EDITORIAL - The value of the PAAC
The stand-off this week between government and opposition members of Parliament's Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC) over the context and texture of the draft report on their review of the Supplementary Estimates ought not to have been a matter of grave concern.
Such disagreements are expected in the cut and thrust of democracy. In the end, as usually happens when members of a committee arrive at consensus, the Opposition decided to submit a minority report to the Parliament. That minority report was blocked initially, but was eventually accepted when the committee reconvened later.
What we are, however, surprised and concerned about is the apparent concept of Mr Andrew Gallimore, a junior minister and a ranking government member of the PAAC, of the role of parliamentary committees, especially the one on which he sits.
"There is no report in the history of independent Jamaica that would come from a committee of Parliament and be phrased in the language which is used in this report," Mr Gallimore told committee members in resisting the draft document.
Raison d'être of PAAC
Assuming Mr Gallimore's assertion is true of committee reports of the past, he appears to believe that the current standard should be maintained in the future. That, however, is to ignore the context of the establishment of the PAAC and what, therefore, is expected of it - and, for that matter, standing parliamentary committees.
The PAAC is one of the creatures of the Government's grandly named fiscal accountability framework, comprising legislation and prescribed behaviour aimed at bringing best practices to the management of the economy and public resources.
Unlike the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which reviews government spending long after it happens, the PAAC is expected to track the Budget, as well as its general administration, on an ongoing basis.
Adequately staffed with researchers and analysts, such a committee can play an important counterbalancing role in the interpretation of the administration's fiscal and management performance. At the very least, it can help to bring transparency to catch derailments before they become major crises.
Gaining public faith
For this committee to evolve into a body that genuinely fulfils its mandate, its members, as well as the political executive, must take it seriously. And the public must have faith in its credibility.
This depends, substantially, on how the committee does its work, including the rigour with which it analyses the public accounts and the thought with which its members engage public officials and other persons who give testimony before it. The Government, in this regard, if it is serious about fiscal accountability, must treat the committee with respect, allowing it the appropriate time and resources to do a proper job.
This does not mean its members will always reach consensus. Nor should it mean sugar-coated reports, designed to validate government policy. It is, in part, to prevent this kind of fluff why the this committee, like the PAC, is chaired by an opposition member.
But there is often a tension between this search for independence and relevance, and political loyalty. This partially explains the concern of the government members on the PAAC who were offended by the draft report's claim that the revised Budget was not conducive to meeting national economic targets.
The disagreement over what emerged at the hearings, however, is only a minor bump that distracts little from the value of the process.