Division of Revenue Bill: Final Mandate; Technical Task Team Progress Report on Money Bills Act

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members and officials to the meeting, and proposed that the Committee should first consider and adopt the final mandate report on the Division of Revenue Bill [B4-2024] for the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The Western Cape Provincial Parliament's (WCPP's) legal unit would then present the current progress of the technical task team overseeing the Money Bills Amendment Procedure for the Western Cape.

The Members agreed to the proposal.

Consideration of final mandate report on the Division of Revenue Bill [B4-2024]

The Chairperson informed the Committee that the WCPP had received the NCOP's responses to the inputs made on the Division of Revenue Bill, and these had been forwarded via e-mail to Members. The NCOP had sent it back with no amendments, which meant that the “substantial” inputs that Members made had not been considered.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) said he did not fully understand the Chairperson's comments. He wanted clarity on whether the NCOP had actually voted on the proposed amendments to the Bill.

The Chairperson explained that the negotiating phase was now complete, and that no amendments were considered by the NCOP. The same Bill had been sent back to the provincial legislatures.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that the Western Cape had proposed many amendments, and the provinces placed their faith in the NCOP to protect their interests. However, the NCOP had once again proved to be a “rubber stamp" for the National Assembly (NA). This meant that he could not support the Bill.

Ms C Murray (DA) said that Mr Van der Westhuizen had already stated his position well, and that she also did not support the Bill.

Mr K Brinkhuis (Al Jama-ah) invoked Rule 19, and expressed his party's minority view to support the Bill.

The Chairperson said for the record, she also did not support the Bill.

She then called on Members to formally adopt the final mandate report on the Division of Revenue Bill [B 4-2024] (NCOP).

Mr Van der Westhuizen moved the adoption of the report.

Ms Murray seconded the adoption of the report.

The report was duly adopted by the Budget Committee, which read that the Western Cape delegation to the NCOP should not support the passage of the DORA Bill.

Technical task team briefing on Money Bills Amendment Procedure Bill

Adv Andre le Roux, Senior Legal Advisor, WCPP, briefed the Committee on the current progress of the technical task team overseeing the Money Bills Amendment Procedure Bill for the Western Cape.

In March 2023, the Budget Committee met and considered the draft Bill and relevant standing rules, and had considered inputs from the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) and the Provincial Treasury (PT).

The Budget Committee had requested the appointment of a task team comprised of the parliamentary administration, Provincial Treasury and the Department of the Premier: Legal Services, which had been asked to review and consider the draft Bill.

On 25 July 2023, the task team had had its first meeting. Task team members indicated they had not had an opportunity to fully consider the briefing documents. The Provincial Treasury had been asked to make their inputs on the Bill, focusing on the policy approach and concerns with implementation of the Bill.

The task team had discussed its objectives, the roles of the various participants, and certain focus areas for a money bills amendment procedure for the Western Cape.

The task team had agreed to meet every four weeks, and that the parliamentary administration should meet with Legal Services at the Department of the Premier to discuss a regulatory impact assessment for the Bill.

On 24 January 2024, the parliamentary administration put forward the estimated expenditure for obtaining the legal opinion to the Department of the Premier: Legal Services, which had undertaken to engage with the Provincial Treasury on the issue of sharing costs before making a final decision.

By 22 April 2024, the State Attorney had confirmed that it had appointed counsel and had referred the legal questions to counsel.

The State Attorney would inform the parliamentary administration once the opinion had been concluded, or if further information or consultation was required with counsel.

See attached

Discussion

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that the provinces' participation in the budget process was a very important constitutional prerogative, and that the deadlines set were tight and unrealistic.

He further added that it was “sad" that the views of the provinces were not considered, and asked how this should be addressed in future.

The Chairperson replied that the timeframes were a problem for everyone -- from the Committee and the Provincial Treasury to National Treasury -- and that “we want a balance between oversight and lawmakers being given enough time for public participation," as well as participation in the actual drafting process. This process has been in the pipeline since 2019.

Parliamentary Legal Unit's response

Adv Le Roux said that he totally agreed with Mr Van der Westhuizen's comments, and that it was “imperative that effect be given" to the process, as most provinces did not have any money bills amendment processes to talk about.

The standing rules of Parliament provided five days for the WCPP to consider an appropriation bill. This was not sufficient time for oversight as well as participatory democracy processes.

The task team had recommended that the timeframes be coupled with clearly defined steps. A period of 30 days was recommended to allow for a balance between the consultation process and the actual adoption of the Appropriation Bill. It was important that the proposed timeframes should not undermine or delay the process.

On previous occasions, the Western Cape passed Appropriation Bills for the end of the final year.

Adv Le Roux commented that a lot of thought had gone into what it meant to have appropriate timelines.

Further discussion

The Chairperson said it was important to allow for enough time for adequate participatory processes to ensure the drafting of a “good" Bill. In Gauteng, a Monies Bill had been passed, only for it to be sent back for review.

She said it was important to pass strong legislation, underpinned by supporting processes and inputs from all societal actors.

Mr Van der Westhuizen thanked Adv Le Roux for the work that had been put into the task team, and said that he would follow the process from the sidelines.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee should recommend to the 7^th Parliament to remain seized with the matter.

Members agreed.

Committee minutes and reports.

The Committee considered and adopted outstanding minutes dated 22 April and its quarterly report, which were both proposed and seconded by Mr Van der Westhuizen and Ms Murray.

Chairperson's concluding remarks

The Chairperson announced that this was the last meeting of the Committee for the 6^th Parliament. She thanked Members for their hard work, as well as the parliamentary staff for their support of the Committee’s mandate. She wished everyone well.

The meeting was adjourned.