do hope that this will remain on the agenda and that one could possibly look at a cleaner way of increasing the threshold in the future because at the death of an income provider, a surviving spouse and dependent children rely on these savings to alleviate poverty. We should consider these beneficiaries. Thank you. [Time expired.]