The parliamentary ethics subcommittee is divided=20 over MPs’ outside financial interests, write=20 Eddie Koch and Marion Edmunds
STRONG pressure for South African MPs to continue=20 earning lucrative salaries on top of their pay from=20 Parliament is coming from inside an ethics subcommittee=20 set up to devise rules on the controversial issue.
Six of nine MPs on the parliamentary committee, chaired=20 by Water Minister Kader Asmal, advocate the right of=20 MPs to hold second jobs. And at least three committee=20 members are themselves employed outside parliament,=20 according to the latest edition of Parliamentary Whip.
“The composition of the sub-committee means it is=20 almost certain to recommend that on this first issue of=20 principle, MPs will continue to be entitled to more=20 than one source of income, even though conflicts of=20 interest may arise,” says the newsletter, published by=20 the Institute for a Democratic South Africa.=20
The paper quotes a number of ethics committee members,=20 who voice strong support for their right to continue=20 holding company directorships or salary-earning posts=20 outside the Assembly — even though a large number of=20 MPs are pushing for Parliament to be seen as a full- time job.
Another feature emerging from Idasa’s investigation is=20 that attitudes toward the question of MPs’ remuneration=20 do not conform to party political lines.
Whip quotes Gill Marcus, ANC MP and chair of the=20 finance portfolio in the Assembly, as saying the=20 country needs parliamentarians who devote all their=20 time to making good laws and acting as an effective=20 check on the Cabinet.
“MPs who do their job diligently should not have time=20 for anything else, and I believe that anyone who is=20 earning from other sources is undoubtedly making a=20 choice about time usage, which ultimately can only be=20 detrimental to their work as an MP,” says Marcus.
‘Furthermore, an MP gains real insight into the=20 workings of government. This insight should be utilised=20 for the benefit of everyone, not primarily for those=20 who have the resources to pay for consultations.=20 Consultations for selected bodies or individuals for=20 further renumeration pose enormous ethical problems if=20 an MP is paid by ordinary taxpayers. Whose interests,=20 then, do they serve.”
But Dave Dalling, another ANC member who sits on the=20 ethics committee, has a different view. He is a=20 director of two companies and told Whip that he had to=20 “earn other money” in order to maintain two children at=20
Douglas Gibson of the Democratic Party, also on the=20 committee, is a practising partner in a law firm, while=20 a third member, Piet Mathee from the National Party,=20 practices law on an ad hoc basis.
NP committee member Danie Schutte disagrees with=20 Mathee. He has given up his legal practice because he=20 realises that “parliamentary work, especially in this=20 new dispensation, requires total commitment on the part=20 of MPs”.
Schutte was reluctant to ban his colleagues from making=20 extra money outside parliament, but said he did not=20 favour lobbying for outside interests. Consultancies=20 and directorships in companies that benefited from=20 direct access to parliamentary information were “grey=20 areas that required further careful thought”.
ANC member Phillip Dexter, a former trade unionist,=20 told the Mail & Guardian that “outside interests cannot=20 be forbidden as long as there is complete transparency,=20 full disclosure to the public”. He added that this=20 should include all public figures and not just MPs.
Dexter said remuneration was confused by the debate=20 around the gravy train. He said the debate focuses=20 specifically on the questions of disclosure and whether=20 lobbying by MPs is permissible.=20
Recent meetings of the ethics subcomittee have focused=20 on the need for full disclosure as the best way to=20 resolve any conflict of interest between parliamentary=20 and outside work.
Asmal recently announced the ANC would advocate that=20 its MPs make their disclosures, which are currently=20 mandatory but restricted to scrutiny by the=20 organisation’s national executive, open to the public – – even though other political parties have not yet=20 adopted a code on these issues.