REVIEW OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

- some questions that have arisen in the last years.

    1. Shares and financial Interests – do "financial interests" require greater definition? Should we give guidelines to members on the disclosure of family trusts? The family trusts can provide a loophole for those members who do not wish to publicly disclose, leading to the establishment of "family trusts" which have several business interests.
    2. Outside employment - Employees of the state are ineligible to be members. However, there appear to be a number of members who do ad hoc consultancy work for government departments. How should this be treated in the Code?
    3. Directorships and partnerships - There is no provision in the Code for ownership of informal businesses - should such a provision be included?
    4. Non-profit organizations - Should directorships of non-profit organizations be disclosed?
    5. Consultancies and retainerships - the Code requires that Members provide details of payment from a client. Is this practical? We also need a definition on consultancies. Many members appear to call their businesses "consultancies", when, perhaps, they are not.
    6. Soliciting – as it stands the Code requires disclosure of sponsorships, gifts and benefits (to a certain value), but it does not say that such sponsorships, gifts and benefits should not be solicited by a Member.
    7. Gifts and hospitality – Should we increase the R350 limit to R1000? Should there be a cap on the value of the gift received – and if so what should it be? We should also, presumably, make an explicit provision to ensure that Members do not accept any gift that creates a conflict of interest.
    8. Benefits - this category is a catch-all, but we probably need to make this clearer in the Code. For instance, any financial benefit which a member receives but is unable to disclose elsewhere should be disclosed in this category. The disclosure of interest free loans, for instance, should be disclosed here. If this is accepted, we should probably also assist members by establishing bench-marks – eg. any interest free loan above R25 000 for a period of one year or longer must be disclosed.
    9. Travel - Members should not accept travel benefits that may create a conflict of interest for them or the committees that they serve. Should there be a limit to the value of travel benefits?
    10. Pension - Why do members need to disclose this?
    11. Spouse’s interests - Some members are of the view that the disclosure of the spouse’s interests infringes on the right of the spouse. What is our recommendation?
    12. Member’s "other income" – should this be confidential?
    13. Members and government business – There is a trend of members participating in tenders for government business. Should this be allowed? If no, the Code should stipulate. If yes, the Code should provide guidelines. For example, any interaction with an official pertaining to tenders must be in writing, to ensure that there is no abuse of influence. Any official approached for information must be informed that this is for the member’s personal interests and not related to Parliament. Should members disclose all tenders awarded to them?
    14. Post tenure employment restrictions - should such restrictions apply to Members?
    15. Liabilities – should liabilities be disclosed?
    16. Procedure for the investigation of complaints- the procedure does not provide for sanctions if a member does not respond to the Committee.
    17. Executive Members Ethics Act - When the Executive Members Ethics Act was adopted, the House passed a resolution requiring this Committee to review the Executive Members Ethics Act. How and when do we proceed in this regard?
    18. In addition to the relatively specific matters above, it might be useful to consider two more general matters:

    19. More rules/or more awareness among Members? – In approaching all the issues above we should assess whether the solution lies in more rules written into the Code, or whether we should place greater emphasis on establishing better guidelines and fostering awareness among members.
    20.  

       

    21. Public awareness about the Code of Conduct for Members and the work of the Committee – Parliament is obviously facing a very serious challenge in terms of public credibility. While there might be short-term gains for this or that political party, in the medium term all MPs and the institution itself tend to suffer. What role can our Code and our Committee play in helping to deal actively and decisively with real problems, and in helping to rebuild public confidence in the institution? The role of the Committee and the nature of the Code are often misunderstood publicly, and perhaps there are different views amongst members of the Committee itself. Where should our prime emphasis lie? Is our Code and the role of the Committee primarily to assist, advise and protect (but not cover-up for) Members, so that allegations can be quickly assessed against disclosures and against the bench-mark of codified definitions of what is acceptable and what is not? Or is our prime role that of investigation and smoking out? And what about sanctions? Most of the high-profile cases we have handled, end up with disparaging "slap on wrist" media head-lines. Is this because of a particular political party? Or are our sanctions insufficient? Or are the expectations about our role hyped up in the media? What do we do about these challenges?