Time for state to show real cost cutting

Tightening the belt is a phrase synonymous with politicians. It is used a lot during election campaigns in the form of promises from those who are holding the levers of power that they will drastically cut their packages for the public good. Earlier this week public service and administration minister Senzo Mchunu released the new ministerial handbook. High on its prescripts is that there are to be no more upgrades to ministers’ private homes and no more business-class flights on domestic travel.

This is good news as ministers’ private homes have little to do with the running of SA.

The handbook also prescribes that the state curb litigations and only defend winnable cases.

For many years the state has foot the bill for political heads and government officials who find themselves in legal conundrums while discharging their duties.

The rule of thumb is that if the individual concerned loses the case, they reimburse the state.

Dare we ask how many have repaid state funds after losing their cases?

If any, they are surely less than a handful and have probably only done so after the intervention of civil organisations.

While we celebrate Mchunu’s pronouncements, we will be watching for implementation.

SA is known across the globe for good policies that fall flat on execution.

Similar calls for belt-tightening have been made before, yet we still witness extravagances from those in public office.

As early as the 1990s there have been suggestions to move the legislature from Cape Town to Gauteng which would drastically cut travel and accommodation costs.

We wonder what the holdup is in implementing this idea?

Earlier in 2019 President Cyril Ramaphosa announced a reduced 28-member cabinet, with 34 deputies.

While the reduction was applauded, it is still too high and yet another opportunity was missed to cut government spending.

We hope those in power will adhere to the prescriptions of the new handbook — surely we don’t have to remind them they are there to serve and not to be served?

While the reduction was applauded it is still too high and yet another opportunity was missed to cut government spending.