Voorsitter, die Minister van Finansies het oor tyd 'n reputasie opgebou vir 'n redelike geloofwaardige mediumtermyn- begrotingsbeleidsverklaring, MTBPS. Behalwe vir die aanvullende begrotings, is die belangrikste sekerlik die aanduiding van beleidsaanslagte wat impakteer op die Begrotingsrede in Februarie, maar ook die effek op die geloofwaardigheid en aanvaardiging daarvan deur beleggers binne en buite Suid-Afrika.
Ons ekonomiese herstel- en groeipotensiaal is positief, maar baie kwesbaar. Volgehoue ekonomiese herstel hang af van, onder andere, die skepping van volhoubare en netto werksgeleenthede, en die aantrekking van buitelandse beleggings, veral vaste kapitaalbeleggings. Tans het ons genoegsame portefeulje en institusionele beleggings om ons handelstekort te befonds, maar dit skep nie noodwendig werk nie, en dis korttermyn en baie vloeibaar van aard.
'n Negatiewe impak op beleggersvertroue en sentiment kan hierdie fondse oornag laat onttrek, wat ons ekonomie en sy herstel broos en kwesbaar sal laat. Gelukkig het ons 'n omgewing van geloofwaardige beleggings, banke en finansile sektore, en bied ons kompeterende rele opbrengste. Dit benvloed ongelukkig die sterkte van die rand disproporsioneel, wat uitvoere en werkskepping in die geaffekteerde sektore ontmoedig.
Hoewel die Minister positiewe aankondigings gemaak het, is daar kommer wanneer dit ontleed word, en ek raak enkeles aan. Eerstens, die skep van die addisionele vyf miljoen netto volhoubare werksgeleenthede teen 2020, wat net so uit die ambisieuse nuwe ekonomiese groeipad ontleen is, is nie realisties nie. In u eie woorde, Minister, het ons 'n bruto binnelandse produk, BBP, groeikoers van 7% per jaar nodig om 5,5 miljoen poste te skep, hoewel u beleidsverklaring 'n groei van 4,4% teen 2013 voorsien en nadat daar, sedert 1994, slegs sowat vier miljoen poste geskep is. Hoe gaan die vyf miljoen poste geskep word, Minister? Nie net u verklarings nie, maar ook die nuwe ekonomiese groeipad, is uiters vaag hieroor.
Tweedens, ons het kennis geneem van die Aksieplan vir Nywerheidsbeleid, Ipap, en sy groeidoelwitte, veral ten opsigte van die groen- en agrinywerhede, die bevordering van 'n uitvoerklimaat, nywerheidsontwikkeling, die bevordering van plaaslike inhoud, ensovoorts. Die struikelblokke vir die privaatsektor om ekonomiese groei te ontsluit en aggressief werk te skep, is egter legio. Ons nywerheidsektore is nie kompeterend genoeg teenoor ander ekonomie nie, soos byvoorbeeld di van Brasili, Rusland, Indi, China, Bric-lande, met wie ons wil assosieer nie. Ons vergelykbare produktiwiteitsvlakke is ook te swak.
Derdens, beleggers en die privaatsektor wil werk skep, maar dan moet 'n omgewing deur die staat geskep word om dit te bevorder. Minister, ons sal aansporings- en ondersteuningspakkette moet saamstel, wat die globale kompeteerbaarheid van ons ondernemings moet verbeter. Met inbegrip van die rels van die Wreldhandelsorganisasie, is dit nodig om soortgelyke en kreatiewe oorsese subsidies en aansporingsmaatrels teen te werk. Indien daar nie voordele vir ondernemers is nie, sal werk nie geskep en die ekonomie nie ontwikkel word nie. Vennootskappe tussen die staat en die privaatsektor moet hier 'n poging wees waaruit almal kan baat.
Vierdens, die huidige arbeidsregime is egter nie bevorderlik vir werkskepping nie, en daarom is nuwe en kreatiewe benaderings nodig 'n Nuwe beleid ten opsigte van nywerheidsontwikkeling sones moet ontwikkel word, om unieke werkskepping en kompeterende nywerheidsontwikkeling hier aan te moedig.
Werkskepping kan die belastingbetalers tot bo 5,5 miljoen verhoog, en die afhanklikes van staatstoelae tot onder 13,8 miljoen verlaag. Dit sal die staat se inkomstes verhoog, en kan lei tot beter toelaes aan die mense wie dit werklik nodig het, insluitend kinders, ouer mense, gestremdes en werkloses. Hulle koopvermo, "self-esteem" [eiewaardigheid] en die algemene verbruikersvertroue sal hierdeur 'n positiewe uitwerking op ekonomiese groei h.
Ten laaste, laat ek 'n diensleweringsakie aanroer wat my na aan die hart l. Uit skakeling met die Nasionale Tesourie en Sars, was dit my persepsie dat die 2009 verandering aan die belastingwet, spesifiek die gedeelte wat op belastingkortings en -aftrekkings aan persone met gestremdhede betrekking het, ten doel gehad het om dit makliker te maak vir beide Sars en die belastingbetalers om regmatige eise te finaliseer, voldoening aan die Sars vereistes te verseker, en vir die staat om sy maatskaplike verantwoordelikheid teenoor hierdie uiters gemarginaliseerde groep na te kom.
Ongelukkig verskil die toepassing deur Sars en ervaring van belastingbetalers dramaties van die bedoeling, uitgespreek in komiteevergaderings. Was die bedoeling nie opreg nie, of het die amptenare eenvoudig nie die kennis en ervaring om dit te implementeer nie?
Ondanks die oortuiging van sekere amptenare, is daar baie belastingsbetalers wat onbillike diskriminasie en vooroordeel oor Sars se toepassings daarvan ervaar. Die ervaring is ook dat daar nie genoeg empatie betoon word nie, en die verskil tussen die hantering van persone met enkel gestremhede teenoor persone met meervoudige, erge gestremdhede, eenvoudig nie verstaan word nie. Ek kan u verseker dit verskil soos nag en dag. Die moontlike probleme van bedrog met personeel en konsultante by Sars, bring nou mee dat alle belastingbetalers met "excessive medical costs" [buitensporige mediese koste] - dis alle gestremdes - deur Sars in 'n brief, as moontlike bedriers uitgemaak word, met die onus op hulle om Sars verkeerd te bewys, sonder enige prima facie-bewyse.
Die lys van toelaatbare aftrekkings word nou gebruik as redes om eise nie toe te staan nie, eerder as om dit as riglyne te gebruik om voldoening te bevorder. Die jagmaak op die mees kwesbare mense as sagte teikens, is eenvoudig onbillike diskriminasie. U word versoek om in te gryp, sodat die oorspronklike bedoelings reg gemplimenteer word. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr S J F MARAIS: Chairperson, The Minister of Finance has over time established a reputation for producing a fairly sound Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, MTBPS. Except for the supplementary budgets, the indication of the impact of policy on the Budget Speech in February must surely be the most significant, but also the impact on the reliability and acceptance thereof by investors within and outside of South Africa.
Our economic recovery and growth potential is positive, but very vulnerable. Sustained economic recovery depends, inter alia, on the creation of sustainable and net job opportunities and the attraction of foreign investments, especially fixed capital investments. Currently we have sufficient portfolio and institutional investments to fund our trade deficit, but this does not necessarily create jobs and it is short-term and of a very fluid nature.
A negative impact on investor confidence and sentiment could result in these funds being withdrawn overnight, which would leave our economy and its recovery fragile and vulnerable. Fortunately we have a reliable investment, banking and financial sector environment and we offer competitive real returns. Unfortunately this influences the strength of the rand disproportionately, which discourages exports and job creation in the affected sectors.
Although the Minister has made positive announcements, there are concerns when these are analysed and I would like to touch on a few. Firstly, the creation of the additional five million net sustainable job opportunities by 2010, which was adopted as is from the ambitious new economic growth path, is not realistic. In your own words, Minister, we will need an annual growth rate of 7% in the gross domestic product, GDP, to create 5,5 million positions, while your policy statement predicts a growth of 4,4% by 2013, and this after only about four million positions have been created since 1994. How will the five million positions be created, Minister? Not only your statements, but also the new economic growth path, is very vague in this regard.
Secondly, we have taken note of the Industrial Policy Action Plan, Ipap, and its growth targets, especially with regard to the green and agro- industries, the promotion of a climate conducive to export, industrial development, the promotion of local content, and so forth. However, the obstacles for the private sector to be able to unlock economic growth and to aggressively create jobs are legion. Our industrial sectors are not competitive enough when compared to other economies, such as those of Brazil, Russia, India, China, Bric countries, with whom we would like to be associated. Our comparative productivity levels are also too low.
Thirdly, investors and the private sector want to create jobs, but then an environment should be created by the state to promote this. Minister, we will have to put together incentive and support packages, which must improve the global competitiveness of our enterprises. While cognisant of the regulations of the World Trade Organisation, it has become necessary to counteract similar and creative subsidies and incentives abroad. If there aren't any advantages for entrepreneurs, jobs will not be created and the economy will not develop. Partnerships between the state and the private sector must, in this instance, be an endeavour from which everyone can benefit.
Fourthly, the existing labour regime is not conducive to job creation, however, and therefore new and creative approaches are required.
A new policy with regard to industrial development zones must be established to encourage unique job opportunities and competitive industrial development in that area.
Job creation can increase the number of taxpayers to more than 5,5 million and those dependent on state grants to less than 13,8 million. This will increase the state's revenue and could result in an improvement in the grants for those people who really need them, including children, elderly people, those with disabilities and the unemployed. In consequence of this, their buying power and self-esteem, and consumer confidence as a whole will positively impact on economic growth.
Finally, let me touch on a service delivery matter that is close to my heart. From interactions with the National Treasury and Sars, it was my perception that the objective of the 2009 amendment to the taxation law, particularly the section pertaining to tax rebates and allowances to persons with disabilities, was to make it easier for both Sars and the taxpayers to expedite lawful claims, ensure compliance with the requirements of Sars, and for the state to fulfil its social responsibility to this very marginalised group.
Unfortunately, the manner in which it is applied by Sars and experienced by taxpayers differs significantly from how it was intended, as expressed in committee meetings. Was the intention not sincere or do the officials simply not have the knowledge and experience to implement it?
In spite of the belief by certain officials, there are many taxpayers who are experiencing unfair discrimination and prejudice because of how Sars has implemented it. The experience is also that there isn't enough empathy displayed, and the difference in the treatment of persons with single disabilities compared to persons with multiple, severe disabilities is simply not understood. I assure you that it differs like night and day.
The possible challenges regarding fraud among staff and consultants at Sars have resulted in all taxpayers with excessive medical costs - thus all of the disabled - being made out to be possible fraudsters in a letter by Sars, with the onus falling on them to prove Sars wrong, without any prima facie evidence.
The admissible deductions listed are now being used as reasons not to approve claims, rather than being used as guidelines to assist with compliance. Hounding after the most vulnerable people, because they are soft targets, is simply unfair discrimination. You are requested to intervene, so that the original intentions are correctly implemented. Thank you. [Applause.]]