Inside Parliament: The onerous committee system, the code of ethics … and the ushers
By special arrangement, we feature extracts from Parliamentary Whip, the publication of Idasa’s Parliamentary Information and Monitoring Service Pims
MPs are seriously overstretched by the committee system, with some sitting on more than a dozen of these
An investigation by Parliamentary Whip shows that under the new parliamentary-committee system, MPs in parties such as the DP and the ACDP are seriously overstretched by the need to be represented on each parliamentary committee.
This applies also to some MPs in the larger parties such as the ANC and NP, some of whom are members of as many as seven committees.
These figures raise serious questions about the capacity of MPs to develop the expertise and specialism necessary to realise the full potential of the evolving parliamentary-committee system. It supports those who now argue for a reduction in the number of full parliamentary committees.
Parliamentary committees — including joint standing committees, select committees and ad hoc commiitees — have undergone a radical change. Not only have they increased dramatically in number — from about 25 to 61 committees — but they have also assumed relatively meaningful powers in regard to matters relating to the development of public policy and the drafting of
Also, the unevenness of workload within certain parties suggests that party managers are tending to push for hard-working and effective MPs to be members of as many committees as possible.
ANC: No of committees
Ms P Govender 7
Mr P Dexter 5
Mr S Macozoma 4
Mr SP Makwetla 3
Lieut G Rockman 2
NP: No of committees
Ms S Camerer 9
Mr NJ Gogotya 7
Col NG Ramaremisa 4
Dr PJ Steenkamp 3
IFP: No of committees
Ms L Singh 14
Dr DRB Madide 7
Freedom Front: No of committees
Mr J Chiole 10
DP: No of committees
Sen W Mnisi 12
PAC: No of committees
Ms P De Lille 15
ACDP: No of committees
Mr LM Green 13
# Making corruption as hard as possible
THE Parliamentary Ethics Sub-committee, chaired by Cabinet Minister Kader Asmal, is now meeting on a weekly basis in an attempt to draft a code of ethics that will govern MPs’ outside financial interests and their duty to disclose such interests publicly.
Asmal has secured the agreement of the Senate on a consolidated approach to the matter.
Senators representing all political parties will join the sub-committee at future meetings with a view to recommending rules that will apply to both the National Assembly and the Senate.
The Joint Sub-committee on Code of Ethics/Conduct — as it will be called from now on — must still report, however, to the respective Rules Committees of the two Houses. This means that it is still possible that two codes could result, rather than the single consolidated code that Asmal hopes to achieve.
But the fact that there will be joint contributions from the Senate and the National Assembly at this important formative stage of the code will speed up the process.
As the debate gathers pace, the sub-committee’s attention has moved directly to consider the complex issue of disclosure of financial outside interests of parliamentarians. The sub-committee has agreed that the question of whether Parliament should be considered as a full-time vocation should be left to the individual political parties to give guidance on.
Key African National Congress players hope to persuade the party to adopt an internal rule prohibiting ANC MPs and Senators from having second jobs.
In this way, according to senior ANC sources, the party hopes to wrest the moral high ground from the other political parties by demonstrating to the public that it alone is devoted to representing the electorate on a full-time basis.
At its meeting on August 1, the sub-committee identified a list of possible categories of financial interests where disclosure may be appropriate. As it began to work its way through the list at the next meeting, a week later, important differences in approach emerged. On the question of income, for example, the Democratic Party’s representative on the sub-committee, Douglas Gibson, said: “It is none of the public’s business to know if I am a millionaire.”
Inkatha Freedom Party representative Johan van der Merwe added that “if the object of the exercise of disclosing income is to prevent corruption it will not work, because if I am going to accept a bribe I will do so in a way that will not show up anywhere.”
Asmal retorted: “But we are trying to create as many difficulties for people as possible”.
He referred to the practice in most Scandinavian countries where income tax returns are publicly available.
“That way if there is a large-scale increase in income, and I have only my parliamentary salary to live on, people will be able to see that something is wrong,” he
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Frene Ginwala, who sits on the sub-committee as an ex-officio member, favours total disclosure of all financial interests and assets. Referring to the United Kingdom’s Register of Members’ Interests, which provides for the disclosure of any pecuniary interest which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament”, Ginwala stated that this was a “very narrow” definition.
“It is not for us to say what is reasonable,” she argued. “The interim Constitution requires open and transparent government, which is much broader. Almost any (financial interest or asset) may possibly influence your view”.
The sub-committee is keen to look at the rules that exist in other countries — although Asmal has made it clear that it is for the sub-committee to construct a uniquely South African code. It now has before it a review of the disclosure rules around the world prepared for the UK parliament.
This document was prepared in 1986, however, and as a second report — prepared for the sub-committee by Idasa’s Parliamentary Information and Monitoring Service (Pims) — shows, many more countries have adopted more stringent ethical rules in the nine years that have passed since then.
Pims is to hold a small workshop in the next few weeks, with a view to drafting a charter on parliamentary and political ethics. If you would be interested in participating, phone (021) 418-3464 or fax: (021) 25-
mail: [email protected].
Possible categories of financial interest for disclosure being considered by the sub-committee:
* Shareholdings, including nominee shareholdings;
* Outside employment (and possible incompatible
* Directorships;
* Clients for whom services are
* Consultancies;
* Sponsorships or financial or material support (which would include agencies financing support staff)
* Gifts, benefits and hospitality;
* Overseas visits, and grounds for exempting such visits from register;
* Overseas benefits and gifts;
* Land and Property, including interest in land and own residence.
Other issues for discussion identified by the sub-
* Regulation by legislation or Parliamentary Rules; and method of enforcement of disclosure;
* Date of initial registration of member’s financial interests, updating of register and period of
* Who specifically should be included in the disclosure requirements: members; their spouses and children; ministers; presiding officers; chairpersons of committees; senior officials; provincial legislatures; chairpersons and directors of parastatals (it was noted that persons outside of Parliament could only be included if the proposed code of conduct was established by legislation);
* Should the disclosures be private or in the public
* Administration of a proposed register of members’
* Possible sanctions for non-disclosure;
* If fixed assets are to be disclosed, is the value of such assets also to be disclosed?
# Ushering in the new era Mills Soko
NOWHERE have the changes taking place in Parliament been more visible than in the relationship between the institution’s two best-known faces: those of “service officers” “Oom” Pieter van Rensburg and Mongezi Phama.
Without them, finding one’s way through the labyrinth of parliamentary corridors would be a nightmare.
The affable Van Rensburg (68) is a product of a working-class upbringing. He took up his current job in Parliament in 1987. He welcomes the changes he has seen.
“In the olden days discipline was far more strict. It was not a people’s Parliament … It is a pleasure to work with people. I feel elated and nice because I feel accepted. It is a pity this did not happen long ago.”
Phama (35) grew up in Gugulethu. His secondary education was interrupted by the 1976 political ferment, in which he played a leading role.
Following a tip-off that the security police were after him, Phama, then 15, fled the country with other young political activists. He was arrested in Swaziland in the same year and detained in Johannesburg, were he was severely tortured.
To escape further torture, he pleaded insanity and was transferred to the Weskoppies asylum in Pretoria. Taking advantage of the lax security situation there, he and a friend escaped, and, still wearing prison garb, boarded the first train to Johannesburg. With the help of several people, including Winnie Mandela, Phama fled into exile in 1977.
After spending five years in Tanzania, he moved to Zambia and in 1984, on a scholarship organised by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, travelled to the US to take up studies in basic electronics.
Phama joined Parliament in 1993. Like Van Rensburg, he loves working with people from different walks of life.
The nature of their working relationship is summed up by Oom Pieter, who says they get on “famously”. They have become an example of goodwill and co-existence. Given their vastly different political backgrounds and different life experiences, they have achieved in a short time what many have failed to attain in a