Feisty African National Congress MP Barbara Hogan’s frustration over Parliament’s failure to exercise proper oversight burst into the open this week when she slammed its handling of the budget and appealed for urgent reforms.
Shunning platitudes during the national Treasury budget vote, the finance committee chairperson bluntly criticised Parliament’s perfunctory processing of the budget.
“If we go into our heart of hearts, what influence have any of us really had in the numerous speeches that each of us have given on the budget? Very little,” Hogan said.
“We’ve had three hours of debate on some of these budgets. Can we really call that a debate? Can we really say that debate emerges out of detailed scrutiny out of a really strong commitment to ensuring that we exercise our oversight role and are answerable to our constituencies? No, we can’t say that.”
Hogan’s address in the National Assembly comes weeks after renewed speculation that she is to resign as an MP because of frustration over Parliament’s failure to hold the government to account and the dilution of the proposed parliamentary budget committee’s watchdog role.
It is understood to be a matter of time before she steps down.
One of the longest-serving MPs, Hogan has been in Parliament since 1994 and has headed the finance committee since 1999.
On Tuesday she reminded MPs that almost six years had passed since the adoption of the Constitution, which allowed Parliament to adopt ordinary legislation to amend the budget. No legislation had been passed.
The failure to legislate under section 77 (2) of the Constitution to allow amendments of money bills has prevented the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and other civil society groups from making budget submissions.
Despite Cosatu’s repeated calls for a say, Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel said this year the budget was an executive prerogative. There were sufficient avenues for input through the National Economic Development and Labour Council and Parliament.
“Without sounding outraged I simply say that it’s a disgrace here in this Parliament that we are not rising to the occasion as public representatives by assisting the executive,” said Hogan.
“At best the way we are dealing with the budget is perfunctory. It can almost be seen as rubber-stamping.”
She suggested Parliament urgently identify crucial moments before the budget was tabled so it played a role in shaping it.
In a thinly veiled reference to the proposed budget committee, she maintained oversight could not “just be a little committee somewhere”, but required the energy of Parliament as a whole. This involved revamping the way committees worked and the rules governing them, as neither assisted the legislators’ oversight role.
Hogan said amending powers were a measure of last resort when, for example, a department repeatedly failed to react to MPs’ concerns. Amendments would have to be made without disrupting fiscal balances or undermining the economic programme.
She also stressed that Parliament’s oversight and amendment powers should not extend to revenue Bills.
“What we take from people must be consistent and honest. We should not in election years suddenly raise revenues so that we can meet expenditure to make us come back to power.”
Hogan acknowledged the many changes already refining the budget process, which had evolved from a thin table of figures in 1994 to several books of substantive narrative setting out spending priorities amid macroeconomic analysis.
Brandishing the centimetres-thick 2002/3 budget, Hogan said it contained the promises and plans of government. More oversight meant better service delivery.