Legislative timeframes for the processing of the national budget

Meeting report

Introductory Remarks by the Chairperson

He greeted everyone and then checked if members were present on the platform.

Apologies were noted.

He officially opened the meeting and explained that it was crucial for the committee to have this meeting to consider several things.

He noted that, in the first instance, everyone would be fully aware that as soon as the budget was postponed, it had brought several key issues into sharp focus. The first issue was that it had delayed and adjusted the committee’s programme, and he expressed his hope that all members had been sufficiently furnished with the updated programme. Secondly, he pointed out that members who had been part of the committee for some time would be aware of the challenges regarding timelines—how the budget was processed, how the regulatory framework was satisfied, and how they ensured thorough interrogation of issues.

He then stated that two outstanding matters had become crucial. He informed the members that it was his well-informed view that the previous week, Cabinet had adopted the medium-term plan. Therefore, he said that through the secretariat, he would request a briefing on the medium-term plan as it had been tabled, and he wanted the document to be presented before the committee.

He further highlighted that Eskom's debt was another pressing issue on the programme. He reminded members that a special appropriation had been put on the table in the last budget cycle. Therefore, one of the key issues he wanted the committee to address was how they would engage Eskom in its debt management strategy, given the commitments made with municipalities the previous year.

The third issue he raised was the importance of Parliament reasserting its authority on certain matters. He explained that, in consultation with the Speaker, the Chief Whip of Parliament, and the Chair of Chairs, the committee had to consider how the budget timetable was structured.

He further stated that he felt it was crucial to keep the meeting focused by not involving external stakeholders, whether they were the usual entities the committee engaged with or various departments. He emphasised that for that day, he had requested the content advisor to take members through all the relevant pieces of legislation. He reminded the members that the work of appropriations was not merely to rubber-stamp the executive’s work but to engage with the bills tabled before them, including the appropriations bill, to determine how it could be adjusted, amended, and ultimately voted upon.

He explained that once all those processes were in place, he believed it was important for the committee to receive a thorough briefing on the relevant legislation, including the Public Finance Management Act, the Money Bills Act, and historical practices regarding budget formulation. He stressed that he wanted members to be fully briefed on these matters because they must thoroughly interrogate the document when the budget was tabled the following week. He added that briefings should not be reduced to a mere rubber-stamping activity but should enable the committee to fulfil its legislative oversight duties and exercise its authority as empowered by legislation.

Additionally, he stated that he needed to sensitise members about their responsibility to deal with four committees. Before the committee’s proceedings began, he noted that the Minister of Finance's post-budget briefing typically took place the day after the budget speech. However, he informed members that he had requested that it be moved to Friday. He acknowledged that this change had implications for members but stressed that giving the process sufficient attention was crucial.

He further explained that the fundamentals of the budget, especially that particular budget, contained numerous contentious issues. Therefore, he believed it would be problematic if the Minister of Finance were not given adequate time to brief members—and members, in turn, were not given adequate time to interrogate key aspects of the budget. He mentioned that the briefing was scheduled at 12 o’clock on Thursday, with the parliamentary sitting commencing at two o’clock.

He then outlined the multiple options that had been considered. One option was to exempt members from caucuses, but he pointed out that it was not possible to exempt political party members from caucuses on the Thursday, particularly because it would be a caucus following the tabling of the budget. The second alternative was to exempt members from the parliamentary sitting that afternoon. However, he explained that this would be an unfair practice for smaller parties, as it would affect their representation in the House. Consequently, he stated that the only viable options were to hold the briefing on Thursday as planned or to move it to Friday. He added that discussions were ongoing with the two relevant select committees to determine whether the briefing could take place on Friday so that it could be given proper attention. He also noted that this arrangement would allow the other legislative processes, including oversight and public hearings, to proceed effectively.

Given all these considerations, he wanted to provide the committee with a comprehensive briefing.

He then indicated that several key issues would also be added to the agenda. He mentioned that the committee had recently had a joint session with the Portfolio Committee on Defence, which would affect their demand for increased funding. He reminded the committee that this issue needed to be considered in accordance with the Money Bills Act. Additionally, he informed members that the Portfolio Committee on Digital Communications had made a specific request, through its chairperson, to meet with them.

He also stated that he had a chairperson’s meeting that afternoon, which would take place immediately after the committee meeting and conclude before the parliamentary session. He assured members that he would provide a more detailed communique regarding the respective plans for those meetings and the budget process for the following week.

Finally, after addressing all of the business orders, he invited members to ask any questions regarding the outlined processes.

Discussions based on the introductory remarks

Mr N Kwankwa (UDM) thanked the Chairperson for the briefing and said he had a word of advice. He mentioned that while he could recall that there was a Chief Whip for the different houses, there was no Chief Whip for Parliament. He emphasised that it would be important—not for the Speaker, as she played a different role altogether—but for the Chief Whip, perhaps of the largest party, to take on those discussions. He further noted that, especially on that day, since there was a Whips’ Forum, it would be beneficial to begin consultations within the Programming Committee and engage with other parties. This would allow them to better understand the way forward sooner rather than later.

The Chairperson said he would do that and check with the Chief Whip that afternoon to ensure the conversation could be taken forward. He thanked the Member for the advice and believed it was a sensible way to proceed.

Mr K Wakelin (DA) raised a more practical matter regarding the period after the 12th, assuming the budget would be presented to Parliament on that date. He asked whether the timeframe was still aligned to allow sufficient time to integrate all the votes, noting that he believed there were 41 votes in total. He questioned whether they could integrate and work on them effectively, expressing concern about the time frames after the 12th and whether everything could be in line. He requested assurance on that matter.

The Chairperson stated that this matter had been part of the discussions held with the Speaker and the Secretary to Parliament. He emphasised that this was why the session that day was particularly important. He explained two key considerations: the regulatory aspect he was comfortable with and the qualitative aspect. He noted that they ultimately agreed to the 12th as the latest possible date, without any further delays, to ensure that the process remained within the legislative prescripts, which the content advisor would address during the session.

He further elaborated that, in terms of qualitative interrogations—considering the need for public hearings and other engagements—they were confident, in conjunction with the programming team, that the process could still be followed properly. He mentioned that budget votes typically took place in consultation with programming either in June or July and that he would confirm the exact dates. This scheduling, he assured, would allow for sufficient time to complete the necessary work.

He reiterated that they were doing their best to navigate the process, balancing both procedural and qualitative aspects. He added that he would provide further clarity once the discussion was concluded that day. He also mentioned that he had engaged with the PBO, which had its own timetable and a memo they had been working through. He stressed the importance of ensuring that the matter was handled correctly, both procedurally and from a qualitative standpoint.

With that, he stated that those were the items on the agenda and noted that the committee also needed to consider the minutes. He indicated that, during the meeting, he would check to ensure they still had a quorum so that the minutes could be properly and correctly adopted.

He then recorded that Mr Kwankwa had moved to adopt the agenda, and Ms N Gcaleka-Mazibuko (ANC) had seconded the motion.

Content Advisor

Mr Sifiso Magagula, Committee Content Advisor, led the committee through the presentation.

The presentation provided a detailed briefing on the responsibilities of the Standing Committee on Appropriations following the tabling of the national budget by the Minister of Finance. The presentation highlighted that while the committee's mandate is clear, the work remains complex due to the need to assess approximately 40 budget votes within a set timeframe, ensuring decisions benefit all South Africans. It focused on the legislative framework governing the committee’s work, including the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (2009, amended in 2018), the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and key sections of the Constitution (notably sections 213 and 214). The presentation also differentiates the roles of the Standing Committees on Appropriations and Finance, ensuring clarity on their respective responsibilities.

A major emphasis is placed on the budget process, which begins with the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS), outlining the government’s fiscal strategy for the next three years. The committee is responsible for reviewing the introduction of key financial bills, such as the Division of Revenue Bill, the Appropriations Bill, and any necessary adjustments or amendments. The presentation details the committee’s role in scrutinising spending issues, ensuring that budget allocations align with national priorities, and reviewing the equitable division of revenue across the three spheres of government.

The presentation further outlined the parliamentary procedures and timeframes for processing the budget. The fiscal framework must be approved within 15 days, while the Division of Revenue Bill must be passed within 35 days of its adoption. The Appropriations Bill, which dictates departmental budget allocations, must be finalised within four months of the financial year’s start. Additionally, the process for National Adjustments Budgets is described, detailing how budgetary changes are managed throughout the financial year. The presentation underscores the importance of aligning all amendments with the adopted fiscal framework to ensure compliance with constitutional and legislative provisions.

The presentation highlighted that a crucial aspect of the committee’s work is conducting public consultations and ensuring ministerial responses to proposed amendments. The committee must hold public hearings, consult with relevant stakeholders, and allow affected ministers sufficient time to respond—typically 10 days for appropriations-related amendments. Any proposed budget changes must be justified based on their impact on service delivery, demonstrating how they align with strategic government priorities. The committee also has the authority to recommend amendments but must do so within the constraints of the fiscal framework and the Division of Revenue Bill.

The presentation highlighted potential challenges, including legal uncertainties about when committees can begin reviewing the budget. There is an ongoing debate on whether committees can start their processes before the fiscal framework is officially adopted, with concerns that premature action could be challenged legally. Another issue is the need for strong justifications for budget amendments to prevent delays and ensure that funds are allocated effectively. Additionally, coordination with the National Assembly’s schedule is essential, as delays in committee work could disrupt Parliament’s overall legislative timeline.

In conclusion, the presentation emphasised the committee’s responsibility to conduct a thorough and legally compliant review of the budget to ensure public funds are allocated efficiently and effectively. The process, while structured, allows for flexibility in making necessary amendments, provided they are aligned with legal requirements and contribute to improved service delivery. The presentation underscored that while the committee’s task is complex, it is essential for maintaining fiscal discipline and accountability within the government’s budgeting process.

(See Presentation)

Discussion

The Chairperson stated that the briefing provided had been very comprehensive. He then invited members to pose questions and discuss the sections that needed to be taken forward. He explained that the session had been designed in such a way as to ensure that all members were sufficiently capacitated regarding the process that would unfold after the tabling of the budget.

Mr Kwankwa asked a quick question about the technical amendments. He inquired about what they entailed and what process had been followed in making them.

Ms Gcaleka-Mazibuko thanked the presenter for the comprehensive presentation, which she described as very helpful. She described it as a working document that the committee could continuously refer to as they executed their mandate.

She then made a comment that also contained a question. Referring to his earlier remarks about the legal opinion, she stated that the legal opinion needed to align with what the legislation stipulated. She emphasised that this alignment would assist the committee, as it would ensure that if the legal opinion were ever challenged—perhaps in a court of law—the committee would be covered, since the opinion would have been based on legal requirements. The legal opinion was sufficient in addressing the process and ensuring that actions were legally sound.

She asked at what point the committee became involved in the budget process before its presentation to the National Assembly or the House. She provided an example of the postponement a few weeks prior, noting that some of the budget content due to be tabled had only been accessed by members in the closed session when they received the budget documents. She questioned whether the committee had the opportunity to comment immediately after the mid-term budget, when the three-year budget framework was highlighted.

She inquired about the involvement of the Finance and Appropriations Committees in the process, asking whether their role was limited to the tail end of the budget process. Additionally, she referenced the amendments mentioned multiple times, pointing out the scheduling inconveniences they had caused. She noted that the amendments required the National Assembly and the legislature to adjust their timelines.

She then asked whether the Money Bill allowed for greater flexibility in presenting amendments earlier in the process, so that the Minister of Finance could respond in a timely manner. She suggested that this might prevent the need for the National Assembly to shift its deadlines and ensure a smoother process.

Mr Kwankwa stated that he was unsure whether his question had been covered in the presentation, and if it had, he apologised to the presenter. He recalled an incident from the last term, when a committee refused to approve a departmental budget. He reminded members of the process that had to be developed at that time, and the committee in question had even written to the Committee on Appropriations, stating that they were unwilling to approve the budget.

He pointed out that, in that particular case, the issues raised were unrelated to the budget itself, and as a result, the Appropriations Committee had been unable to assist. He then posed a hypothetical scenario: if, during the budget vote process, some committees were to write to the Appropriations Committee stating that they were unwilling to approve a budget and cited budgetary concerns, had a process been developed to handle such situations?

He highlighted that, with the presence of a coalition government, the likelihood of such incidents had increased due to potential disagreements. He expressed concern that committees might begin to engage with line departments in disputes over budget approvals and questioned whether there was now a structured approach to managing such situations.

The Chairperson stated that, from his perspective, the timelines being worked on were clearly defined in terms of working days. However, he emphasised the importance of distinguishing between the 30-day and 35-day timeframes, noting the urgency of the matter.

He requested clarification on the distinction between the medium-term plan and the legislated fiscal framework, which the Finance Committee had adopted. He had a basic understanding of the differences but wanted a clearer distinction between them once they had been tabled.

Furthermore, he pointed out that the committee, in its strategic plan, had adopted a stance that supported intra-programme adjustments. He referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education’s Oversight report that was adopted the previous day by the National Assembly. The report highlighted that in several Limpopo schools, the toilets get clogged with faeces, and the Blind learners end up having their hands soiled with faeces. This constituted a profound violation of their right to dignity. He clarified that although Parliament adopted the report, he was not merely referring to it as a parliamentary report but rather as an issue of serious concern.

He linked this matter to the committee’s strategic decision to prioritise the eradication of pit latrines and allow for intra-programme allocations. Given that the budget would be tabled the following week and the process would unfold thereafter, he asked how, as a real-life case example, the committee could effectively consult with the Standing Committee on Education to adjust that specific line item.

He stated that a concrete example would be beneficial in understanding the process, as it would provide clarity on how such programme issues could be addressed. This would involve reallocations within an existing programme but would also align with what had been tabled in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS).

Finally, he reiterated that using a real-life case study would help capacitate the committee to make informed decisions and take the necessary steps forward.

Mr Magagula addressed the first question regarding the technical amendments proposed by National Treasury, stating that similar amendments had been made in 2021. However, he did not have them on hand at that moment. He requested permission to send the relevant reports later, as they contained all the proposed amendments and how the committee had dealt with them. He emphasised that it was not a significant issue and assured that he could provide the information since it was stored in his database, even though he did not recall the details offhand.

On the issue of the legal opinion, he suggested that it would be beneficial to have something written down. He proposed asking the secretary to facilitate this process. He explained that he had already spoken with the committee’s secretary, who had, in turn, discussed the matter with the senior legal advisor, Advocate Jenkins. However, he was unsure if a formal written opinion had been provided. He acknowledged the concern about safeguarding the committee’s interests and avoiding any situation where they might appear unaware of the legal framework they were operating within.

He suggested that the committee formally request a written legal opinion to address this. This would clarify the legality of the National Assembly referring the document to the committee before adopting the fiscal framework. He questioned the wisdom of such a referral, stating that, according to his interpretation of the Money Bills Act, the National Assembly was not required to refer the revenue division before the fiscal framework had been adopted. However, he acknowledged that Parliament might have a different perspective. He believed a written legal opinion would be the best course of action to ensure clarity and proper procedure.

Regarding the question of when committee members become involved in the budget process, he explained that, unfortunately, the majority of committee members only became involved once the budget had been tabled in the National Assembly. He noted that the lock-up session, where members received the budget documents in advance, was not a legislated requirement but rather an arrangement by National Treasury. The purpose of this session was to give members time to review the documents before the budget speech, allowing them to be better prepared for media interviews and party discussions. However, he pointed out that Treasury was not legally obligated to conduct these sessions, and they could discontinue them at any time.

He also mentioned that the chairpersons of the standing committees were involved in the Budget Council discussions. However, he was unsure whether the information discussed in those meetings was meant solely for the chairpersons or intended to be shared more broadly. Nevertheless, he confirmed that the issues discussed in the Budget Council ultimately influenced the documents submitted to Parliament.

On the question of the flexibility of the parliamentary programme, he stated that he did not see any issues arising. He explained that the legislation governing the process was passed by Parliament itself, meaning that Parliament had designed the framework to facilitate its own operations. Since the committee was merely implementing the legislation that Parliament had enacted, he believed that Parliament would have to ensure that its schedule accommodated these processes. He then said that there should be no concerns about adjusting the programmeme, as Parliament was responsible for making sure its own legislation was effectively implemented.

He continued by addressing another question that had been posed. He highlighted that, according to Section 12 of the Act, specifically subsection 16, and as referenced in his presentation on slide 18, subsection (e) stated that the Committee on Appropriations had the authority to recommend to the House that proposed amendments by other committees be rejected if those amendments were not consistent with the fiscal framework, the adopted division of revenue, or if they were not adequately motivated as required by the section.

He reiterated that the committee had the legal authority to reject any recommendation from another committee as long as the rejection was justified based on this provision. If an amendment was inconsistent with the adopted fiscal framework or the reasons provided were deemed insufficient by the committee, it had the right to reject such proposals. The law clearly allowed for this process.

Regarding the questions posed by the chairperson, he acknowledged them and hoped that his response would be adequate, though he admitted that the matter was somewhat complex. He explained that if the committee strongly felt that funds needed to be reallocated within the main division of the Department of Basic Education—for example, to address issues such as pit latrines or infrastructure for special schools—it was within the committee’s authority to initiate such a process.

He emphasised that the legislation permitted Parliament to liaise with the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education to assess the department’s budget and determine where funds could be reallocated. While the Department of Basic Education itself would be involved at a later stage—particularly in discussions between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Basic Education—Parliament could proceed with its work in the meantime.

He noted that joint meetings with the Department of Basic Education had previously been held to highlight key issues. In such discussions, the committee would examine the department’s proposed budget, assess potential reallocation opportunities, and determine how funds could be redirected. However, he stressed that the committee had to ensure that any proposed reallocation was reasonable and justified under the law.

He explained that a key consideration was whether the issue at hand was truly a funding problem or merely a service delivery issue. If the department already had the necessary funds but were not spending them effectively, the committee would need to assess the situation differently. However, if the committee was satisfied that the issue was indeed financial, nothing would stop them from reallocating funds within the Department of Basic Education or any other vote.

Regarding the issue of the Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) and the MTBPS, he acknowledged the concern that, under normal circumstances, the MTBPS should be informed by the development plan. However, he noted the unusual situation in which Cabinet had only recently approved the plan, despite elements already having been mentioned in the State of the Nation Address (SONA).

He stated that this was not the typical process, as the law required Parliament’s strategic planning process to align with the medium-term development framework. Ideally, when the Minister of Basic Education took office and the MTBPS was tabled in October, it should have been informed by the development plan. Given that the plan was approved only recently, he asked what had informed the budget that had already been drafted and whether the newly approved plan would now be integrated into the budget set to be tabled the following week.

However, he conceded that these issues extended beyond his role. He remarked that such concerns were highly political and should be raised by the chairperson and other honorable members in the appropriate forums.

As a content advisor for the committee, he observed several irregularities in the process, as there was supposed to be a clear sequence of actions that followed one another. However, if decisions were made at higher levels in a different manner, he stated that such matters were far beyond what he could speak on or influence.

The Chairperson stated that the question had been answered adequately. However, he emphasised that he was raising the issue because it was absolutely vital that the budgeting process was anchored in the MTBPS and that the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) process emerged from the fiscal framework, as had been outlined.

He stressed that a thorough analysis of the budget was impossible without understanding the foundational aspects from which spending priorities were derived. As a result, he argued that the issue was no longer a political question but rather a legislated legal process that had to be followed; otherwise, the process would not function correctly.

He further explained that this was why he had insisted on holding the session so urgently, even though it might seem tedious to some members. He warned that if the committee did not establish these processes correctly, it would not be the executive that faced legal consequences—it would be Parliament. By extension, as a committee of Parliament, they could be cited in legal proceedings. He noted that while there had never been a legal precedent for such a situation in the country, it posed a serious risk.

He pointed out that as coalition configurations continued to evolve, it was crucial for the seventh administration to establish clear and enforceable rules. If they failed to do so, he assured the members that if not their committee, then another committee in the near future would find itself in court for failing to adhere to proper procedures.

He reiterated the importance of following due process correctly and noted that one key issue was the presence of ambiguous wording in legislation. He gave examples of terms such as "reasonably so," which had been extensively debated in court cases and could be interpreted in different ways depending on the legal argument presented.

He concluded by pointing out that the committee had already been furnished with a letter regarding the adjustment of the Money Bills Act, a task assigned to them. Given this, he stressed that the committee was responsible for undertaking this work and ensuring that the necessary legislative amendments were made to provide appropriate guidance moving forward.

Mr Kwankwa recalled that during the previous term, when they had grappled with this issue, one of the concerns raised was that many committees that did not deal with financial matters lacked an understanding of the technical details involved in amending or rejecting a budget vote.

He pointed out that one of the key discussions at the time was the need to develop a structured process to provide guidelines for these committees. Such guidelines would clarify what the Appropriations Committee looks for when evaluating proposed amendments or concerns related to the budget. By implementing such a process, committees submitting budget-related queries would already have a clear understanding of the criteria and expectations before their matters were referred to the Appropriations Committee.

He reminded the members that there had been concerns in the past about perceptions that the Appropriations Committee and SCOPA were being treated as "super committees" within Parliament. He noted that some had argued that all committees of Parliament operated with equal mandates and authority.

Given this, he wanted to know whether a formal process had been developed to guide committees on engaging with budget-related matters, proposing amendments, or making financial suggestions without necessarily having deep financial expertise. He sought clarity on whether such an interface had been established to streamline interactions between committees and ensure that financial processes were handled in a more structured and informed manner.

The Chairperson acknowledged both points and noted them for further consideration. He stated that, moving forward, he was very aware that they had already received communication from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which had expressed severe concerns and was looking to adjust the budget.

Given this, he emphasised the importance of ensuring that the committee had a solid understanding of the legal aspects related to budget adjustments so that they could proceed accordingly. He confirmed that he would respond to the two portfolio committees regarding their concerns.

Additionally, he addressed the third matter, stating that the legal opinion requested by the presenter had been formally submitted to the parliamentary law advisor. He emphasised that obtaining a proper legal opinion on the process would be essential for guiding the committee’s next steps.

Mr Wakelin raised two key matters for discussion:

First, he addressed the committee's relationship with other committees, acknowledging the concern that they should not overstep their mandate or interfere with the work of other committees. He noted that it was important to respect the roles of different committees while ensuring that necessary financial oversight was conducted effectively. He suggested that one way to improve this relationship from a procedural standpoint would be to develop a standardised approach for sharing information.

He proposed creating a simple, straightforward document or guideline, which could be shared with all caucuses across political parties. This document would outline the proper process for engaging with budget matters, ensuring that members of other committees understood how the Appropriations Committee operated and how it could assist them. He emphasised the need for a simplified and accessible explanation so all committees could easily navigate the process.

He also highlighted the importance of maintaining an apolitical commitment to these discussions, reinforcing the idea that budgetary processes should be approached collaboratively rather than competitively.

Second, he suggested simplifying the process map for future engagements, particularly during the adjustment period. He emphasised the need to create a clear, structured process that would allow members from other committees to submit their budget concerns and engage with the Appropriations Committee more effectively. He believed that offering early guidance and support to colleagues would help streamline the adjustment budget process.

He reiterated that the last thing the committee needed was for other members to perceive them as stepping on the toes of other committees or acting as a "super committee." He stressed that their role was not to overshadow other committees but to work collaboratively, ensuring that financial oversight was conducted efficiently and aligned with parliamentary processes.

The Chairperson began by acknowledging that some members might agree that being part of this committee was like playing in the "Premier League." While he did not agree with the notion of a "super committee," he maintained that the committee should continue to function at the highest level. He acknowledged that the term "Premier League" had been politically misused before but clarified that he was not engaging in that debate.

He then directed the content creator and researchers to compile a process diagram or a short explanatory note. The purpose of this document would be to provide committee members with clear guidelines that they could use to brief their respective caucuses. Additionally, he suggested that this note be sent for broader distribution, and he committed to raising the matter in the Chairperson’s discussion that was scheduled to take place shortly. He emphasised that this was a practical step to ensure clarity on the committee’s processes.

Further, he reiterated that parliamentary work should have tangible outcomes. He stressed that the purpose of Parliament was not merely to rubber-stamp decisions but to ensure that proposals were properly scrutinised and that the committee was well-equipped to address the issues at hand. He warned that if they failed in this regard, it would undermine their legislative mandate. He also reflected on his initial entry into the committee, stating that one of the first questions he had asked was about the historical practices surrounding the use of the law. He emphasised that they must fully exercise their legislative authority in this regard.

He acknowledged the input from the honorable member regarding the debate over whether the committee was "super" or not but reiterated that a short briefing note on committee processes would be valuable. He planned to table it as an agenda point at the next Chairperson’s Committee meeting to ensure that all members understood the procedures for engagement and interaction. He wanted to ensure that such matters were handled through committee structures rather than relying on informal interactions between individual chairpersons.

Addressing the presenter directly, he confirmed that his question had been understood. He explained that part of his inquiry was about outlining a process for handling cases where Parliament, rather than the Executive, sought intra-programme adjustments. For example, he referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which was considering an intra-programme adjustment not initiated by the Executive. He suggested this could be a useful discussion and recommended outlining the process to guide committees in such situations.

He concluded by stating that he would provide a proper briefing on this matter and work on compiling a response. He then thanked the presenter for the thorough briefing he had provided to the committee. Finally, he reminded the honorable members that they would proceed with tabling the budget next week.

Adoption of minutes

The consideration of minutes dated 22 October 2024 was moved for adoption by Mr M Lekganyane (ANC) and seconded by Ms Gcaleka-Mazibuko.

The consideration of minutes dated 27 November 2024 was moved for adoption by Mr Wakelin and seconded by Ms Gcaleka-Mazibuko.

The consideration of minutes dated 29 November 2024 was moved for adoption by Ms Gcaleka-Mazibuko and seconded by Mr Lekganyane.

The meeting was adjourned.