Mr Speaker, this complex legislation, like all complex legislation, has good features, less than good features and some features which are less than acceptable. I will limit my comments to echoing a couple of statements made by the hon George.
The first one is that during the process in which we have been involved, we witnessed much rather than participated in it. There was an exchange between highly-paid consultants representing the top layers of the economic system on the one side, and the Treasury on the other. What was lacking within that process was the voice of the common citizen, the voice of the average taxpayer who is carrying the lion's share of the fiscal burden.
So, I think that we endorse the proposal of the Tax Commission which places an emphasis on the representation of ordinary citizens, over and above what we Members of Parliament can provide in what are often extremely technical debates.
The second issue, which needs to be brought about as soon as possible, as the hon George indicated, is the budget office. There is no reason why it should not be there. We have delayed the enactment of legislation which enables us to amend money Bills for many many years. This is a necessary instrument to bring the democratic process to completion and it needs to be done.
The other suggestion, Minister, please, is for a composite text. Tax amendments are pounding one another. We have got bis, tres, quatres, quinques, septes of the sections. I understand that within the Treasury they are actually using a composite text. It would be nice to re-enact the law, because I understand that there are even doubts on what the law is, and there are differences between what Butterworths is publishing and what others are publishing. So, certainty on the tax law this is an imperative.
Another issue, Minister, is that we tried to close loopholes, but I think that a great deal of damage has been done in terms of simplicity. Complexity has been increased. On the issue of the headquarters of foreign companies, for instance, the system has become so hard to understand that we may have created a tax disincentive for foreign companies placing their headquarters in South Africa rather than in Botswana, where they are currently doing it for no other reason than the fact that the tax system is simpler.
Personally speaking, carbon tax is not something we can endorse. There is no proven connection between a carbon tax and its positive effect in redressing the terrible situation of global warming and climate change. So, in the end, the carbon tax is another luxury tax by a different name and will be remembered amongst taxes like the window taxes in England.
The fuel levy is a regressive form of taxation, and I will leave the rest for another day. Thank you. [Time expired.]