In April 2009, then-President Kgalema Motlanthe signed the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act into law. It marked a new era for parliamentary oversight and engagement with the budget and broader fiscal framework. The Act came out of the belief by legislators and civil society that the Executive had dominated fiscal and budgetary matters.
One of the innovations of the 2009 Act was the introduction of Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRRs) to the mandates of NA Committees. BRRRs assess the service delivery performance of departments given available resources. Committees are also expected to provide an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s use of available resources and may include recommendations on the forward use of resources. This process occurs in October each year, with the BRRRs being submitted to the Minister of Finance and relevant members of Cabinet. BRRRs are crucial instruments allowing parliamentary committees to engage in both budgetary and performance oversight of departments. Notwithstanding these stated aims, it is clear that what happens in reality falls short of this, with recent reports suggesting that BRRRs have limited influence on budgeting decisions. Further, some Members of Parliament (MPs) view them as a ‘tick-box exercise’ to comply with legislation.
This study draws on available research, previous PMG reports, committee meetings, and engagements with MPs, committee support staff, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), and civil society. It does not attempt to make final conclusions about the BRRRs but focuses on existing practices, shortcomings, and possible opportunities for improvement.
In April 2009, then-President Kgalema Motlanthe signed the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act into law. It marked a new era for parliamentary oversight and engagement with the budget and broader fiscal framework. The Act came out of the belief by legislators and civil society that the Executive had dominated fiscal and budgetary matters.
One of the innovations of the 2009 Act was the introduction of Budgetary Review and Recommendation Reports (BRRRs) to the mandates of NA Committees. BRRRs assess the service delivery performance of departments given available resources. Committees are also expected to provide an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s use of available resources and may include recommendations on the forward use of resources. This process occurs in October each year, with the BRRRs being submitted to the Minister of Finance and relevant members of Cabinet. BRRRs are crucial instruments allowing parliamentary committees to engage in both budgetary and performance oversight of departments. Notwithstanding these stated aims, it is clear that what happens in reality falls short of this, with recent reports suggesting that BRRRs have limited influence on budgeting decisions. Further, some Members of Parliament (MPs) view them as a ‘tick-box exercise’ to comply with legislation.
This study draws on available research, previous PMG reports, committee meetings, and engagements with MPs, committee support staff, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), and civil society. It does not attempt to make final conclusions about the BRRRs but focuses on existing practices, shortcomings, and possible opportunities for improvement.
While the BRRR process holds promise for improving parliamentary oversight and fiscal accountability, it faces significant challenges, including lack of follow-up, limited tracking, lack of public participation, and insufficient time for robust engagements. To enhance its impact, recommendations include formalising processes for departmental responses, increasing transparency, adopting SMART principles in recommendations, and improving public involvement. Additionally, aligning the BRRR process with the parliamentary calendar and boosting the technical capacity of MPs and committee staff could strengthen its effectiveness. For the BRRRs to truly impact budgeting decisions, both Parliament and the Executive must commit to meaningful engagement and consistent follow-up on recommendations.
