Committee passes Financial Management of Parliament Bill amid DA’s concerns

Last week the Standing Committee on Finance adopted the Financial Management of Parliament Bill. The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) had passed an amendment to the Bill, which was referred back to the NA, but the bill had lapsed with the ending of the fourth Parliament but was revived in the current Parliament.

During the Fourth Term, the NCOP referred the Bill back to the National Assembly (NA) with an amendment, which required that provincial legislation should be recognised in the Financial Management of Parliament Act (FMPA), and be applicable to it.

The NCOP amendments addressed the oversight mechanism where the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chairperson and permanent Deputy Chairperson could not form part of the oversight body. The amendment called for all Members to be eligible to serve on the oversight mechanism. Another suggestion was that Parliament should approve regulations, which would also be applicable to provincial legislation. Provincial legislation could provide input, but the decision would be Parliament’s decision. The oversight mechanism’s functions were that of oversight over the annual statements and annual reports of Parliament. The amendment would include that the draft strategic plan, the draft annual performance plan and the budget and adjustments budget, be referred to the oversight mechanism. Possible conflict of interest on the part of the executive, which was an issue of debate in the Fourth Parliament, was covered by the proviso that the joint rules had to provide for a conflict of interest, should it arise, by excluding such a person from those deliberations.

During the deliberations, the DA asked that the meeting’s mandate be broadened beyond the NCOP amendment to look at concerns over issues of accountability, oversight and the executive authority in the Bill.

However, Adv Frank Jenkins, Senior Legal Advisor in the Parliamentary Law Office, explained to the Committee that that in terms of the Rules of Parliament, the NA could deal only with the amendments the NCOP made.

The DA’s David Ross implored the Committee to do more research on the Bill. He addressed the representation on the oversight mechanism, saying, “To me that was perfectly fine but it’s now being changed… and now the executive authority is part of the oversight mechanism… with the drafting and planning in regards to the strategic plans and annual performance plans, that is fine if the executive authority is part of the process but when it comes to the very same oversight, they are also part of the oversight mechanism.”

Chairperson of the Committee, Yunus Carrim, interrupted the Member, saying that Ross could very well be right, “but it is not relevant to the discussion today. He proposed that the Committee could come back to the Bill when they were busy with their strategic plan, and engage with the National Treasury about it.

Fellow DA MP, Dion George, wanted clarity concerning the status of the Bill and whether the Fifth Parliament should be applying its mind to it since it was drafted in the Fourth Term. “I don’t understand why we can’t. I’m new on this Committee so I don’t know anything about these amendments made in the previous parliament. Why are we bound by that? I thought that if we don’t finish it, then it falls off and we start again. Or am I missing something?” he asked.

Ross added that “This is such a bad bill and perhaps it offers the new Parliament an opportunity to at some point in time, to revise it.” However, he thanked the Chairperson for “opening the door” so that the Committee could revisit the Bill and come to a consensus about issues regarding the Bill.

When it came to adopting the Bill, the DA’s George announced that the fundamental flaw of the Bill was that the previous Parliament did not do justice to it because they were rushed into passing it before the end of the term. At the time, the DA wanted the executive excluded from the oversight mechanism because it wanted to strengthen the oversight of Parliament, which was the main reason for the Act in the first place.

It appeared that “all the teeth had been pulled out of [the Bill]”, said Dion. Nevertheless, he stated that the DA would follow the procedure, “if that is all we can do”, even though “it is a travesty that we spent all that time building something that was sensible oversight, only now to pull out the teeth”.

While the rest of the Committee adopted the Bill, the DA chose to reserve their position on the amendment.