Neva Makgetla attributes the failure of the budget to satisfy socioeconomic objectives to the lack of proaction by the government as a whole, and especially the Cabinet (How SA’s strong budget process also blocks innovation, January 30).
She argues that the government and the Cabinet have abdicated their roles to officials whose recommendations are merely rubber-stamped without due consideration of the country’s requirement for social justice. I am sure she is right.
However, I am not so persuaded by her arguments that the problem is initiated by Treasury’s passivity and compounded by its governance practices before it will release funds that are approved. As custodian of the country’s finances, the Treasury is obligated to be prudent in how the money under its control is disbursed, and to ensure it is properly applied to the objectives for which it was given.
Peter E Richards