2023 Revised Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals
Finance Standing Committee
14 November 2023
Chairperson: Mr J Maswanganyi (ANC) and Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KZN)
Meeting Summary
2023 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS)
In a joint virtual meeting, the Standing Committee on Finance and Select Committee on Finance considered and adopted the Committee Reports on the revised Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals. The meeting began with a presentation of the 2023 Draft Revised Fiscal Framework report. Members raised concerns about the late distribution of the 51-page report, emphasising the need for more time to review its technical content. Discussions ensued on comparing South Africa's economy with BRICS countries, with differing opinions on inclusion. The Chairperson agreed to revise the comparison in the report. Concerns were raised about the use of the term "reform" in discussing energy and logistics improvements. Members suggested finding a less controversial term or leaving it unchanged.
There was a proposal to increase tax incentives for renewable energy to encourage private individuals to adopt alternative solutions. A suggestion was made to move specific energy and logistics issues to relevant sub-sections in the report for better organisation. The Chairperson highlighted the impact of budget cuts on health and education, expressing the need for future discussions with the National Treasury.
Concerns were raised about the lack of clarity in certain sections, and there was a push for stronger wording to address issues. The need for a nuanced approach to revenue shortfalls was emphasised, focusing on stimulating the economy rather than tax increases.
Section 7.15 sought clarification on adaptive economic strategies, and a recommendation was made for more specific language. Discussion shifted to the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP) rather than introducing new strategies.
The issue of taking responsibility for financial challenges was brought up, suggesting acknowledgement of decisions that could have been made differently. The focus shifted away from blaming public servants to addressing corruption impacting service delivery.
Concerns about the wording in the recommendation anticipating tax measures in section 7.20 were discussed, with a suggestion for a more specific approach without implying a tax increase. Careful wording was emphasised to avoid causing panic in society.
In section 7.22, a proposal was made to re-evaluate the wording of value-added tax (VAT), with consideration of past formulations for guidance.
Discussions ensued about concerns related to debt-service costs in section 7.27, and there was a call for stronger wording to highlight the severity of the issue, to be addressed in the recommendations section.
In section 7.28, a recommendation was made to emphasise the decline in the percentage of GDP devoted to expenditure as a concern, which was agreed upon.
The inclusion of section 7.29 was debated, with a suggestion for rephrasing to focus on corruption diverting funds from service delivery rather than placing blame on public servants. However, there were differing opinions on its retention, with the majority favouring its removal for a more constructive discussion.
Throughout the meeting, diverse perspectives emerged among the Members, and the Chairperson sought to find common ground in formulating the final report.
It was emphasised that the current discussion was not about the actual budget but rather a meeting to test agreed-upon discussions. The budget, which contained a substantial bailout for SOEs, had already been tabled in February 2023 and would be presented again in February 2024. There was confusion about the request for new data when data from February 2023 already existed.
Section 7.29, addressing issues related to Eskom, faced disagreement among Members. Emphasis was placed on the need for well-crafted recommendations that considered all issues related to the wage bill, while another Member focused on questioning whether the public sector wage bill was disproportionately affected.
One Member expressed concerns about Eskom receiving further bailouts, referring to statements made by National Treasury. The discussion touched on wealth taxes, the need for revenue increase, and the challenges of administering certain taxes.
The debate continued on various sections, including 7.30, where a proposal was made to recommend that National Treasury take greater responsibility for expenditure quality. Issues of debt sustainability, oversight of IMF and World Bank loans, and gender-responsive budgeting were also discussed.
Tensions arose over the increase in political party funding, with Members expressing dissatisfaction. It was suggested the Department of Home Affairs be engaged for clarity on the allocation to political parties and independent candidates.
Ultimately, the report was adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, but some Members rejected it. The Select Committee on Finance also voted in favour of the report, with the DA, EFF, and FF+ expressing their non-support.
Meeting report
2023 Revised and Proposed Fiscal Framework
Chairperson Maswangani moved straight to item seven of the Committees’ observations and recommendations. The Committees would move from item to item until the end. If a Member wanted to raise an issue on an item, they would need to raise their hand.
Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) thanked the Chairperson and said his observation was not specific. Mondays were constituency days and were used for Members to travel to Parliament. This was a 51-page report of a very technical nature, with 15 pages of observations and recommendations. Distributing the report at 5pm on a Monday, when there was a meeting on a Tuesday, did not give the Committees sufficient time to digest the report. In the past, he jumped through hoops to facilitate meetings where these things happened on holidays in the week. He believed doing this to the Committees on a Tuesday morning was grossly inappropriate. He did not believe any of the Members did the report justice. It was a general comment. His Chairperson knew what he was going to say long before he said it. Realistically, sending the report so late was inappropriate and bad for democracy.
Mr W Aucamp (DA, Northern Cape) fully supported Mr Ryder. He asked for the writing to be a little bigger so that the Members could read properly while going through the report.
Ms P Abraham (ANC) added the ANC’s voice to the issue of timing for the completion of the report so that Members had enough time to go through the report. The Members needed at least one or two days before the meeting. This allowed them to process the issues raised, not only for the Committees, but their different caucuses. The issue of time needed to be considered. The modus operandi of how things were done needed to change.
Chairperson Carrim said the Members were right. This issue has been ongoing since 2014. He only received the report before taking his flight from Pietermaritzburg to Johannesburg and could only send his comments afterwards. The Committees’ staff worked very hard and received endless submissions. They were asked to summarise these reports on a Friday afternoon. Somebody had to take responsibility for the first draft, then others had to comment. It was an elaborate process. The amount of work done by the staff needed to be acknowledged. Although the Members may not agree with some of the content, he asked them to look at the quality of the writing. It was first-class, and the word choice and sentence construction were a delight to read. The Committees had been through this before. Instead of waiting for National Treasury to reply on Friday, he suggested meeting on a Thursday, even after the House rose. The meeting could be with National Treasury and stakeholders. The staff could work on the report on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The report could be sent to the two Chairpersons by Sunday afternoon for commentary in the recommendations section. The reports could be sent out by Sunday night instead of Monday night. He made this suggestion before, but it was not acted on. The comments made by the Members were right.
Mr M Manyi (EFF) said he was covered by everyone who spoke thus far. He said Mr Carrim made sense. As a collective, he hoped the Members could adopt his recommendations to rectify the situation. As a general comment on the observations and recommendations, he checked whether the Committees were in a position to give directives – for example, on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans, if they recommended that there had to be more transparency on the fine print in the future. It was just a recommendation, and whether it would happen was another story. In that instance, it should have been a directive. Does Parliament not have the power to direct the way things should happen? If Committees made a recommendation, they were at the mercy of the Executive to decide whether or not to adopt that directive. Alternatively, if the Committees were not in the position to issue directives, then it should say that, if the recommendation was not acceded to, there should be reasons given for not doing it. To make recommendations and hope for the best was not progressive. He did not know how the matter would be dealt with. It was also specific to the issue of IMF. One of the recommendations was for more transparency on the World Bank loans. He was not happy with the current formulation of simply making recommendations.
Chairperson Maswangani said the Committees made recommendations to the House, and not the Executive. Parliament made decisions in this regard. The recommendations were being made by Committees. The moment the National Assembly adopted the report, it became the report of Parliament. It became a decision, which was taken by the National Assembly. On the other side of the Select Committee, the decision was taken by the House of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The Committees made recommendations to the House, not National Treasury or the Executive.
On the issue of processing the report, he agreed with Chairperson Carrim. It was a question of programming, which made life difficult. The Minister of Finance approached the Speaker and agreed on which dates the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) would be tabled. The Speaker then scheduled the item for a specific day. Once the Minister tabled the MTBPS, it was consequential to how the programme would be followed. The Committees did not have control of the programme. It was a briefing by the Minister, then public hearings, then National Treasury briefings, and then tabling the report to Parliament. This was how it was programmed. This was also how the Programming Committee did things. He suggested meeting with the Chairpersons to look at the possibility of approaching the Programming Committee to probe briefing space in between. In the future, when the programming is done, Members should be given more days to study the report. The programming had been this way since he joined the Committee. This was how Parliament programmed finance matters. The Committees then handed over to the Select Committee on Appropriations, which also had to work under extreme pressure. Before the House rose, the Appropriation Bill had to be adopted by Parliament. This was the difficulty. It would have to be looked at by the Chairpersons to see how they could engage the Programming Committee for future reference.
Members moved on to looking at the content of the report.
On 7.4, Ms Abraham said that a concern was being raised about the comparison of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS). Members agreed that the South African economy could not be compared to China’s economic performance. Therefore, the Committees could observe the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) in comparison to the sub-Saharan region. It was not fair to compare South Africa’s economy with other BRICS countries. This could not be accepted. That particular clause could be rephrased to exclude BRICS countries.
Chairperson Maswangani thanked her and said it would be corrected.
Mr Manyi asked what the correction was.
Ms Abraham said that the correction was on the unfair comparison of oranges and apples. Therefore, the inclusion of the comparison between South Africa and BRICS countries was unfair. The South African economy was not relative to the BRICS countries. The comparison should be between apples and apples, so South Africa and the Sub-Saharan region were compared.
Mr Aucamp did not agree. He believed the comparison should be with every country in the world. South Africa was part of BRICS and should be compared to the conversations it was present in. Section 7.4 stated that the BRICS rate was 4.1%, and South Africa’s stance should be looked at in comparison to that. He said it should also be compared to Europe and other places and show everybody where it stood to give an exact idea of its performance compared to other countries. He said 7.4 should be as it was.
Mr Manyi agreed with Mr Aucamp. What is the Member saying in comparing us to Swaziland and Lesotho? It did not make sense. South Africa should be compared to the G20. There was always pride in the President attending the G20 Conference, and the next Members felt the country was being compared unfairly. Why even attend a G20 Conference if we are going to have a problem being compared to BRICS countries which are a constituent of it? He did not think there should be any changes in 7.4.
Mr G Masualle (ANC) agreed with the need for a more accommodating formulation of all the expressed views, even if it included what Mr Aucamp and Mr Manyi said. There was concern about the performance of the South African economy compared to the rest of the world. The issue of singling out BRICS could be formulated inclusively. The issue was the concern raised about economic performance. The other concerns were semantics – he did not think they were matters to be given too much time.
Chairperson Maswangani thanked him and said that was how it should be phrased. There was a consensus on how this matter should be approached. It was a matter of how it was expressed in the report.
On 7.5, Mr Manyi said he did not know what was being agreed to. The Committees were saying they acknowledged the persistent structural constraints, specifically in energy and logistics. They heard reports about sabotage and all kinds of things happening in the energy sector. They were summarising the issue making it seem like persistent structural constraints when these were all manufactured problems. The paragraph did not reflect the real situation. What was being said was untrue. These things were not being acknowledged. The Committees acknowledged all the reports, even those tabled by the Executive. Most of these issues were not structural; they were man-made incompetencies, sabotage, and all the nonsense happening at Eskom. Saying they were persistent structural constraints sanitised the issue and misled the public.
Chairperson Maswangani asked Mr Manyi about the second sentence which said “Attention is drawn to the crucial need for swift implementation of energy and logistics improvements.” The section reflected an observation and recommendation.
Mr Manyi referred to energy and logistics improvements, saying that this statement was loaded. What does it reform mean? An understanding of this was mothballing plants even if they were operational due to the fear of Europe. Functional plants were replaced with unreliable renewables, and this was called “reform”. Reform could be seen as a mix without shutting down operational plants. As understood by the World Bank and everybody else, reform sought to advance European countries that took South Africa’s coal 800% more than before and called it “reform”. These countries wanted South Africa to give coal to them and not itself, calling it “reform”. Parliament saying this was what needed to be done under the guise of reform was a problem. He suggested removing the word “reform”. The Committees should talk about an appropriate energy mix that would ensure a balance of all the issues. The word “reform” was very loaded. It meant conforming to all kinds of things that did not assist South Africa but assisted all the imperialist influences in the country.
Chairperson Maswangani reminded him that the Committees would still deal with the issue of Eskom and Transnet further in the report. The issues of logistics and energy took a bigger chunk of the report. He welcomed his input.
Mr Aucamp said when this was discussed, it was said that the Committees needed to look at an increase in tax incentives that were given to people in their own houses or businesses. These incentives included spending money on renewable energy like solar power. It was important to incorporate this. The Committees agreed that this needed to be looked into. Those were some of the recommendations made to the Committees.
Chairperson Maswangani asked if Mr Aucamp was saying that a particular tax regime should be recommended. What is it about? Does Parliament have those powers? Or is it the Minister who recommends when he tables the Budget in February in regard to particular sectors and taxes and whether we adopt or reject them? The rebate was spoken about last year, and the Committees debated it at length.
Mr Aucamp said that, when this was debated last year, it was said that the amount people could reclaim was way too small. This needed to be increased so people could install proper systems to be encouraged to get off the grid as much as possible. This would alleviate the grid. Several people addressed the Committees during public hearings. There needed to be an increase in the taxes an individual could reclaim when it came to implementing alternative energy solutions for private individuals. The current amounts were too low. It was one of the recommendations made to the Minister. It needed to be looked at urgently to increase the amounts available for tax rebates for renewable energy.
Ms Abraham spoke about a later discussion about Eskom. On the recommendations, there was still a sentence at the end that said attention should be drawn to the need for swift implementation. This needed to be left as was because it gave the Committees a way forward in ensuring the acceleration of implementation. The term “reform” was okay. She suggested not loading the concept.
Mr Masualle was going to suggest pleading with the Members to proceed on this point. The comments agreed to earlier about the report being with the Members a little longer were made because they gave the Members time to appreciate the observations and recommendations that followed them. What is the point being made in 7.5? In his summary, this section was about the unacceptably low average GDP growth rate. He was going to suggest the issues dealing with energy and logistics be carried over to the specific sections in which energy and logistics were addressed. He was merely saying that some of the valid points being made belonged in the relevant sub-sections.
Mr Manyi said that Mr Masualle made sense. If that was what the Committees were going to do, they should stop the meeting and rewrite the whole section. He did not know who was going to start cutting and pasting to the relevant sections, and so forth. While the Committees had the sections as they were, they were bound to deal with them as they came. He insisted that the word “reform” was not parliamentary, but a global one with a known international meaning. He said that the Members should not pretend the word “reform” was just some form of English, because it was not. It was an economic term and was spoken for. Members could not begin giving words their own meaning; these words already had meaning. When Members spoke about reform, everybody knew what they meant. The Members were not in agreement about the meaning. For what was being done in the meeting, the word that did not spark controversy was “improvement”. Who would argue if the Committees said “logistics improvements”? But when they said “reform”, they locked themselves into the IMF agenda. If this was how the Members wanted to do it, then the EFF would reject the report as it was. The EFF was not going to agree to IMF terminology.
The Chairperson said that Mr Manyi was not going anywhere and was a Member of the Committee as a public representative. The report would be deliberated on until the end. Nobody rejected Mr Manyi’s recommendations. He raised an important matter about the energy mix, which looked at various sub-sectors of energy, be it nuclear energy, green energy, coal, or other sub-sectors in energy. Nobody rejected what he raised. It was a matter of debating how to process the issue. Mr Masualle emphasised the areas further down the report where specific energy and logistics issues had to be evaluated.
Mr Manyi said he was specifically referring to the word “reform” because Ms Abrahams insisted that the word remain as it was. He suggested that the word be replaced by one less controversial. “Reform” was a globally accepted and known term, and its implications were dire and did not support a developmental state like South Africa.
Chairperson Maswangani asked where Chairperson Carrim was because he did a lot of studies on structural adjustment programmes and a range of other global economic governance issues.
Chairperson Carrim said that he did not have much to say. Members could find a compromise. The report had to be voted on today because it would be voted on in the House tomorrow. If this was not done, then the Appropriations Committees could not start. He knew that there was a meeting later in the week. The Committees could do it like before by finding a compromise. The wording could be put in a paragraph and voted on in the end. The norm was that Members presented their perspectives. If they were not agreed to, then the majority ruled. Since 2014, the EFF has never voted for this report. The DA voted on it sometimes. He also did not think the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) voted on it, so this was the norm. In the end, it was said that the report was to be considered and that the positions of the parties were noted.
Mr Manyi said that perhaps this was the reason for this mess. If the EFF’s views were considered in 2014, there would not be these current debt-service costs all because of the word “reform”. He apologised for interjecting.
Mr Masualle said that he was still looking at the paragraph. He was not in the ideological debates about it. However, the essence of what was being translated was the swift implementation of the necessary energy and logistics changes. These could be framed as “improvements”. He thought the message was the same because the Committees spoke about the need to accelerate all those necessary changes in energy and logistics. The Committees could insert a term that all the Members agreed with. It was not a matter to be heavily debated. The drafters could work out something that accommodated the discussion.
Chairperson Maswangani said that this would considered at the end, as suggested by Chairperson Carrim.
On 7.6, Ms Abraham said that the way it was crafted also looked like a general statement. In the end, it said, “The impacts of fuel and food prices, along with identified risks, are highlighted as factors influencing the inflation outlook and weakening the consumer purchasing power as a stimulus to the economy.” She would assess this when the Committees came to recommendations and see where they accommodated something that took them forward in fuel and food prices.
Chairperson Maswangani said that the Committees were back to the issues of logistics and energy reform and comprehensive measures to overcome challenges in these sectors. This was in the recommendations section of the report. There was a strong debate about the term “reform”. He asked Mr Carrim what his earlier suggestion was.
Chairperson Carrim said that he had confidence in the staff, which could do something to include this at the end of the report for the Committee’s consideration. Before, major changes were sent to all the political party heads. “Reform” was also a Marxist term. There was no point in going into that debate. Members were entitled to their views; they could be accommodated.
Chairperson Maswangani said that the challenge of the health and education budget to finance state-owned enterprises (SOEs) was a serious challenge. It was raised somewhere in the report, and the Committees could not keep quiet about it. Health and education were the key priorities of any country. A country’s human development is measured through health and education. The rate at which the budget for health and education was being sliced presented a serious challenge. It was as though those two sectors were subsidising SOEs whereas it was meant to be the other way around. The Committees understood the debt-to-GDP ratio was a problem. It was also a problem for the two key areas. At some stage, the Committees would need to have a serious discussion with the National Treasury. This discussion would seek to discover how the Cabinet adopted this. It looked like the cut was not just for this financial year, but would be there for the foreseeable future. He was not suggesting beginning that debate now, but it had to be noted and raised with Parliament. This was so that Parliament was aware of this challenge.
On 7.13, Mr Manyi said that it was unclear. There seemed to be waffling. After reading this, what do you do? Part of the section said, “This includes targeted interventions in education and skills development to create sustainable, long-term employment opportunities.” What are we saying? There were people with Master’s degrees but no jobs. People were educated and roamed the streets without employment. There was no shortage of educated people. However, there did not seem to be an economy that absorbed these graduates. Nothing was being said about what should happen. Things like infrastructure investment were not being mentioned. He referred to the floods in KZN, where money was being spent but nothing was seen happening on the ground. Nothing was being built. The issue of massive infrastructure investment needed to be included as part of what needed to happen. This was how this would happen. If the Committees came up with something bland, like “create sustainable, long-term employment opportunities,” how would it do this? The drafters could do better to give direction on what exactly needed to be done. For example, the massive infrastructure investment would do most of the absorption. Leaving it like this was just using big words that led nowhere.
Chairperson Maswangani asked him to send his recommendation to the drafters.
Mr Manyi said the drafters knew what he meant because they were intelligent.
Chairperson Maswangani said that he should send his statement to the drafters. He said that Mr Manyi was a communicator and should do what he was qualified to do.
Mr Manyi said that he would do so.
Chairperson Maswangani said he could either put it in the chat or send it to the team directly.
On 7.15, Ms Abraham asked for an explanation of the adaptive economic strategies and what they entailed. It was more of a broad statement. Can it be more specific?
Chairperson Maswangani asked why Members did not speak of the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP), so they did not talk about new strategies, making life difficult for National Treasury. The Committees wanted to see the implementation of the ERRP, which would encompass what Mr Manyi raised on the issue of infrastructure rollout to create jobs.
Dr Zakhele Hlophe, Committee Content Advisor, said that he would put something in the chat about the adaptability of fiscal strategies. It merely referred to National Treasury’s flexibility in changing its strategy. In economic downturns, some governments implemented counter-cyclical measures. National Treasury implemented fiscal consolidation, which was not flexible enough to adapt and evaluate where the economy was positioned to implement those counter-cyclical measures. It meant that if there was something like a natural disaster, National Treasury would be flexible enough to adapt its strategy and reallocate its budgetary resources. It had to do the same during the COVID-19 pandemic, but some people said there was no injection into the economy. It just shifted funds around. This could be expanded on in this section. He knew Members liked short paragraphs sometimes.
Chairperson Carrim agreed with this. Both 7.14 and 7.15 were too general. Reading this again, he could see what they meant. The observations and recommendations sections belonged to politicians. The summaries came from stakeholders and the committee staff reproduced them as much as possible. Before writing the report, Members should guide the staff. The question was to the Members themselves and not the staff. In 7.14, what do we mean by “strategic management of macroeconomic indicators”? In 7.15, what do we mean by “the development of adaptive economic strategies”? It was good that this critiqued National Treasury. This was insensitive to the human factor. It looked at macroeconomic indicators and economic variables without looking at the concrete conditions of the times. It was very good and advanced what was being said. Perhaps the way it was crafted was too technical but still sound. 7.14 said, “This involves careful attention to factors influencing household consumption, gross fixed capital formation, CPI inflation, and the current account deficit.” Overall, the report was good. However, it was too soft in the way it tackled National Treasury. Given the dire situation and National Treasury’s rigidities, he thought 7.14 and 7.15 were good points; the problem could have been the way they were crafted.
Chairperson Maswangani said the recommendations should be strengthened.
Mr Manyi said that Ms Mabiletsa quickly agreed to the sections because perhaps she finished the report.
Chairperson Maswangani told him not to punch other Members.
Mr Manyi withdrew his comment. He looked at the three points before 7.20. No responsibility was taken for the mess happening in the country’s financial affairs. Everything was being blamed on other factors. Where does it show something that we could have done better? Nobody took any responsibility and the Members endorsed the abdication of taking responsibility. The Committees were blaming everyone, the world, domestic issues, etc. These sections said nothing about what could have been done differently by the people on the ground. He did not know how this could be captured to reflect the truth. No management did everything right. He was not getting the sense the work was honest in its reflection. There needed to be an acknowledgement that things could have been done differently. Certain decisions could have been taken. Some of these issues were driven by bad decision-making. For example, the decision to stop a plant that generated 1000 megawatts and replace it with renewables that had less than half the output. What do you think we are doing when we are doing that? When the economy took a downturn, the world was blamed when the Executive made an innate decision. He did not sense this. He was convinced some of these things were caused by some of the decisions made. How do you accommodate that? The Committees could not sanitise the lacklustre performance of the executives who made the decisions leading to this mess.
Chairperson Maswangani said that the Committees were acknowledging what was happening. From 7.21 downwards, they were recommended what should happen.
Mr Masualle suggested that it had to be an observation. Some of the decisions that were taken did not assist. For example, the decision to mothball a plant that generated 1000 megawatts and replace it with renewables that did not produce half of that. This affected the economy. How can we not observe that?
Chairperson Maswangani said that Mr Manyi raised the strong issue of having an energy mix. This accommodated the observation made in the energy sector without going into detail. This recommendation was captured. The issue of reform and improvement was debated at length earlier. Before arriving at section 7.20, this matter was debated and agreed upon. It was not rejected. It was the issue of formulation.
Mr Masualle said that his comment was on 7.20 which said “The Committee anticipates the Minister of Finance proposing tax measures to raise an additional R15 billion in 2024/25, considering the expected decline in revenue collection.” This could be a fact. He tried to avoid the anticipation because there would be an expression that a matter yet to be presented could be anticipated elsewhere. It was pre-emptive. He did not know what the Committees wanted to say about the R15 billion. He did not want the Committees to be in the domain where it wanted the House to anticipate. There needed to be different wording. If they were specific to the R15 billion, they should speak about it instead of speaking speculatively.
Chairperson Maswangani said that Members should not make statements that the Minister could increase taxes. This caused a panic in society. He suggested finding a way to deal with the R15 billion without the statement about anticipating the Minister's proposal of the tax measures. He suggested rewording this statement and not making any insinuation that the Minister would increase taxes. How the R15 billion was allocated was up to the Executive and South African Revenue Service (SARS). He thanked Mr Masualle for identifying this because it was going to cause problems. He asked for it to be highlighted and reworked to reflect what the Members wanted to convey without speaking about tax increases.
On 7.22, Mr Masualle cited the same reasons he highlighted on 7.20. The team should look into it.
Chairperson Maswangani said that the issue of value-added tax (VAT) was once dealt with before. He could not remember how it was phrased. The issue of food inflation was a serious challenge. He asked the drafters and researchers how the issue of food inflation and tax related to the food basket was dealt with in the past.
Chairperson Carrim said that the existing position since 2018 was to oppose the increase in VAT because of its disproportionate effect on poorer people. This was still the position because several discussions within National Treasury existed. National Treasury admitted to the increased taxes. The Minister mentioned the R15 billion. For known reasons, it did not say what it would introduce in taxes in the MTBPS. This was discussed, and the Committees looked for advice on whether National Treasury could introduce a VAT increase. In customs tax and excise tax, if people were told the cost of alcohol and cigarettes would increase three months ahead, they would stockpile. With VAT, it was uncertain whether this could be done. But nowhere in the Constitution did it prevent National Treasury from doing so. Unless changed, this position remained. It was even said in the exit report that the VAT increase would subsist for two years and would be reviewed. There was a huge fight with the Minister at the time to make this increase subsist for two years only. There was a standing position. He suggested the insertion of the word “adjusted”. Nobody wanted an increase in VAT and basic foods.
Chairperson Maswangani said the suggested formulation should be looked at to see how it could be reformulated for this report.
Mr Manyi said that when the first sentence was left as it was, it gave the impression that the Committees were drawing blood from a stone. There was nothing with addressing revenue shortfalls, but to do so with the intention of increasing taxes sounded like one of the fundamentally wrong ways of going about it. All the government had to do was stimulate the economy. Once the economy is stimulated, there is a multiplying effect, and revenue is addressed. Addressing the shortfall was good. However, it should be formulated more nuancedly, not mentioning an increase in taxes but the progressive substantive growth of the economy, which would address the revenue shortfall. The Members should also remember that most of these shortfalls were caused by the damaged businesses during the July unrest. There was a lag effect. Those realities needed to be dealt with. If businesses were running smoothly, these shortfalls would not exist. Not addressing those fundamental issues was the wrong approach. He supported the zero-VAT-rated food basket being expanded. The poor had nothing to do with the destruction of the economy; they bore the brunt of all this.
Chairperson Maswangani thought Members agreed on evaluating how it was formulated in the past reports and how 7.22 could be rephrased. There was a general agreement on the expansion of the zero-VAT-rated food basket.
Dr Hlophe highlighted 6.20, when National Treasury responded to public submissions about revenue issues. It explicitly stated that National Treasury would increase taxes next year to make up the R15 billion. The observation made in 7.20 was based on what National Treasury said in 6.20. It said: “Revenue measures aiming to raise an additional R15 billion will be announced in the 2024 Budget, with a focus on minimising negative economic impacts. Stakeholder proposals, including those related to VAT, fuel taxes, corporate income tax, wealth tax, and other adjustments, will be considered for the 2024 Budget.” Nothing was anticipated. National Treasury has already announced the tax increase. If the Committees wanted to draft something, they could state their opposition to the increase. Point 7.20 came from what National Treasury said in its responses. He did not think Members challenged this during the meeting when it was mentioned.
Chairperson Maswangani said that, at the moment, Members did not agree with VAT being imposed on the food basket. Hence, they suggested looking at the previous formulation that Parliament adopted. This formulation could reinstated. This would state that the Committees still recommended that there should not be VAT on the food basket.
Ms Abraham said that as much as there was a pronouncement by National Treasury, there were no taxes in the MTBPS. She reemphasised the Committees’ agreement to recommend expanding the zero-VAT-rated food basket as a primary support measure for lower-income households.
Mr Manyi said that Ms Abraham made two points, and there was no debate on that. The issue was the tax increase. Dr Hlophe’s input was useful. He agreed that the Members should be clear. He did not know what the previous formulation was. Perhaps it should be flagged so the Members knew exactly what it was. It could have been before some of the Members joined their Committees. In the absence of that formulation, a clear note rejecting what the National Treasury sought to do in 2024 should be reflected in the report. The Committees rejected its intentions as stated in the clause.
Chairperson Maswangani said that this happened when Mr Manyi was in a better mood. At the moment, he was throwing stones at the Members. The researchers would look at the formulation and bring it to the Members.
Chairperson Carrim said that his memory was not perfect. There was a specific issue about the VAT increasing from 12% to 14%. This was vigorously opposed. The onus to provide an alternative was then on the Members if they wanted to change the law. The VAT increase of two percent would only be accepted if it lapsed in two years. After that, there would be a review. There was a part that said that the zero-VAT-rated basket should be expanded. If the Committees said the basket should be expanded, how much more would it apply now? National Treasury opposed this and gave all sorts of complex technical arguments as to why it opposed it. The effect of this benefited the middle and upper classes disproportionately. The working classes, trade unions, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) wanted the zero-VAT-rated basket. This was agreed upon. National Treasury then asked who bought more chickens and provided statistics. The Committee staff had a team of people working on this for nine months. So, the Committees could not win there. The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and NGOs presented a list of things in the background work. One of the things that was spoken about was chicken. Although chicken was more expensive and the working class was very disadvantaged, a lot of work was done in those days, showing that a surprisingly high percentage of the working class also bought chicken. Members could not have precise details on this because no law existed before them. It was Members’ right to recommend what National Treasury should do in the tax laws. They did not have the right to tell National Treasury to release the information now for reasons explained. There was a cross-party political agreement.
Ms Abraham asked if the Committees finished with 7.21 and asked if they moved to 7.22.
Chairperson Maswangani said that the Members were at 7.22. The Committees said they had to obtain the previously agreed-upon formulation. Food inflation was very high, and the Committees wanted to highlight this to the House. The further increase in food taxes would be detrimental to the poor. He encountered an individual who complained about inflation while buying a tray of eggs at Pick ‘n Pay. Food inflation was a serious matter and needed to be raised sharply in Parliament.
On 7.25, Ms Abraham suggested the inclusion of the decline in the percentage of GDP devoted to expenditure being a concern. Then the sentence could continue. This was so that it was not a statement that made it seem like all was well.
On 7.27, Mr Manyi mentioned Ms Abraham’s previous comment. This section said “Debt-service costs are a growing concern.” He did not know if anything stronger could be said. Debt-service costs were greater than education and the defence line item. It was a problem. He was not sure if the formulation of this section was strong enough to show this was the most unprofitable discussion point. Is there no stronger formulation? It mentioned debt-service costs being a growing concern. It was mentioned in passing. He proposed that the drafters find stronger wording to highlight the concern. He did not have a clear suggestion for the wording. The current formulation made it seem like something that was noted and not to be too concerned about.
Chairperson Maswangani said that it would be looked at. The recommendations would highlight the concern much better. The observation was just to note the challenges. He suggested strengthening the recommendations section. He noted Mr Manyi’s proposal.
On 7.28, Ms Abraham said there were arguments between the employer and the civil servants about wage agreements. The Committees wanted to reemphasise the risk factors of not including real costs. The issue in the past was that the departments did not factor in the real costs of the wage bill in the budget. This resulted in difficulties in managing the public sector wage increase in the 2023/2024 financial year. Therefore, it emphasised the need for departments to absorb the wage increase within their baselines. This strategy included implementing controls on payroll systems to ensure the executive authorities operated within their budget when creating and filling vacant positions. The Committees needed to emphasise factoring real costs to the budget over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Stakeholders consistently raised this issue. Going forward, the issue of real-cost budgeting should be considered in the MTEF. The Committees should not be blunt as they dealt with the issue. They should have a recommendation in context.
Section 7.29 said: “The Committee notes with concern that the National Treasury appears to be diverting the money from capital expenditure to fund the wage bill, and this may lead to crowding out of services in the provinces and municipalities.” The Chairperson asked what was being communicated here because it seemed the section was picking a fight with public servants. Is it diverting, or is there meant to be money budgeted for wage agreements?
Ms Abraham said that was covered in 7.28. She did not think 7.29 would be needed if 7.28 was crafted well. Section 7.29 was a bit low for the Committees.
Chairperson Maswangani suggested the deletion of 7.29 because the way it was crafted would create problems. He suggested strengthening 7.28.
Mr Ryder said that the Chairperson was sanitising it.
Chairperson Carrim said the issue was that the ANC’s view was consistent. The matter of wages had to be negotiated between labour and management. This applied in both the private and public sectors. It also encouraged a give-and-take approach. The position taken in 7.29 also made him feel uncomfortable. It came across like fiscal consolidation and prudent spending were being overemphasised at the expense of the public sector wage bill. This was not the ANC’s position. He told Mr Ryder this was not sanitisation; it was an ideological policy strategy and the difference between the DA and ANC. It was known which classes both parties represented. It was a policy difference; it was not about sanitisation. He agreed with the Members who said this section was unacceptable. A position like that had never been taken before.
Mr Manyi supported the deletion of 7.29.
Chairperson Maswangani did not agree with constantly criticising public servants. Every day, the police had to combat crimes like cash-in-transit heists and so forth; they worked hard. He was not happy with being harsh on public servants. Some of them worked under extreme circumstances, which had to be acknowledged. Making statements that there were concerns about how they were paid and that they were paid a lot was not on. Paid a lot compared to who? Compared to politicians or their colleagues in the private sector? He suggested the deletion of 7.29 and the strengthening of 7.28.
Mr Aucamp said he did not agree with the Chairperson. What was said in 7.29 was exactly what the Committees discussed. They raised concerns that money was being diverted from service delivery issues to pay the wage bill. The fact that it was not soft on the ears should not deter the Committees from having it in the report. It was exactly what was discussed and agreed upon. Concerns were raised that service delivery was being hampered by the wage bill, among other factors. He thought 7.29 should remain as it was.
Chairperson Maswangani said that there was no prior agreement. The matter was discussed before, but now the Committees were coming to a decision. Members did not agree with the formulation of this section.
Ms D Mahlangu (ANC, Mpumalanga) agreed with the majority view. She referred to the Chairperson’s question about who the public servant salaries were being compared to. Members would be seen as being used if they agreed to such statements. It was out of order. She agreed with the majority view, which would ultimately decide.
Mr Aucamp asked if one could assume that there was no fear that service delivery was being neglected. This was why these discussions took place. The DA was not in the majority. He merely highlighted what was discussed.
Mr Manyi proposed a way to accommodate Mr Ryder. If Members had to deal with service delivery issues, the biggest issue was corruption. Money designated for service delivery was subsumed by corruption. Everybody would agree if it was said this way. There was empirical evidence of this corruption. It was important to raise issues of poor service delivery. However, it should be attributed to corruption.
Chairperson Maswangani said that Members agreed to remove 7.29. Mr Manyi’s suggestion should be a separate formulation.
Mr Aucamp said that National Treasury gave a briefing on this. Its report said it was diverting funds from capital expenditure to make provisions for the wage bill. Not only did Members acknowledge this at that stage, but National Treasury admitted to this. It was very important to state that National Treasury was diverting funds from capital expenditure to fund the Wage Bill. He did not see any reason why Members should not be honest with themselves and the public.
Chairperson Maswangani welcomed his opinion. However, the majority felt that 7.29 should be removed. Whatever was said by National Treasury did not result in agreement with the Members. The Members did not agree with this. Why are they not blaming the monies they took to SOEs? This was a problem. What it took for the SOEs was far greater than what it took for the wage bill. This was a debate for another day.
Mr Ryder said that it was not a debate for another day. He apologised for interjecting. He wanted to know how much went to SOEs and how much went to the wage bill. The Chairperson just made a strong statement that was factually incorrect.
The Chairperson said that he did not hear him. He asked him to speak slowly so his recommendation could be understood.
Mr Ryder said he merely stated that the Chairperson’s statement was false. The SOEs received zero bailouts in the current adjustments, which was a problem; conflating the two matters was incorrect. If the Chairperson contended that SOEs received a greater bailout than the wage bill in this adjustment budget, perhaps he could quantify those amounts. He made the statement so perhaps he could give the quantities. If SOEs received far more than the wage bill, perhaps the Chairperson could give those numbers and prove his statement. It was factually incorrect. This matter would be debated throughout the process. The majority had its view. However, ignoring data and making up facts was not constructive. This was what brought the country to where it was. There was pussyfooting around facts and data that did not tie in with ideology. This messed up the country as a result.
The Chairperson reminded him this was not the actual budget. The budget was tabled in February 2023, which contained a huge bailout for SOEs. The budget would be tabled again in February 2024. He did not know what Mr Ryder meant by telling him to present new data, when the data from February 2023 existed. Members even voted for the Bill for Eskom. Is that not so? The Bill was to bail out Eskom and National Treasury assumed its debts. He suggested not going there; 7.29 was being dealt with at the moment. The majority did not agree with the section.
Ms Abraham respected the Chairperson’s summary. She clarified the difference between Members making their inputs and a Committee decision. This meeting was to test the discussions to check which were agreed upon. When the government failed to take responsibility for the wage bill, it piled up for the following financial year. Number 7.28 aimed at dealing with this. This was so the Committees had a well-crafted recommendation that accommodated all these issues.
Chairperson Maswangani said nobody argued that the Eskom relief was not a bailout.
Mr Aucamp said it was a pity that everybody said Eskom would not receive any more bailouts and the Debt Relief Bill was exactly as was. He was not raising an opinion. This was stated by National Treasury. In its explanations, it highlighted which service delivery areas it was cutting to fund the wage bill. It was not an opinion. 7.29 merely quoted what National Treasury said. If it was hard on the ears, it should not stop the Committees from putting it as it was.
Chairperson Carrim said that the ANC did not say that money for expenditure should be sacrificed. The revenue for expenditure had to be increased as long as it served the disadvantaged. The Appropriations Committees would deal with other aspects like crime. Nobody said that there was no money needed for service delivery. What was being questioned was whether the public sector wage bill was disproportionately being sacrificed. Are the upper-class and business taxes sufficient? People raised wealth taxes and so on. The suggestion of taxing luxury goods was made and National Treasury kept saying that income from luxury goods was not worth it when considering the cost of administering such taxes. There were various forms of raising revenue. This could be done in SARS and the government without sacrificing the wage bill. It could be argued that everybody needed to tighten their belts and work together for a period, starting with Members of Parliament, the public sector, and the working class. There had been social compacts in progressive countries like Nicaragua where these things were done. Members were not questioning that National Treasury said this. They were expressing their disagreement. They agreed with tightening the belt, but in the way it was formulated.
Mr Manyi concluded that Members were dealing with the recommendations. The point raised was accommodated in 7.28. Members heard what National Treasury said about diverting funds. The recommendations section dealt with these things. Section 7.28 was a recommendation on how to deal with these things. Section 7.29 was unnecessary because the issue being disagreed with had a proposal to be dealt with in 7.28. These were recommendations. It did not make sense to include a recommendation and then repeat what National Treasury said. What was said should be taken and then there should be a reflection on what was being done. Section 7.28 could be fine-tuned to accommodate what was being said. To repeat what National Treasury said in 7.29 could not be in the recommendations.
On 7.30, Ms Abraham said that, as part of the recommendations, there should be an addition that National Treasury should take greater responsibility in ensuring quality performance in expenditure across departments and entities. The Committees needed to emphasise this.
On 7.32, Ms Abraham referred to the last sentence, which said “The increasing gross loan debt, reaching 77.5% of GDP in 2026-27, raises concerns about debt sustainability, requiring careful management.” She asked if removing “raises concerns about debt sustainability” was better and simply said that it required careful management.
On 7.37, Ms Abraham said that the recommendation was not crafted harshly enough. Instead of recommending continuous vigilance, the Committees should stick with close monitoring. She suggested saying “The Committee recommends close monitoring,” and removing “continuous vigilance.” This was to ensure the Committees stuck to what needed to be done.
Ms Abraham asked for an explanation of 7.39. She could not understand what was being said. She said the section seemed to state the obvious. She needed guidance on whether the Committees would be fine without this recommendation.
Chairperson Maswangani asked if she agreed with the recommendation.
Ms Abraham said that the problem was the issue of binding measures. Sometimes, when recommendations were made, Members did not know how those recommendations would catch up with them, going forward. Perhaps the section was fine. However, the Committees could remove the aspect of binding measures. Perhaps, in the past, they were bound to do this and looked suspicious when called upon. The section could remain with the deletion of binding measures to ensure fiscal sustainability.
On 7.42, Ms Abraham said that it had to be read again so the Members could check whether the recommendation was needed. Section 7.41 was the crux of the matter of what the departments did with the IMF. The Committees called for transparency from financial institutions. She suggested mentioning the IMF. The Committees should be able to include the preconditions and how they were met. Citizens sometimes suspected the way things were done between the government and the IMF. Hence, she suggested the insertion of the IMF alongside the World Bank with the preconditions.
On 7.42, perhaps an engagement was required. She did not want to take the Committees’ time and disadvantage Members. She wanted the Members to carefully evaluate 7.42 to see whether that clause was required.
Chairperson Maswangani asked if she recommended the deletion of 7.42.
Ms Abraham said that she did.
Chairperson Carrim mentioned the last sentence of 7.42 which said: “To achieve these goals, the fiscal policy adopts a well-rounded approach, incorporating spending restraint, revenue measures, and additional borrowing.” He noted that it spoke about a well-rounded approach. However, this was not the ANC’s position. He looked at the news reports and the submissions; the vast majority of them were clear. Members were unlike the populous and did not submerge themselves in civil society structures. On the other hand, they had to take these views into account. This went against the grain of public hearings. On the IMF and World Bank, the position was that all World Bank and IMF loans should be subjected to oversight by Parliament. The IMF asked for a meeting with the chairpersons. This was identified, and even an NGO called for parliamentary oversight. The aim was to encourage oversight of IMF and World Bank loans. Government always argued that these things were sensitive. Over the last ten years, the IMF and World Bank have become more open, allowing some community, NGO, and parliamentary involvement. He suggested repeating this. The Committees should reiterate their position that the IMF and World Bank loans should be subjected to parliamentary oversight and the recommendation of appropriate legislation for this to be effected in the next two to three years. He asked Members to be realistic about the timeframe. What Members wanted was more than transparency – it was accountability. When the Committees said what they wanted to be done, it was done after the fact, for the media. When the relevant officials and parties were engaged. They said they had no room to negotiate with the IMF and World Bank and return to the Committees for approval. It was not the way it worked and was not in the IMF and World Bank charter. Members then said government asked for the reform of these multilateral institutions and asked why it could do so for the loans. This would cause a huge fight with National Treasury. It would not happen overnight.
Chairperson Maswangani seconded this.
On 7.44, Ms Abraham mentioned the first sentence, “During consultations, numerous stakeholders underscored the existence of alternatives to fiscal consolidation, advocating for measures aimed at stimulating the economy.” After this sentence, she suggested the insertion that National Treasury remained opposed to these proposals in its response. To end this recommendation, it should be said that the Committees noted the necessity of greater discussions on perspectives.
On 7.45, Members were in agreement with National Treasury maintaining its focus on addressing underlying supply-side issues. It could be inserted that the Committee had long called for greater dialogue-based research evidence on these perspectives, considering different schools of thought to form a comprehensive understanding. Where it said “debt levels and sovereign credit risks,” it could be added that this was a disputed point.
Dr Hlophe said that the staff tried to take notes. If Members had something written down then they should share it. At times, he struggled to follow what needed to be changed.
Ms Abraham said that she would do that.
On 7.47, Ms Abraham suggested a slight addition at the end. The staff could fix this.
On 7.56, she did not have a significant addition and would send it to the staff. It started by saying the Committees noted significant financial support for a structured and systemic approach to enhance inclusivity and promote gender equality in the country. The Committees also wanted to be explicit that they were not saying this happened because of the absence of inclusivity but that there should rather be an alignment of fiscal policies on gender with the broader national development goals. She suggested fine-tuning the section without fine-tuning the points already made by the Members.
Mr Manyi said he was nervous that Ms Abraham spoke about softening the formulation of gender inclusivity as a woman herself. The current formulation was proper. Saying what was suggested seemed apologetic in including gender. He was disappointed. Whether the Members assessed empirical evidence, or employment equity, women were underrepresented everywhere. To have an apologetic statement about including gender was disheartening. He thought the section should be left as it was.
Ms Abraham said that she agreed to an extent. However, the Committees should not move from the premise of saying there were no provisions for gender in the budgeting. This was why she suggested having something additional that ensured the alignment of gender-sensitive fiscal policies with the broader national development plans. Pretending these barriers did not exist was also false.
Mr Manyi interjected.
Chairperson Maswangani said that he could not do this to women when gender issues were being discussed.
Mr Manyi apologised.
Ms Abraham said that Members wanted to agree with the way the section was crafted. It should integrate a robust gender-based budgeting mechanism into future budgetary processes. This should be included to ensure gender-sensitive fiscal policies aligned with national development goals. It was not about developing gender-sensitive fiscal policies, but including them. She agreed that not much seriousness was included in the implementation of this. Therefore, the Members should emphasise its non-existence.
Mr Manyi mentioned the formulation. When looking at the words, “In order to enhance,” those words could not be included and then conclude it meant inclusivity was totally excluded. Enhancing meant that something was there to be enhanced. The Members could not pretend that the formulation was not there. This was why it should be left as it was. Otherwise, there would be all kinds of formulations that would not make sense. This formulation accommodated Ms Abraham because it included the word “enhance.”
Chairperson Maswangani said that this matter was dealt with when Members raised the issue of gender-based budgeting. There was an explanation for that. The Committees would find a way to make it look more firm and more clarity about what was being spoken about. This was so that it could be properly conceptualised if someone asked what this section meant.
On 7.62, Chairperson Maswangani said the matter was raised before. What are we saying? Is it not the money meant to be allocated to political parties? He asked if Mr S Du Toit (FF+, North West) was in the meeting. He asked him to restate what he had previously raised.
Mr Du Toit said that he spoke about the political party fund of R300 million and wanted feedback from National Treasury about what constituted that amount and how it came to the conclusion that it should be added to the political party funding model. He asked this considering the upcoming elections and the country's current economic state.
Chairperson Maswangani asked if he was saying this money should be allocated to political parties as budgeted.
Mr Du Toit said that this was not what he said. He wanted more information about how National Treasury came to this specific amount, how it would be divided between parties and why such a large amount was allocated, considering the country's current economic state.
Chairperson Maswangani said that he was trying to understand what was being recommended in 7.62 because it was unclear. It said “The Committee emphasises the importance of transparency and seeks further clarification regarding this expenditure.”
Mr Du Toit said that the information from National Treasury’s feedback was not that much. He requested information on this in several meetings. It seemed like the Members did not receive a comprehensive response.
Mr W Wessels (FF+) said the issue was that the party political funding increased in the MTBPS with no reasoning. This amount already increased in the February Budget. It also increased in the October 2022 MTBPS. There was an additional amount of R340 million, then there was an increase in February 2023. Now, there was an additional R300 million increase. It did not make sense under the current circumstances. It did not look like National Treasury prided reasons for this. The recommendation should stand. The intention was to say “preceding to the National election, there should be transparency and the Committee wanted further clarification on the increase.”
Chairperson Maswangani said that this would be done. He told Members to be cognisant of the fact that there was meant to be budgeting for independent candidates. The law was amended to make provisions for independent candidates. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) said there would be a serious issue of funding. Initially, it only spoke about political parties. Currently, there is the issue of independent candidates. He thought National Treasury was trying to accommodate this. It was debated several times. If independent candidates were on-boarded, what did it mean? The Members should consider engaging the Department of Home Affairs, who works directly with the IEC, for clarity before making a decision. Colleagues from the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairs would better understand how this amount came to be and how it would be allocated to political parties and independent candidates in the new dispensation. Members were coming to a stage where they had to have different committee meetings to adopt the report.
Chairperson Carrim spoke about the IMF and World Bank matter. It could read as follows: The Committee expresses concerns about the government securing IMF and World Bank loans without Parliament having any say. The Committee also needs to be briefed about why loans are not secured from the BRICS bank, where necessary loans are not secured. The Committee recommends legislation be introduced within three years to provide for parliamentary oversight of all IMF and World Bank in South Africa by the relevant parliamentary committees.” He used “relevant parliamentary committees” because, if Eskom or Transnet took out a loan, it was the responsibility of the relevant committees. This was his recommendation.
Chairperson Maswangani said that the Committees agreed with this formulation.
Ms Z Nkomo (ANC) wanted to return to the term used in gender-based budgeting. As part of the seven pillars of the National Strategic Plan (NSP), there was gender budgeting. She raised this because the Committees did not want to include phrases they could not answer when questioned. Through the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, a cardinal pillar that spoke about gender budgeting was adopted as opposed to what National Treasury brought. To align the items, the Committees could also use the phrase of “gender-responsive budgeting.” This was so that, when National Treasury made its allocations, it also knew its response to issues of gender.
Chairperson Maswangani said the right concept was gender-responsive and not gender-based budgeting. He asked Chairperson Carrim if the meeting was not coming to an end where Members had to make resolutions.
On 7.63, Mr Manyi said the first sentence was contradictory. If the Committee said it “welcomes the reported improvements made to remove South Africa from grey-listing by the National Treasury, and the challenges that remain,” what are we saying? Are we also welcoming the challenges that remain? Instead of welcoming, perhaps the Committees should say they noted the reported improvements and challenges that remained. They could not welcome the challenges that remained.
Chairperson Carrim said the reported improvements should be welcomed, and the remaining challenges should be noted.
Chairperson Maswangani said that welcoming the improvements would come first and then noting the challenges would come after.
Mr Manyi said that this was fine.
The Chairperson asked if the two Committees could break so they could take a resolution.
Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on the 2023 Revised and Proposed Fiscal Framework
Ms Nkomo moved for the adoption of the report.
Mr Masualle seconded the adoption of the report.
Dr D George (DA) said the DA reserved its position on the report.
Mr Manyi welcomed the contributions made by Members to the report. However, it indicated that the report was fundamentally flawed despite all the contributions. The EFF rejected the report.
The Chairperson said that he was the one making the suggestions.
Mr Manyi said that there were too many areas that needed fixing.
Mr Wessels said that he was not part of the plastering of the report and said Mr Manyi described it accurately by calling saying some of the clauses waffled. The FF+ rejected the report.
The report was adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance. Read final report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5552/
.
Documents
No related documents
Present
-
Carrim, Mr YI Chairperson
ANC -
Maswanganyi, Mr MJ Chairperson
ANC -
Abraham, Ms PN
ANC -
Alexander, Ms W
DA -
Aucamp, Mr W
DA -
Du Toit, Mr SF
FF+ -
George, Dr DT
DA -
Mabiletsa, Ms MD
ANC -
Mahlangu, Ms DG
ANC -
Mamaregane, Ms ML
ANC -
Manyi, Mr M
MK -
Masualle, Mr PG
ANC -
Moletsane, Mr MS
EFF -
Moss, Ms LN
ANC -
Nkomo, Ms Z
ANC -
Ryder, Mr D
DA -
Skosana, Mr GJ
ANC -
Wessels, Mr W
FF+
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.