Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni accused the DA on Thursday of attempting to leverage the proposed VAT increase to further their grievances with the Expropriation Act.
Briefing the media on the outcomes of Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, Ntshavheni said the DA’s opposition to the Budget had nothing to do with the tax increases.
“The DA through their leader announced that they are not supporting the Budget because they have issues with the Expropriation Act,” she said.
“The DA has taken the Expropriation Act to court. So, in simple terms, we need to wait for court. You can’t run two simultaneous processes. So you choose a process and allow that process to conclude. When that process concludes, then come to another process, maybe,” she said.
Ntshavheni was referring to an interview DA leader John Steenhuisen gave after the Budget was tabled wherein he stated they did not need VAT increases in the absence of putting bold interventions.
Steenhuisen said what was needed was a mix of what was contained in the Budget but also some of the bigger concessions.
“We want a relook, for instance, at Expropriation Act, which is a huge impediment to investment in South Africa. You can’t say it is divorced from the Budget,” he said.
But, Ntshavheni said the Expropriation Act was not part of the Budget.
“Expropriation Act is part of the redress agenda of this country.”
She took journalists through the process that was followed in drafting the 2025 Budget, including the establishment of a committee led by Deputy President Paul Mashatile to consider options after it was postponed in February.
Ntshavheni said five options were tabled by the National Treasury, and there was no option that did not have some VAT increases.
This was because the options ensured fiscal discipline, funded economic growth in line with the Government of National Unity (GNU) priorities, and mitigated the impact of the tax increases on the poor and middle class.
She said there was sufficient consensus, and everyone was happy with what the National Treasury had done.
“What became apparent in the discussion is that the things being brought into the discussion of the Budget are things that are not related to the Budget. You can’t hold the country for ransom on the Budget because you have got other political things to deal with.”
ANC chairperson and Minister of Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Gwede Mantashe, and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana have made similar arguments that the second biggest party in the GNU was bringing up issues it had lost, such as the National Health Insurance, the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act, and the Expropriation Act.
Ntshavheni said the DA’s demands, as articulated by Steenhuisen, have nothing to do with their interests in protecting the poor.
“They are always interested to ensure we don’t achieve transformation gains the country has set.”
She said South Africans should not be fooled when the DA opposes the Budget as everybody in the Cabinet had signed off for VAT increases and requested mitigation of the increases.
“Those things have been done, but the DA wants to hold the country for ransom because they want to reverse the gains of the Expropriation Act. The DA is fully aware that our implementation of the Expropriation Act will abide with provisions of the Constitution.”
Ntshavheni also said the courts have always demonstrated their independence and the protection of the Constitution because South Africa is a constitutional democracy.
“The DA’s opposition to the Budget is not about VAT increases. It is about reversing the gains of transformation. It is about the anti-poor, anti-middle class. It is about reversing the expropriation. It is a pity they have a megaphone and scribes to make their voices loud,” she added.
