Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 472547,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/472547/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 219,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Madam Temporary Speaker, over the last 50 years or so, the national Government has been associated with wastage. Over the last 50 years or so, the national Government has been unable to tame Recurrent Expenditure. Over the last 50 years or so, the national Government has spent so little on Development Expenditure. In fact, I dare say that 95 per cent of the political and economic problems that this country is going through are caused by the spending habits of the national Government that has encouraged a bloated workforce, consumerism, recurrent expenditure at the expense of development or capital expenditure. It is in this connection that we have looked at the existing law; the PMFA Act of 2012. We have realized that there are two provisions that relate to the ratio of recurrent expenditure vis-à-vis the development expenditure. At the moment, one of those provisions is Section 15 of the PMFA Act which says that for both national and county governments; at least 30 per cent of expenditure must go to development. As I speak, the national Government as usual is still struggling to meet that threshold because of the challenges I have already identified. As I speak, even our new and fresh county governments which we thought will learn from the mistakes of the experiences we have had with the bureaucracy of the central Government would do better. Sadly, some county governments today are even doing worse than the national Government in terms of the ratio of development expenditure compared to what they spend under the recurrent expenditure portfolio. Madam Temporary Speaker, I have heard people say that, perhaps, this Bill is too harsh on the county governments. I have heard sentiments to the effect that, why are we increasing the percentage of money that should be spend on development for counties and leaving out the national Government? First of all, I want to say that the other sponsors of this Bill and, I have no problem even if, for example, an amendment was brought to include the national Government in order to create similar parameters. We have no objection at all. The only caveat is that we know for sure that it has been practically impossible for the national Government because of 50 years of accumulated bureaucracy and accumulated careless extravagant establishment of useless institutions and systems, it was almost impossible to achieve the targets that we are creating. I hope I am also speaking for my colleagues who sponsored this Bill, we will not oppose that kind of proposal, but the reality is that it is almost impossible. Even to meet the 30 per cent threshold which is in the law now, it is a tall order for the national Government. Just this week, we heard the Ministry of Devolution, the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Council of Governors and the relevant committee held a press conference and agreed that this idea of too many public servants will make this country grind to a halt economically. They are working on some restructuring of either sacking some people, encouraging some people to take early retirement and redefining their roles. It is a painful job, but I think this is a job that our country must take if we are to correct the mistakes that we have made whereby we use most of our wealth to finance people’s salaries. We have used most of our wealth to finance peoples’ allowances, trips, buying The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}