A Parliamentary Legal Advisor briefed the Committee on the proposals that the Technical Task Team had made for amendment of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (the Act), but stressed that at these stage these were proposals only, and that the Committee would have to consider, firstly if it agreed that the amendments were desirable, then what form they should take, so that they could then be formally incorporated into a Committee Bill.
Although he did take the Committee through the proposals on each section of the Bill, they fell into the broad categories of technical corrections of wording, new principles on timeframes and sequencing, Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) proposals, as well as considering whether the Schedule should still apply. If not, then changes would be made to the Long Title and section 16 would be removed. The Act was currently built on a sequence of events relating to the budget, moving from the macro to the micro levels, because the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) must be consistent with the adopted Fiscal Framework, and the Appropriation Bill must be consistent with DORA. The Technical Team noted that it should not always be necessary to complete one process before embarking upon another, and so, whilst it wanted to maintain the sequence of reporting, it felt that it would be useful to allow more flexibility to the committees to submit the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRR) prior to the tabling of the Mid Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS), and that it was not necessary to have the fiscal framework formally adopted before committees could begin to consider the Division of Revenue Bill and Appropriation Bill. However, it was stressed throughout that the final decisions, and therefore also the reports, would have to follow a strict sequence. Proposals were made for amendments that would clarify that the Act related to the current financial year and the two subsequent years. Whereas the current requirement was for reporting “after” a set time, the proposal was that this be changed to “within” those times. The Minister had previously been required to report within a set number of days, but it was proposed that these references be replaced with a reference to “an opportunity to report”, as this would give more flexibility. The point was made that the Minister and Parliament had a shared interest in expediting matters. There were two schools of thought as to whether this Act should prescribe what Parliament should include in its standing rules, and the Committee would need to debate that point. It was proposed that section 12 be amended, firstly to allow the Minister the discretion whether to table a national adjustments budget, and secondly to correct the current anomaly that the Act required committees to sit jointly, although they were not actually permitted to do so on a section 76 bill. The proposals on the Parliamentary Budget Office, in section 15, were aimed at reinforcing the line of authority from Director of the PBO to the Executive Authority. Parliament would no longer be required to become involved in what were essentially administrative actions, although there were various proposals as to how it might be involved “in” or “after” consultation, in relation to the appointment of the Director. In relation to the Schedule, it was pointed out that it may not be correct for the national Parliament to attempt to prescribe how provincial legislatures’ reports be drawn, and that these were not in the same category as national norms and standards, but were essentially guidelines. The Committee was asked to consider if guidelines could appropriately be included in a Schedule.
Members asked a number of questions seeking clarity on the reasons for some of the proposals, including definitions, what might happen in the case of deadlock, firstly between the Minister and a committee, in relation to committee recommendations or a report, and secondly in relation to interventions into local government and changes to allocations. Members asked if a similar presentation would be made to the Standing Committee on Appropriations, and asked the Chairperson to communicate with his counterpart there. The procedure for the Minister’s reports was further clarified. Members questioned the removal of the time frames, with some indicating a preference to have specific times noted, asked about the status of the Rules Reform process, wondered if the establishment of the PBO was dependent on amending legislation first being passed, and debated the merits of using “in” or “after” consultation. They asked for a summary of the existing and proposed time frames and implications. The wisdom of specifying in this Act that consultants may be appointed was also queried, particularly in view of the abuses of this practice across government in the past. Members finally questioned whether any provinces had passed their own legislation.
Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act: Proposals for possible amendments: Parliamentary Legal Advisor's briefing
The Chairperson noted that the House had requested this Committee to consider whether amendments might be required, and if so, to process them by way of a Committee Bill, to ensure that the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (the Act) could be made more user-friendly and consistent. No specific time frames had been given by the House but it was obviously desirable to process this as soon as possible. He anticipated a busy year for the Committee.
The Chairperson also noted that he would be attending a meeting later that morning to discuss the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
Adv Frankie Jenkins, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, noted that the proposals he would present today were merely technical proposals recommended by the Technical Task Team who had been looking at the Act. It was essentially still at policy phase. Should the Committee agree on proposals, then they would be formally incorporated into a draft Bill, to be tabled and to follow a public submission process.
He reminded Members that in the last year some suggestions had been made on the need to amend some of the procedures. Some of the matters related to technical wording amendments, and others to timeframes. He reminded that the Act was built on a sequence of events relating to the budget, moving from the macro to the micro levels, because the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) must be consistent with the adopted Fiscal Framework, and the Appropriation Bill must be consistent with DORA. The financial management and reporting lines for the PBO were another issue, as set out under section 15. Finally, he noted that he would speak to the Schedule that affected the provinces.
Adv Jenkins took Members through the proposals, page by page. Firstly, in relation to the Long Title, he noted that if the Schedule was amended, then the words “and for norms and standards for amending money bills before provincial legislature" would also need to be changed.
In relation to the definitions, he noted a technical amendment to refer to “a”, rather than “the” national adjustments budget, pointing out that there may be more than one adjustment budget. The definition of a committee was clarified. A new definition for “executive authority” was inserted. He reminded Members that section 15 referred to the executive authority in relation to the PBO. There was a change of the wording around “Parliament” to refer to “referred to in the Constitution”.
Section 3 of the existing Act referred to proposed amendments, but this could be removed, as in fact the Act applied to the process of the budget. This same principle prompted the drafters also to suggest amendments to section 4(2)(b), by removing "amendments to", to clarify the full functions of the Committee. Similar changes would apply to section 4(4)(b).
Adv Jenkins noted that the Technical Team included Table staff of both Houses and the core Parliamentary Legal Services, and they had raised the point that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) would have a role to play in the budget proceedings, and both this and the NCOP committees would need to consider points. If an amendment Bill were to follow the proposals, the NCOP would deal with it also.
As a general principle, which was reflected in several sections, the Technical Team had noted that it was not always necessary to wait for completion of one process before embarking upon another and that, whilst it did not want to alter the sequence of the reporting, it would be useful to have more flexibility assigned to the Programming Committee to set dates. For instance, the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRR) could be submitted prior to the tabling of the Mid Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) as this would assist the Finance and Appropriation committees. That was the reason for the suggested changes in relation to sections 5(4) and (5).
The proposals for section 6(2) clarified that the fiscal framework was submitted for the next “financial” years. It was suggested that the word “substantial” be removed from section 6(2)(e), not only because it had not been defined, but because it was desirable that any adjustments be tabled.
The proposal for section 6(5) was again linked to the idea of giving more flexibility in relation to time frames. The current wording referred to the finance committees reporting “after 30 days” of the MTBPS being tabled, but in fact the requirement was to report “within” 30 days, so it was not necessary to have to wait for the 30-day period to expire. Adv Jenkins noted that it was critical for Parliament to complete the MTBPS before the December recess. Similar changes were proposed also to other sections.
In section 6(6), the word "proposed" was being inserted in relation to the fiscal framework, but the reference to “materially unchanged” was being removed, so that the report could include recommendations whether or not the there were substantial changes. A similar change was made to subsection (11). The Act had not previously provided for what must happen in relation to section 6(2)(f), relating to actual spending by national departments and provincial government between April and September, so it was now specifically referred to in subsection (8), stating that these must be considered by each committee on appropriations, and that there could also be referral to other committees.
Section 7 related to the introduction of the Division of Revenue Bill (DORB), national budget and Appropriation Bill. The Technical Team recommended that in future, the Minister must table the national annual budget with the DORB and Appropriation Bill. Now that this was specified in subsection (1), the existing (3) could be removed. The removal of the word "proposed" was recommended from section 7(2)(a), to clarify that this section referred to the approved fiscal framework, and, consistent with earlier recommendations, there would be reference to this and the following two financial years.
Section 8 dealt with the adoption of the fiscal framework and revenue proposals. The Technical Team had proposed keeping the time frame of 16 days in section 8(3), because there did not appear to be substantial challenges meeting this. Principles around amendments to the fiscal framework were set out in subsections (5) and (6). The Technical Team noted that here, and in various other sections of the Act, such as section 9(7), the Minister had been required to report within “at least two days”, but there was a proposal that this be changed to “the Minister must be given an opportunity to respond to the report”. It was felt that this would allow for more constructive engagement, and the Committee could of course still request a response within a short timeframe, if necessary. Adv Jenkins stressed that both the Minister and Parliament had an interest in getting the legislation passed by 1 April so delays were unlikely.
Currently, section 9, which dealt with the passing of the Division of Revenue Bill, said that DORB and the Appropriate Bill could be referred to committees only after the fiscal framework had been adopted. Initially, this had been proposed to ensure consistent sequencing, but it had created some problems. The Technical Team therefore suggested amending section 9(1), so that these bills could be referred after the fiscal framework was introduced, although there would also be an insertion into that section to state that the Committee may not report to the House unless Parliament had adopted the fiscal framework. A similar procedure was followed in tagging bills, and had caused no problems, in fact allowing for committees to consider bills earlier.
A technical amendment was made to 9(2) and the timeframes were clarified, again using the word "within" instead of “no later than” for the timeframes, in section 9(3). Adv Jenkins noted that currently, section 9(5) provided that the standing rules should provide for participation of chairpersons of other committees, but this was felt to be unduly restrictive as a committee may wish to mandate another person, or a sub-committee, to deal with matters. It was recommended that section 9(5)(e) be deleted, since the question of reporting was dealt with in subsection (6), which also dealt with the content of reports. Consistent with the notion that service delivery issues were to be taken into account when passing the DORB, the Technical Team recommended the insertion, in subsection (6)(c) of references to national, provincial and local governments.
Section 10 dealt with the passing of the Appropriation Bill, and here, the Technical Team recommended that the Appropriation Bill could be referred to the NA Appropriations Committee after introduction of the Bill, rather than after adoption of the fiscal framework. Once again, the reporting would be kept in sequence, and this was set out clearly in the proposals for section 10(2). The Minister would also be given the opportunity to respond (consistent with earlier comment, this was substituted for specific time frames). The content of the existing section 10(1)(c) was being incorporated into (b), so that (c) could be deleted.
Adv Jenkins noted that section 10(8) made reference to what the Standing Rules must provide. He noted that there was one school of thought that Parliament should not be obliged to insert anything specific into its rules, but others thought that specifying what should be inserted was a good practice. The Technical Team had made some proposals on section 10(8) to guide the Committee, should it agree with the desirability of specifying matters in the Standing Rules. Under (a), the reference to “and proposed amendments” had been removed, so that the Committee on Appropriations was not obliged to hold public hearings on proposed amendments to the Appropriation Bill, but only on the main Bill. This was consistent with the ruling in the Doctors for Life Constitutional Court matter; Parliament had a discretion in relation to the holding of public hearings. The content of (b) had been incorporated into other provisions so that this could be deleted. Similarly, the content of the existing section 10(11) had been incorporated into subparagraph (g), which now dealt with the contents of the report, so (11) could be removed.
Section 11 dealt with the Passing of the Revenue Bills and the changes here were merely technical, to make the meaning clearer. Again, specific timeframes for the Minister’s report had been removed, in favour of the principle that s/he be “given an opportunity” to report.
Section 12 dealt with the national adjustments budget. At the moment, section 12(1) said that the Minister “must” table a national adjustments budget, but this was to be changed to “may”, as it may not be necessary. At the moment, section 12(6) said that the Bill must be referred to “a joint sitting” of the NA and NCOP committees on appropriations. However, Adv Jenkins pointed out that this was not in line with the Constitution, because joint sittings were only allowed for section 75 bills and the DORB was a section 76 bill. Because of clarified that after the NA had passed a revenue Bill it must be referred to the NCOP.
The Technical Team proposed that discretion should be given to the committees, and, instead of prescribing specific time frames, an outer time frame of 35 days was being given for them to organise their work and meet the deadlines. However, it felt that there should still be a reference to a report within nine days in relation to the revised fiscal framework referred to in section 12(7) by the finance committees. Again, Adv Jenkins stressed that the proposals supported the principle that committees could not actually report on the DORB until the fiscal framework had been passed. This sequencing was carried through again in subsection (19). Adv Jenkins noted that a balancing exercise would be needed to avoid inconsistencies between the DORB and Adjustment Appropriation Bill, since the Committee on Appropriations, “notwithstanding any provision in this Act”, must report on the Adjustments Appropriation Bill within 30 days after the tabling of the national adjustments budget.
Proposals for section 13, dealing with the passing of other money bills, also reflected the principle that the Minister be given “the opportunity”, rather than a specific time frame, to respond. There were no proposals on section 14.
Section 15 dealt with the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). Adv Jenkins reminded the Committee that the Financial Management of Parliament Act (FMPA) created a line of accountability. It was recommended that section 15(10), for consistency, should in future reflect that the Director of the PBO (the Accounting Officer) should be accountable to the Executive Authority, not the Accounting Officer, for the performance of the PBO. However, there was a degree of inconsistency in that the Executive Authority played no role, as the Act was currently worded, in appointing the Director. The Technical Team suggested that there were some options to deal with this in section 15(5). One option was that the committees must, “ in consultation” with the Executive Authority, recommend the appointment and terms of service. Another was “after consultation”. Adv Jenkins explained that the first option implied that the Executive Authority had the power to make a decision, whereas “after consultation” meant that the decision would ultimately be made by the committees. The level of appointment should ideally be left with the Executive Authority, in recognition of the relationships. There was currently work being done to align this Act and the FMPA. Subsection (11) made it clear that the budget of the PBO was regarded as part of the budget of Parliament so that financial management of the PBO would be in accordance with the FMPA.
At present, section 15(13) stated that the Director must consult with the four parliamentary committees around the structure and conditions of service of subordinates. However, the Technical Team felt that this was an administrative issue that the committees should not handle. Committees could certainly give their view of the service levels, but Adv Jenkins was not sure that it was ever the intention that they should micro-manage administrative functions. The four committees were also presently required to nominate a person to act as Director where necessary, but for practical purposes they could rarely sit together, and so it was recommended that this function fall to the Executive Authority.
Adv Jenkins reminded the Committee of his comments on the Long Title and said that when the Act was first drafted, section 16 was included to try to achieve consistency. However, he questioned if it was correct that the national Parliament attempt to prescribe to provincial legislatures how, for instance, their reports should be drawn (item (e) of the Schedule). These were not National Treasury norms and standards, but principles for a procedure to amend money bills. The Technical Team suggested that the Schedule could ideally be removed, and replaced with guidelines. However, the question had been raised whether guidelines could be included in a Schedule. He also noted that if financial interests were affected, this could attract a section 76 classification for any amending legislation.
Adv Jenkins noted that a submission had been made to, and was being considered by the Technical Team. He repeated that these proposals incorporated a number of comments from the Team.
Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) noted the reference to "the Council", which was not specifically defined as the National Council of Provinces.
Adv Jenkins answered that the Team could look at this point. Ideally, the same definitions and wording should be used in the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament Act, the FMPA and this Act.
Mr D Ross (DA) questioned sections 6(1)(e) and (f), noting that from time to time, National Treasury had withheld funds from municipalities. On the one hand, local government retained discretion, yet on the other interventions could be made. He wondered if the possibility of constitutional deadlock, particularly where service delivery might be affected, was dealt with under the Appropriation Act.
Adv Jenkins said that the MTBPS process was not the correct forum for such interventions, particularly at local government level. If Parliament did not approve stopping of funding to local government within 30 days, it would expire. Section 6 dealt with changing of allocations because of under or over allocations. However, section 7, relating to the Division of Revenue Act, would allow a Committee to make recommendations on allocations to a certain programme. Parliament did oversee policy, but it could not change it around.
The Chairperson suggested that section 7(2)(a) should perhaps refer to “the financial year and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework”, which would encompass the two following financial years.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana asked why the Technical Team recommended removal of “proposed” in this section.
Mr Jenkins noted that the proposed fiscal framework was being worked upon at the time of the MTBPS. That set the macro standard for other instruments. However, when the budget was introduced at the end of February, it was now referred to as the "the fiscal framework" for the new year starting on 1 April, and the MTEF period of the next two financial years. There was an attempt to distinguish between proposed and introduced fiscal framework, as well as the amended fiscal framework handled in the MTBPS.
Mr N Koornhof (COPE) asked if the Parliamentary Legal Advisors would make a similar presentation to the Standing Committee on Appropriations.
Adv Jenkins said that once this Committee, if it wished to do so, came up with the Committee’s Amendment Bill, it should be published for comment both within then institution of Parliament, to solicit input from other committees and provinces, and from the public. A memorandum to that Bill would have to state who was consulted when drawing the Bill. At the moment, the exercise was work in progress, but once the Committee had decided how to proceed, reports would be made.
Mr D van Rooyen (ANC) agreed that it would be useful to engage with the Standing Committee on Appropriations.
Adv Jenkins agreed that this procedure could be followed. He questioned if this Committee wished, at the same time, to engage with the NCOP committees, or whether this should be left until later. He had not been asked to make this appropriations to any other committee, but would have no objection to this.
The Chairperson said that this Committee would determine the procedure that it wanted to follow, but reiterated that this was just the first stage, to hear the proposals.
Dr T Harris (DA) said that many of the proposals related to changes in the time frames, and requested a summary of the old and new time frames, and the implications. He asked if section 6(10) had been mistakenly inserted, or whether there had been logic to making committees wait for 30 days.
Adv Jenkins thought that it was probably an oversight. The 30 day period was very long, particularly if public participation was necessary.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana asked how the Minister’s report, referred to in section 7, would be given.
Adv Jenkins explained that committees would report on the MTBPS, as well as tabling BRRRs. The Minister would have to answer a committee’s concerns, for instance on over or under-budgeting, and to state how the problems were being addressed, and ensure that the recommendations by Parliament were taken into account when introducing the budget. If a minister had ignored recommendations from the committee, Parliament would have a reason to amend the budget. He said that although government priorities, and budgeting for them, was essentially a question of policy, Parliament, as part of its oversight function, could question certain aspects.
Ms J Tshabalala (ANC) asked for clarity on section 8(3), which she thought was poorly drafted in several respects.
Adv Jenkins went through each of her concerns. The original wording had not made it clear that the NA committee must report to the NA, and the NCOP committee to the NCOP, so there was an attempt to explain this. Plain language conventions dictated the use of “must” rather than “should”. There was a grammatical rule that time requirements should be stated either at the beginning or the end of the sentence, which was the reason why this phrase had been moved to the end. In relation to her question on reporting procedures, he said that technically speaking, Ministers did not “table” anything as it was done via the ATC. He agreed that the phrase “as the case requires” was not strictly necessary, but was intended to reinforce the idea that each of the committees would report to their respective houses.
Ms Tshabalala noted that she was not happy with the removal of references to specific time frames, in relation to the Minister, and wondered if something more specific, perhaps referring to a certain number of “working days” would not be better in all the relevant sections where this proposal was made.
Mr E Mthethwa (ANC) sought clarity what would happen if the Minister were to take a longer period than originally contemplated and agreed that guidelines would be useful in relation to section 9(7)(b).
Adv Jenkins said that the idea behind giving the Minister "an opportunity" was to avoid binding the Committee or making the Minister feel under pressure. It was also possible that the Minister might not want to comment, in which case the Committee could, after being notified of this, simply proceed. He said it would be useful to base further discussions on the comparison of timeframes that Dr Harris had requested. When the Act was first drafted, Parliament had wanted fixed time frames, but this could be a hindrance. He reiterated that both Parliament and the Minister had shared interests in passing the budget within a certain timeframe.
Ms Tshabalala took that point. She also asked what might happen if the Minister’s response contradicted the Committee.
Adv Jenkins said that if there was a disagreement, the Minister’s view would need to be specifically reported, particularly if it was suggesting unintended consequences. The Committee did not have to be swayed by the Minister, although the latter might present a new perspective, and the Minister could of course make a speech to the House. Once a report was ATC-ed, it was almost a formality that it would be adopted.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana wondered why “the National Council of Provinces” but then “Council” appeared in section 9(2).
Adv Jenkins said this was a drafting convention. The Constitution followed similar wording, but this was something that the Committee may decide to change.
Dr Harris asked the status of the rules reform process, in relation to section 12.
Adv Jenkins responded that he had seen some drafts of some chapters, and knew there had been some rules drafted for the implementation of this Act, but he was not sure whether this was being held back pending the whole review process, or would be processed. He could make more enquiries.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana asked why section 12(8)(b) was to be deleted, and noted that after public hearings, it was appropriate that reports should be given to the House.
Adv Jenkins said that the content of (b) was now included in section 12(10) and (g) stated that the report must include the responses of the Minister. He said her point that no reports were required on public hearings was a valid one, and something could be inserted into the Act to require this.
Dr Harris wondered if Adv Jenkins had any updates on the status of the budget office.
Mr D van Rooyen, who was by this stage acting as Chairperson, noted that the Committee was due to have received a briefing on this, but the House Chair had later said that the briefings would be taken to the respective party caucuses. This was quite an involved matter.
Dr Harris had a concern about the dual responsibility implicit in section 15(5), whether “in” or “after” consultation was used. If "in consultation" was used, the Executive Authority and committee would have to agree. He would prefer to see one authority having the final say, to avoid deadlock.
Adv Jenkins agreed that from a practical perspective this was correct. This also impacted on section 15(13). If nobody had the ultimate decision-making power, a compromise position may be necessary. He suggested that perhaps it be specifically stated that consultation must take place, but then either the committee, or the Minister (depending which this Committee preferred) should appoint. It was possible that the committee may interview candidates and make a recommendation to the House. It was not necessary to follow the same procedures as for the Boards of Chapter 9 and regulatory institutions. If the Executive Authority “may” appoint, “after consultation” with the committee, the committee would be permitted to hold interviews or a less formal process.
Mr Mthethwa asked why there was a recommendation to remove section 15(13) and the responsibility of the committee. He had understood that it was supposed to be a consultative process and questioned why the committee was now excluded altogether.
Adv Jenkins agreed that this was a tricky issue, and it begged the question if the committee could be called to account if the Director’s appointment had been “imposed”. A manager should be appointed, and held accountable and responsible. However, if the PBO was not delivering as anticipated, the committee could always suggest a change or call upon the director for an explanation.
Dr Harris asked if Adv Jenkins believed that there were risks, if the PBO was set up under the existing legislation.
Adv Jenkins said that the process had not been tested, but it was not altogether necessary to finalise this legislation process before setting up a PBO. These were merely initial proposals.
The Acting Chairperson said that perhaps some options could be included for further debate. He asked for comment on the sequencing.
Adv Jenkins said that he was also a spectator to the establishment of the PBO, but there were ongoing discussions. The appointment of the Director would be more difficult than filling the purely technocratic roles. He was given to understand that the PBO was being established and that the budget of Parliament for the year would include items for the PBO. The Director could be appointed under the old or new legislation. The salary was pitched at the highest level in the public service, on par with the Secretary to Parliament. However, it was apparently not easy to find, and retain, skilled personnel in this area. He was not aware of any decision to wait until the amendments were passed before establishing the PBO.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana asked how the Director's duties would differ from Parliamentary supply chain functions at the moment. She also wanted to know about use of consultants.
Dr Z Luyenge (ANC) was concerned that including a provision around using consultants in an Act could be seen as Parliament actually condoning what it had criticised in the past. He asked about the organogram of the PBO and how this linked in with procurement of services. Whilst in principle, the employment of consultants could be positive, if properly managed, current practices amounted to abuse and mismanagement.
The Acting Chairperson noted that this went to the heart of the ongoing discussions about whether consultants could capacitate the state.
Adv Jenkins agreed with Dr Luyenge’s concerns, but said that if consultants were used, the PBO would have to justify this. Another point was whether “may procure the services” meant that procurement policies must be in line with those in the rest of Parliament and government.
The Acting Chairperson said that a recent study tour had highlighted challenges in other countries’ PBOs arising from lack of function. It would be necessary to ensure that this PBO was not compromised.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana suggested that section 15(16) could be amended by inserting a reference to procedures in the Financial Management of Parliament and Procurement legislation.
The Acting Chairperson asked Adv Jenkins to make a note of the suggestion.
Dr Harris asked if any provinces had enacted their own provincial legislation.
Adv Jenkins responded that Mpumalanga had done so, a few years ago, but this related to a technical error on its Provincial Appropriation Bill, and the provincial legislation simply stated that the legislature could amend a money bill. The matter was under consideration in Free State and Gauteng.
The Acting Chairperson asked that Adv Jenkins convey the Committee's appreciation to all the technical team members, and said that the Chairperson would be contacting the other committees.
The meeting was adjourned.
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.