MEASURING INFLUENCE
By: Eddie Trent MP
It is a common accusation, dished out now and again without much consideration: ‘the opposition has no influence’. It’s also palpably untrue. In fact, the DA’s influence is far reaching and powerful, not just in terms of the municipalities where it governs but, more pertinently, with regards to how it influences the policy and practice of government and the ruling party.
There are many such examples, which often go unacknowledged. Last year, Finance Minister Trevor Manuel used the tabling of his medium term budget policy-statement to berate national departments for their excessive expenditure: “National Department’s will be asked to find efficiency savings of about R2.3 billion over the next three years by limiting spending on unnecessary entertainment, travel and hotel accommodation, misplaced branding and communications initiatives and poorly managed consultancy services and related frills.”
In large part, this move was a reaction to the coverage generated by the DA on this issue (most of which was bad for the government). Every year, the party asks a series of parliamentary questions about the amount spent in these various categories by the state; the information is then compiled and a press conference is called. Every year, the numbers paint a picture of excess and unjustified increases in expenditure. As a result, those stories and the DA’s position on them have featured prominently in the media. In turn, this negative coverage transforms into pressure on government. And the effect of that pressure, over a number of years, has now resulted in a change of government policy.
But that is not the particular example on which I would like to focus in this article. Rather, a more recent - and just as significant - development has taken place; one for which the DA, in large part, should also be given credit.
Every year, the Public Service Commission (PSC) releases a report - the State of the Public Service Report (SPSR) - on the condition, performance and challenges facing the public service. The 2008 report was this week tabled in Parliament, and it made a number of observations which are worth highlighting.
In particular, in addressing the poor manner in which government departments have managed their finances over the last five years (as described by the Auditor-General (A-G)), the report carries the following two paragraphs:
“The perceived lack of action from the Executive to address this problem impacts negatively on public confidence in the accountability systems of the Public Service. Where the A-G has expressed a qualified audit opinion, there is reason for management and the executive to be seriously concerned and to be accordingly called to account. Hopefully, the recent call by Cabinet for affected EAs and HoDs to urgently address the weaknesses that give rise to the qualified audit findings will result in the much needed action in this area. This move by Cabinet is certainly a positive one, although it should have been taken earlier given the long history of qualified audit opinions in some departments. However, the administrative and executive leadership concerned still has a full financial year ahead of them during which to get their act together and effect improvements that will leave their departments on a sound financial footing”.
Later on, the report states:
“[Government’s poor financial performance] raise(s) important questions about the seriousness with which government's system of accountability is being taken. What is it that is being done to ensure that the concerns that lead to such qualifications are being addressed? Who is being held accountable for such consistently poor audit outcomes? For how much longer is this trend going to continue and what is its impact on service delivery? While it may not be possible to generalise on the challenges that the above departments face, the time has come to seriously reflect on thes
| Posted on 7/5/2008
 |  | |