Chairperson, over the last 10 years, revenue collections have increased on average by a remarkable 10% a year, and this is the single biggest contribution to the country's improving fiscal fortunes, and more than anything else, is the means through which the Minister has been able to strategically promote both demand and supply sides of the economy.
Lowering taxes, increasing social spending, reducing the national debt and stimulating economic growth has been the type of opportunities he has capitalised on in order to improve the country's economic and socio- economic situations.
It stands to reason, however, that sooner or later, there will few or no new taxes to introduce, and there will be less and less efficiency gains to be made at the SA Revenue Service. Annual revenue increases will then struggle to keep up with inflation and other demands on the expenditure side.
As such, the Minister will not have the range of bBudget options he has had in recent years. That is, of course, unless government is able to achieve far greater savings on the expenditure side. I want to argue that such savings are to be had if financial management across all departments begins to achieve the particular objectives of the Public Finance Management Act.
There is a strong and growing body of international evidence, covering both private and public sectors, which proves that substantial gains in economies and efficiencies are to be had if modern performance budgeting and spending management methods are properly employed.
My contention is that the PFMA is not being adequately used. It was implemented in a rather mechanical way, and is now being applied in a rather mechanical way. Old bureaucratic attitudes of ``"Let's live by the book'' book" and ``"Let's only do what we have to do to keep out of trouble'' trouble" remain. The Minister's intentions at the time of the PFMA's introduction such as ``"We must now move away from a rules-bound regime and must let managers manage'' manage" and ``"It's now all about performance and managerial initiative'' initiative" have not been properly realised.
The performance idiom of the PFMA is not evident enough, and a value-for- money culture is not being fully instilled. Sure, there are now strategic plans and more extensive reporting, but this has quickly become just another part of the administrative routine rather than a part of the dynamic that drives higher performance.
The pre-determined performance objectives are generally too vague, and are mostly not measurable in the required way and, at the end of the day, outputs and outcomes remain modest, and the potential expenditure savings remain out of reach.
It is clear that there is something lacking in how departments are being orientated and educated regarding modern, performance-related, financial management. Perhaps Treasury itself does not have the particular experience and knowledge to impart the necessary attitudes, and perhaps the SA Management Development Institute doesn't either.
The situation requires that we go far beyond just teaching a new set of rules and procedures to how managers must think, take initiative, seek and achieve new goals, and feed success with success. [Applause.]