Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 374012,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/374012/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 132,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "a Departmental Committee. That was necessitated by the need to have a meeting point, where all committees would be sort of at the same level in respect of the budgeting process. So, the issue of numbers, really, is neither here nor there, and it is nothing new. Again, those numbers are not in the Constitution. I heard the Chairperson of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, again, making reference to the makers of the Constitution. The Constitution does not make any reference to any particular committee and, therefore, to any numbers in any committee. That is a matter which is detailed in our Standing Orders, which we had the liberty, the authority and the power to change, to amend and to re-write as we deemed fit. Hon. Speaker, the issue I really felt the urge to contribute to is the matter of committees and especially the chairpersons, and how the committees and the chairpersons interact with the Government vis-a-vis the role of this House as an independent and autonomous arm of the Government within the framework of separation of powers. The challenge we are facing is that we have erroneously treated chairpersons of committees as a replacement for the Cabinet in this House. They are not! A chairperson of a committee is not a replacement of a Minister in this House. It has erroneously been suggested and even purportedly practised; that a chairperson of a committee can take the flack for the Government. He should not. He need not. He must not because a chairperson of a committee in this House is not an extension; is not an appendage, and is not a part of the Executive. The reason as to why we created a scenario where we have a chairpersons of committees communicating what the Government has brought to the committee is because we removed the Minister from here. We said the forum for interaction between this House and the Executive will be the committee. That is the forum for interaction. So, a Cabinet Secretary comes before the Committee and he interacts with the Committee as an extension of this House. What the chairperson of the Committee does is to convey that interaction to this House. In performing that role of a conveyor, the chairperson of a Committee does not become part of the Executive. Therefore, the chairperson of a Committee merely communicates what has occurred in his or her Committee. In so communicating, you do not come here and be defensive for the Executive. Remember that ultimately the three cardinal responsibilities and roles of Parliament; to legislate, to oversight and represent have not changed merely because we have changed the form of Government. A chairperson of a committee still has a role to play in oversight, in similar manner as any other Member of a committee. Therefore, perhaps, one of the things that we need to do is to reorient the leadership of our committees to understand that when you are a chairperson of the Budget Committee, in this House you are not the Cabinet Secretary for Treasury. You do not come here and behave as if you are on call by Treasury to defend the Treasury here. This applies to all chairpersons of committees. Once we understand that our role is really to convey--- Perhaps, we need to revisit our Standing Orders and ensure that the committee becomes the forum that we envisaged, such that a person who asked a question on the Floor should actually be facilitated to attend the committee meeting where the Cabinet Secretary is appearing. That is the forum where the questioner or the originator of a question should come to engage and interact"
}