Effective parliamentary oversight is essential for a well-functioning democracy. Parliament is the body that exercises oversight over the workings and decisions of government’s executive branch, ensuring that service delivery takes place as promised and where this does not happen, that government is answerable to the people it serves – so that all citizens can live a better quality life.
The legislature is constitutionally mandated to carry out this duty, through various activities such as plenary debates, oversight visits, budget votes, and portfolio committees.
“This oversight function is essential to prevent abuse of authority and to ensure that government is accountable to the electorate. As such it is a keystone of democracy,” says the Public Affairs Research Institute (Pari) in a new policy brief titled Oversight in Parliament: The Role of Committees. The document aims to identify ways in which Parliament’s committees can work more effectively in carrying out their executive oversight obligations.
Under the Constitution, portfolio committees are established as instruments to facilitate oversight and monitor the government. Committees scrutinise legislation and the implementation and enforcement of laws, ensure the application of budgets is smooth and fair, oversee government action and management of departments and entities, and interact with the public. One of their most important functions is the consideration of annual reports of organs of state, and reports of the Auditor-General.
These committees are the “engine rooms” of Parliament’s oversight and legislative work, says the legislature.
Types of committees
The National Assembly’s (NA) portfolio committees shadow the work of the various national government departments and thus they consider bills, deal with departmental budget votes, oversee the work of the department they are responsible for, and enquire and make recommendations about any aspect of the department, including its structure, functioning and policy. There is a portfolio committee for each national ministry and its associated government department/s.
Select committees fall under the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), and they too shadow the work of the various national government departments and deal with bills. However, because the NCOP has fewer members than the NA, select committees oversee the work of more than one national government department.
Joint committees – comprising members of the NA and the NCOP – have powers like those of the portfolio and select committees. Standing committees, meanwhile, deal with topics that are not specific to a department or portfolio, such as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, while ad hoc committees are set up to deal with specific issues as they arise and when the issue is resolved, such committees are dissolved.
There are also several internal NA and NCOP committees that deal with matters affecting the running of Parliament, such as the rules committee, the programme committee, and the committee of chairpersons (the same names in both cases).
Committee challenges
“The oversight function requires parliamentarians to be knowledgeable of the work of the departments they oversee, government processes, and the broader socioeconomic context,” says Pari. They also need to understand the rules and powers of Parliament itself. A committee’s effectiveness is strongly determined by the commitment of its members.
Pari’s research for this brief, including interviews with members and staff of Parliament, found several existing challenges which, the organisation says, must be addressed to enhance the functioning of Parliament, especially in terms of executive oversight.
Lack of support staff for committees emerged as one of the top concerns, and one of the biggest weaknesses in the oversight system. Such support staff include financial experts, content and legal advisors, and researchers. “During the sixth parliament, committees generally had only one content advisor and respondents in our research felt that content advisors are overworked and unable to give every issue the attention it may deserve,” says Pari, who conducted its research during that administration.
In addition, the research unit was understaffed, with “many vacancies that could not be filled as the posts had been frozen”. Researchers play a crucial role in committee functioning because they provide research reports, briefing documents, and other requested information. Like the situation with content advisors, committees were usually allocated only one researcher each.
“MPs voiced concerns about the lack of research support; although capacity has increased over the years, both the MPs and staff felt that committees are still underserved.”
Another area where expertise is lacking is in financial knowledge. “Many interviewees felt that each portfolio committee should have at least two researchers as well as a budget analyst.”
Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Office, which was established to provide independent, objective, and professional advice and analysis to the NA and NCOP committees, is under-capacitated, says Pari. “MPs and committee staff expressed frustration that the office was unavailable to some committees requesting specific assistance on analysis, leaving content advisors and researchers to do this work without the right expertise.”
Political interference
In Parliament, as in other state entities, political interference is not unknown. In the Pari brief, some researchers and other knowledge workers say they have experienced such unnecessary interference while carrying out their duties. “Researchers have been reprimanded for presenting both pros and cons of policy proposals when some MPs want only positive reports.”
Some researchers have turned to extreme caution to protect themselves from potential retaliation, the brief notes. This is regrettable and undesirable because it could compromise the quality of their research and the trust between researchers and MPs.
Such overly politically tainted environments can lead to high staff turnover, and MPs are not unaffected. “This has certainly been the case in our Parliament.” In the case of MPs, says Pari, high turnover can seriously weaken a committee’s ability to exercise oversight effectively, with turnover rates reaching 33% in the sixth parliament and 26% in the fifth. “Committees generally need the knowledge and institutional memory that comes with experience to pursue effective oversight.”
Other challenges identified include committees sometimes working in isolation, with a corresponding lack of collaboration which can weaken Parliament’s effectiveness. In addition, Parliament’s fixed quarterly programme may not deal effectively with the unexpected and this, notes Pari, can lead to a relatively inflexible approach to oversight.
Some interviewees felt that committee meetings generally allow too much time for institutions or individuals to make presentations and read through reports, meaning that not enough time is left for questions and debate. “Where this is the norm, MPs often do not read the reports in advance or sufficiently prepare themselves to engage with the reporting officials. There is often no follow-up and critical issues that should be subjected to oversight may be overlooked.”
These and other issues picked up by Pari will unquestionably enhance parliamentary committees’ effectiveness, if addressed. There is much room for improvement on these and other matters, including what many interviewees felt is a “preoccupation with protocol and formality [which] often derails meetings on substantive matters and MPs spend more time discussing decorum than engaging with oversight.”
The seventh parliament, concludes Pari, offers the opportunity for committees, led by their chairpersons, “to experiment with more productive ways to engage the executive and the public”.
