Agb Voorsitter, ek het oor die jare heen al na baie begrotings in di Raad geluister. Dis min dat 'n Minister so kan geld uitdeel aan departemente en aan maatskaplike toelaes sonder om ingrypend aan die ander kant belastings hoef te verhoog. Tog het die agb Minister met di begroting dit reggekry.
Ek het dit dus in mediareaksie dan ook as 'n goeienuus-begroting beskryf. Die Minister was in 'n posisie om verskeie toegewings te maak, wat ek glo in die langer termyn bewys sal lewer en sal wys dat dit goed was vir die ekonomie. Verskeie jare reeds argumenteer die VF Plus aangaande die belasting op aftreefondse en ons verwelkom dit dat die Minister wel die belasting op aftreefondse verlaag het. Die 9% gaan die staat R2,4 miljard kos.
Die vraag is of met so 'n klein verlies aan die staat se kant, die Minister nie maar die belasting kon afgeskaf het nie. Dieselfde geld vir boedelbelasting. As gevolg van die styging in huispryse loop 'n middelklasfamilie nou die risiko dat die waardasie van hul huis so gestyg het dat hulle die huis sal moet verkoop vir boedelbelasting sou die broodwinner skielik sterf. Dit was tog sekerlik nooit die bedoeling met boedelbelasting gewees nie. Hierdie saak sal jaarliks dopgehou moet word om te voorkom dat ons weer in so 'n situasie beland. Die Minister weet dat die landbousektor tans groot ekonomiese probleme ondervind. Hul gevoel is dat di regering nie werklik begrip of simpatie met hul situasie het nie, en dat die begroting - met soveel geld beskikbaar - dit vir hulle makliker kon gemaak het. Kom ek gee vir u een voorbeeld: ons raak gewoond aan die jaarlikse verhoging van die sogenaamde sondebelasting, dis dinge soos tabak en alkoholiese drank; die persentasies is meestal meer as inflasie. Volgens ons berekeninge kry die regering tans meer inkomste uit 'n bottel wyn as wat die boer as produsent kry.
Die deurlopende ho verhoging van di belasting kan hierdie bedryf in byvoorbeeld die Noord-Kaap, waarvan ek kennis het, permanente skade aanrig. Elke jaar word na die agb leier, mnr Buthelezi gekyk - di kant toe - en dan word daar aangekondig dat tradisionele bier uitgelaat word en geen verhoging sal kry nie. Ek dink die Minister skuld die wynbedryf een jaar ook so 'n kyk om hulle dan ook 'n jaar vry te skeld.
Omdat dienslewering dikwels op provinsiale en plaaslike vlak vashaak, hoor ek regeringsgeluide om die probleme op te los deur van hierdie magte nasionaal te sentraliseer. Dis 'n normale reaksie om te s, "Kom ons beheer dit, dit word nie dr goed gedoen nie." Ongelukkig het ek nie in my toespraak tyd om volledig daaroor te argumenteer nie, maar die VF Plus glo regtig dis 'n fout om as gevolg van huidige probleme die hele beginsel van die afwenteling van mag na sentrale mag te vernietig. Tussentydse oplossings is moontlik om probleme, waar daar gesentreer is, aan te spreek. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER: Hon Chairperson, I have listened to many budgets in this Council over the years. It is seldom that a Minister can distribute money to departments and in the form of social grants in this manner without having to increase taxation drastically on the other hand. Nonetheless, the hon Minister has managed to do so with this budget.
In my response to the media, I accordingly described it as a good-news budget. The Minister was in a position to make various concessions, which I believe will prove and will show that they were good for the economy in the longer term. The FF Plus has been arguing for many years already about the taxation on retirement funds and we welcome the fact that the Minister has indeed decreased the taxation on retirement funds. The 9% is going to cost the state R2,4 billion.
The question is whether, with such a small loss on the side of the state, the Minister could not just have abolished the tax. The same applies to estate duty. As a result of the increase in house prices a middle-class family now runs the risk that the valuation of their house might have increased to such an extent that they would have to sell the house for the purposes of estate duty if the breadwinner were to die suddenly. That is surely not what was intended by estate duty. This matter will have to be monitored annually to prevent us from finding ourselves in such a situation again.
The Minister knows that the agricultural sector is experiencing serious economic problems at present. They feel that this government does not really have an understanding of or sympathy with their situation, and that the budget - with so much money available - could have made it easier for them. Let me give you one example: we are getting used to the annual increase of the so-called "sin tax", namely things such as tobacco and alcoholic beverages; the percentages are, more often than not, higher than inflation. According to our calculations the government is at present getting more revenue from a bottle of wine than the farmer as producer receives.
The continuous high increase in this taxation can cause permanent damage to this industry in, for example, the Northern Cape, of which I have knowledge. Every year a glance is directed the hon leader, Mr Buthelezi - in this direction - and then an announcement is made that traditional beer is to be exempted and will not be subject to an increase. I think that the Minister owes it to the wine industry to look at it in the same way one year and then also to exempt it for a year.
Because service delivery is often problematic at provincial and local level, I can hear sounds from the government's side to the effect that the problems can be solved by centralising these powers nationally. It is a normal reaction to say, "Let us control this, it is not being done well there". Unfortunately, I do not have time in my speech to elaborate on this in full, but the FF Plus truly believes that it is a mistake to destroy the whole principle of the devolution of power and resort to central power and as a result of present problems. Interim solutions are possible to address problems where centralisation has taken place.]
The irony is that government must still have the voting power behind it, but the question is: How much doing power does it have? A well-known political analyst put it in this way:
The lack of capabilities is not restricted to one or two sectors of the Public Service, but impacts on most of the government departments. The Department of Finance and SARS are among the very few where an efficient job is still being done.
And that is a compliment for the Minister.
So, the question is, as government functions decline the private sector is taking over these functions and we have the privatisation of government functions, is that good or bad? Let me give you one example. By the end of 2005, there were 300 000 private security guards in comparison to 148 police officers. Do we want to see this trend continuing? Is that the best way or not? I would like to think that we can debate that as well as the centralisation of more power. I thank you.