A New South Africa

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 these matters in the interest of effective and accountable public administration.”

Since 2005, the DA has compiled figures on and highlighted government’s poor financial management. It has relied primarily on the A-G’s assessments of departments to do so; and, each and every time, it has asked these two questions: who is responsible and what consequences have there been for their poor performance? It has done so collectively and individually, with regards to the worst offenders. In the same way that it created pressure on the state’s excessive expenditure, so it has done on the ANC government’s poor financial management.

For example, in 2006, at one such press conference on the department of Health, the DA stated: “In each of his reports on the department’s finances since 2000, the Auditor-General has highlighted several critical financial management problems within the department. It seems that the Minister and her department simply ignore these reports, because no obvious action is ever taken to address them, and the same problems continue to be raised year after year.”

Later that year, at another press conference, the party observed:

“An overview of the audit outcomes of government departments over the past five financial years proves that too many government Ministers and Directors-General are simply unable to provide proper financial management of public money. Indeed, in many cases, the overview paints a picture of financial disarray and mismanagement on a grand scale.”

“There are two consequences of serious financial mismanagement. First, efficient service delivery is compromised, and the people suffer as a result. Second, public confidence in the state is undermined, compromising the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the public.”

These press conferences generated huge media coverage. And yet, the amount of emphasis the DA gave to this issue was criticised in some circles. A leading daily newspaper, for example, suggested in a 2006 editorial that the party was just playing politics – even being hysterical. It argued: “[m]istakenly, the DA claimed that entities with qualified audit reports were being financially mismanaged”, that there were “…pockets of crisis, rather than a general malady”, that “[i]t serves the DA’s political purposes to highlight failings in government” and that it had used the issue for “…pointscoring and party-political goals”.

Well, it got that one quite spectacularly wrong. Unless it is suggesting that, two years later, the PSC is just playing politics.

Even Cabinet, as the SPSR points out, had to intervene last year, such is the extent of the problem. Both of these interventions can be attributed in large part to the pressure created by the DA.

Sceptics will be quick to argue that both the PSC and Cabinet would have raised these questions and taken that action irrespective of the DA. They would be wrong. As government’s track record goes to show, it simply refuses to take action against those public servants who fail to perform – from Eskom right across to the financial management of the department of health. The only way the ANC government ever changes course is through intense pressure, which is exactly what the DA has provided.

The DA will continue to highlight these issues and, where appropriate, call for those responsible to be held to account. The party has made great strides in putting key issues into the public domain and, in turn, putting pressure on government to do the right thing. It will continue to play this role and fight for those ideals set out in our constitution.

AUTHOR: Eddie Trent is the is the DA’s national spokesperson on Public Accounts. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the Democratic Alliance.