ActionSA either naive or simply malicious

ActionSA’s attempts to blame the DA for the looming 1 May VAT increase are becoming more desperate as the deadline looms.

Over the Easter weekend, ActionSA publicised Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana’s 28 February response to a parliamentary question about whether he had consulted his deputy ministers ahead of his now-aborted budget speech.

Unsurprisingly, the answer was yes. What did you expect? It’s part of the deputy ministers’ job to contribute to budget deliberations.

Nowhere in the answer is VAT mentioned. Yet ActionSA used the reply to launch a social media attack, claiming deputy finance minister Ashor Sarupen (DA) was complicit in proposals to increase VAT.

ActionSA said in a statement: “The DA’s deputy minister was directly involved in the initial drafting of the VAT increase. They knew it was coming and said nothing until it suited their narrow political agenda.”

Either they are naive about budget procedures, or this is simply malicious.

Sarupen and others involved in parliamentary budget deliberations are not allowed to break the secrecy of what’s in the budget until the documents are tabled in parliament.

ALSO READ: Is Mcebisi Jonas the right man as SA’s US rep?

It’s got nothing to do with narrow agendas. Politicians and parliamentary journalists know this embargo has been standard practice for decades.

The security is necessary because the budget contains market sensitive information which can lead to allegations of insider trading and other malfeasance.

If ActionSA wanted to know whether Sarupen at any stage during deliberations expressed support for a VAT increase, they should have asked that question directly, instead of trying to extract spin from a neutral answer.

The minister might have explained. In fact, the views of Sarupen and the DA on VAT increases have long been widely known.

Sarupen was mentioned in the Sunday Times (23 February, before the parliamentary reply) as being opposed to any VAT increase.

The newspaper quoted a DA source as saying: “Sarupen argued that raising VAT is counterproductive as it does not necessarily help raise a lot of money.”

In the same 23 February edition, “DA federal chair Helen Zille told the Sunday Times she held several meetings with Godongwana at which it was made clear the party opposed any increase in VAT. All I am at liberty to say is that the DA made it clear we would not support a tax increase.”

ALSO READ: Joburg faces collapse if GNU falls apart

The DA has been consistent on this and yesterday took the matter to court, along with apparent irregularities in the procedures around the passage of the fiscal framework.

It seems that when ActionSA supported the fiscal framework – one of several steps in the budget process – they and others did not realise they were voting in favour of a 0.5% VAT increase.

Build One SA and Rise Mzansi committed the same rookie error and have also tried to position themselves as opponents of VAT, despite voting for the increase.

That horse has bolted. Naively, ActionSA made a conditional recommendation to parliament’s finance committee about seeking alternatives to VAT increases.

That carries no legislative weight. ActionSA voted in support of the VAT increase. They saw a chance of stabbing the DA and possibly gaining a Cabinet post.

Their leader gained a new label – VAT Man.

NOW READ: Broken promises and failing services are sinking Joburg