Appropriation Bill: Adoption & Committee Report

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson emphasised the significance of the meeting and said it would play a crucial role in shaping the fiscal landscape for the coming year. He began by acknowledging the hard work and dedication of the Members and the secretariat, highlighting their tireless efforts in preparing the draft report on the 2024 Appropriation Bill.

He stressed the importance of the motion of desirability for the Bill, as it establishes the foundation for discussions and decisions regarding appropriations for the upcoming fiscal year.

The Committee agreed the Appropriation Bill [B5 – 2024] (National Assembly – Section 77) was desirable and thus the motion of desirability was agreed to.

Report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations on the Appropriation Bill [B5 – 2024] (National Assembly – Section 77)

The Committee reviewed the draft report on the Appropriation Bill page by page to reach agreement on various aspects.

Dr D Burke (DA) highlighted the need for clarity on the high number of provisional allocations not assigned to a vote, suggesting this should be addressed in next year’s adjustments, excluding the contingency reserve.

Ms H Neale-May (ANC) expressed confusion regarding the comment on the provincial allocation, questioning if it referred to next year, as the report provided detailed explanations and comments on allocations. She sought clarification on what was being stated about the provisional allocation being assigned to a vote.

Dr Burke responded by mentioning that the contingency reserve, in the view of the drafters, had not been sufficient, given recent events. He emphasised that the provisional allocation not assigned to a vote was almost a discretionary amount, and suggested that when this was revisited, unpacking that would be helpful.

The Chairperson suggested that comments should be kept in the recommendations and observations section later in the document, rather than in the current discussion.

Mr K Wakelin (DA) referred to item 6. 3, noting that the last portion of the paragraph had been a significant point in recent criticism. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) rejected the criticism that the Committee lacked clarity, attributing the issue to statistical analysis problems. The PBO had conceded there was a budget deficit in funding for statistics, a point on which there was general agreement, though they had never rejected the criticism outright.

The Chairperson suggested spending a few minutes deliberating on this issue. He inquired if the Committee wanted to continue with the current point, or move on to the next one, proposing to finish discussing point 6.3 before moving on. He reminded the Committee of a conversation at the PBO regarding the quality of data, particularly noting criticism from the University of Cape Town (UCT). He sought to establish whether the Committee felt that the quality of the data from Stats SA was an actual concern.

Dr Burke said it was not the Appropriations Committee's role to deliver judgment on data accuracy. He reiterated that accurate data was essential for making informed budget decisions, and that the Committee should neither criticise nor reject the criticism of Stats SA. Instead, the Committee should be at liberty to question methods when engaging with the PBO without delivering judgment on Stats SA.

Ms Neale-May suggested changing the wording from "rejecting the criticism" to "noting the recent criticism," highlighting the need for higher standards in data quality.

Mr D van Rooyen (MK) agreed with being specific about the sources of criticism without generalising, which might imply overwhelming rejection. However, he cautioned against naming institutions directly in the report, emphasising that the report should generalise observations unless institutions made formal submissions to the Committee.

The Chairperson stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity of institutions like Stats SA and ensuring proper funding correlated with their functions, similar to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He emphasised avoiding a "junk in, junk out" scenario and ensuring data integrity through adequate funding. The Committee's goal was to uphold the integrity of Stats SA while noting any criticisms and ensuring data consistency.

There was then consensus amongst Members that they should rather replace "rejecting the criticism" with "noting the criticism" in the report.

Mr Wakelin asked for clarification on the references in section 6.4 to the necessity for government to make two sets of adjustments during the 2024 financial year, with the first adjustment coming up in October.

Mr Sifiso Magagula, Committee’s Content Advisor, explained that the government had had an adjustment budget and a second adjustment Appropriation Bill within the 2023/24 financial year, meaning there had been two adjustments within that period.

Mr Van Rooyen recalled an internal urgency on the matter which was discussed extensively, emphasising the need to present the report to the community as soon as possible. He endorsed the view that the issue of urgency should be highlighted, given that the matter had been ongoing for two years.

The Chairperson agreed, endorsing the view that the urgency of the matter must be included in the report, with a detailed timeline for reporting.

Mr Magagula noted that the previous Committee had recommended in the 2023 appropriations that National Treasury must report to the National Assembly biannually. He suggested capturing the sentiment of urgency in the report without dismissing it, and proposed writing a letter to provide an update on the previous Committee's recommendation.

There was agreement on this point, and it was suggested that the provincial allocation design module remodelling be included in the latter part of the report.

The Committee reviewed and accepted pages 25 and 26, and the Chairperson moved the adoption of the report, ensuring the necessary adjustments would be made.

The MK and EFF asked that it be recorded that they had objected to the report.

See report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5905/

Committee minutes

The Chairperson moved to the third point on the agenda, which was the consideration and adoption of the draft minutes.

The draft minutes from the meeting with National Treasury on 12 July were distributed for review. Mr Van Rooyen raised an issue, saying that the Committee had requested National Treasury provide a breakdown of all the country's debts. He had noticed a concerning trend in the meetings where undertakings made by Treasury were not being properly recorded. This lack of documentation led to important commitments falling through the cracks. When Treasury made promises to share information or address certain issues, there was no consistent record, making it difficult for the Committee to follow up on these undertakings. He emphasised the importance of recording these commitments accurately to ensure accountability and follow-through.

The Chairperson suggested that the adoption of the minutes from the meeting with National Treasury be postponed. He recommended reviewing the Zoom recording of the meeting to ensure accuracy, as this would help capture all the details correctly. He proposed setting aside the adoption of these minutes until the next meeting after reviewing the recording, and then making any necessary supplementary inputs.

Mr Wakelin proposed creating a potential action list from the minutes, which would track specific outcomes and issues separately to ensure nothing was overlooked.

The Chairperson agreed with the principle of having bulleted minutes, and suggested that action points should be clearly indicated within the minutes themselves, rather than creating additional documents. He endorsed capturing actions directly in the minutes.

Mr Van Rooyen supported the idea of using PowerPoint to enhance oversight and track outcomes more effectively. He agreed with the approach proposed by the Chairperson.

Ms N Gcaleka-Mazibuko (ANC) and Ms M Bartlett (ANC) raised the issue of the perpetual misspelling of their surnames.

The Chairperson appealed for an assurance that this error would be corrected moving forward.

The Committee then proceeded to review the minutes from 16 July. The minutes were adopted with corrections

Announcements

The Chairperson addressed the Committee, highlighting the numerous processes that Parliament would undertake in the next six months. He mentioned an upcoming session for all chairpersons on 6 and 7 August. Parliament, as indicated by the Speaker during the budget debate, also had to craft its strategic plan for the 7th Administration. This meant the Committee had to comply with legislation and ensure the proper functioning of the Committee moving forward. He stressed his commitment to ensuring the Committee remained in control of its processes, despite various challenges and external factors. He acknowledged the logistical issues, such as venue arrangements, and the impact of the reconfiguration of the Executive, which had prevented some committees from convening.

He proposed that the Committee should not enter the next term without a clear alignment on key induction issues and focus areas, which must eventually align with Parliament's strategic plan. To this end, he tentatively suggested the dates of 20 and 21 August for an induction session. This session would ideally take place in the first week after the constituency period, and could span over a day or two mornings, depending on the term's final schedule.

Some Members raised concerns about potential clashes with their other committee commitments.

The Chairperson responded by emphasising the importance of announcing the tentative dates in advance to accommodate Members' schedules. He proposed sending out the proposed dates and agenda, and encouraged Members to provide feedback and suggest adjustments as needed.

The Chairperson acknowledged that this would be the last Committee meeting before reconvening in the House. He expressed his gratitude for the energy and enthusiasm Members had brought to their work, considering the chaotic nature of their recent activities.

He also took a moment to thank the secretariat for their hard work and dedication. He acknowledged the pressure the secretariat faced in managing venues, logistics, reports, and public submissions. He praised their efforts, which sometimes required late-night work, and expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Committee for their invaluable support.

The meeting was adjourned.