I think hon Mabe will be speaking as well, so ...
Without derogating from the constitutional independence of the FFC, we find this proposal particularly problematic. Budget decisions in all modern democracies are intensely politically driven. The macroeconomic assumptions so vital to the construction of the fiscal framework are an integral part of these decisions.
It's quite hard to contemplate what it means to subject its decisions to the scrutiny of independent, competent public authorities, as the FFC suggests, especially since all parties fight elections for the purpose of being able to advance their policy preferences, and the recognition that this would not be possible unless an elected government could decide on the Budget.
The proposal begs the question: What additional information and capacity will such independent, competent public authority have to produce better quality forecasts than government has? Moreover, is government not a public authority elected for this purpose?
Perhaps the view of the FFC is that whilst government might be a public authority, it's not competent to take responsibility for its macroeconomic assumptions. Perhaps the view may exist that whilst government is a public authority, and whilst it may even be competent, economic decisions need to be taken by political eunuchs.
It is possible to give all manner of interpretation to this new proposal from the FFC. It is government's view that this submission is incorrect. I invite this House to support us in rejecting this proposal from the FFC.
On that note, I want to reiterate that the Division of Revenue Bill before this House places us in a better position to do things that we never imagined possible a decade ago. On Friday last week, we launched the second discussion paper on social security and retirement reform at the Nedlac offices in Johannesburg. In it, we set out our thoughts on how we'd like to see the social security system unfold in the period ahead.
I invite members of this House to study these proposals, which can be found on the website of the National Treasury. These proposals are about providing for our people, post-retirement.
Again, we say: Human life has equal worth, and you will find the measure of this in the Division of Revenue Bill that serves before this House. Thank you very much. [Applause.]