Parliamentarians may soon be governed by a code of ethics, reports Gaye Davis
A CODE of ethics could be awaiting parliamentarians when they return for the new session in February, following agreement this week by a majority of parties that members’ financial and other interests should be
But the code will initially be governed not by legislation but by parliamentary rules, overseen by a multi-party committee of parliamentarians. This means it will apply only to members of parliament. Chairpersons and directors of parastatals, for example, and members’ spouses and other relatives, will be excluded from its ambit. Nor will it govern an MP who swops a seat in the assembly for one at a boardroom
Chaired by the African National Congress’ Kader Asmal, who crafted and drove through the ANC’s in-house code of conduct, the Parliamentary Ethics Subcommittee has come under sharper scrutiny recently since the launch of Idasa’s controversial national survey of
Aware that, although the exercise is voluntary, refusing to respond would be seen by a sceptical public as a poor measure of their transparency, MPs and senators opposed to the survey have defended themselves on grounds that parliament was busy drawing up its own ethical code.
During an ethics subcommittee meeting this week, the majority of parties agreed — despite Inkatha Freedom Party and National Party opposition — that there should be disclosure of members’ financial interests, including land and property ownership, shareholdings, directorships, lobbying, outside employment and consultancies, trips (unless wholly private) and gifts worth up to R350.
Asmal was upbeat this week about progress made in what appears to be a tortuously long process. Minutes of the meetings show parties to have been slow to come up with positions on what should be covered, and how. Fine details have still to be settled, such as the extent to which disclosure is made public.
But the committee has been meeting for only the past four months to consider a matter other countries have taken years to achieve. Some agreement has also been reached on how the code would operate, with a multi- party parliamentary committee monitoring and hearing
The NP’s position is that South Africa does not yet have “a normal democratic situation”, with high levels of political intolerance and violence which “must have an impact on the extent to which public disclosure can reasonably be required”.
The IFP is opposed to ordinary members disclosing their assets, but feels Cabinet ministers, presiding officers and committee chairs should. MPs and senators should declare interests where relevant in debate, but only
The Democratic Party’s position is that direct and indirect interests should be declared, but not the weight of that interest. The size of members’ personal wealth was their private business. “The idea is to identify actual or potential conflicts of interest, not to invade the privacy of members’ financial or other affairs,” the party’s submission says. The ANC, Pan Africanist Congress and African Christian Democratic Party are overall in favour of broader disclosure.
Current rules bar members from being paid for personal services rendered as an MP or senator: no member may vote on any matter in which he has a direct financial interest, nor may they be compensated for promoting or opposing any matter before Parliament. The Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act provides for those convicted of any such offence to be fined not more than R2000 and to repay the value of the reward received.
The ethics subcommittee meets again on December 4 to finalise a report for the rules committees of the National Assembly and Senate. Meanwhile, the public can ponder the question of whether parliamentarians can police themselves.