The purpose of the workshop was to develop a common understanding of the Code and to review the existing Code.

The papers of the workshop are attached.

The following are issues arising from the input by Prof. Asmal and Mr. Cronin.

1. Prof Asmal said that he thought the existing model of self-regulation by Members is still appropriate and he that he did not favour the legislation of the Code.
2. He also stated that as the Committee is created for the purposes of maintaining public trust in Parliament, therefore more work must be done to create public awareness of the Code and functions of the Committee.
3. In light of the commitment to transparent decision-making he questions whether it is appropriate to still have a confidential section in the Register.
4. In terms of the existing model the role of the Registrar is semi-autonomous, Prof. Asmal stated that it might be appropriate to review the role of the Registrar and also consider more independence for him/her in the consideration of complaints. He indicated that internationally there has been a move towards the external review.
5. In terms of the composition of the Committee, he stated that he was cognizant that the Committee operates in a political environment and that members represent parties, in order or fairness to prevail they should behave in a non-partisan manner.
6. He also advised that the Committee reassess the sanctions in the Code, he highlighted to the Committee there was a public perception that the Committee was just "wrist slapping".
7. He further asked the Committee to consider expulsion of members in cases of severe breach of ethical standards, which severely impacts on the credibility of Parliament?
8. It was his view that as the Rules of Parliament would not apply to Members who leave Parliament, that the post tenure employment restrictions be legislated separately.

Mr. Cronin in his input raised the following matters for consideration by the Committee.

1. Provide guidelines to members on the disclosure of family trusts
2. The Committee must obtain a legal opinion on ad hoc consultancy work by Members for government departments.
3. Disclosure of ownership of informal businesses
4. Disclosure of directorships of non-profit organizations
5. Consultancies and retainerships - the Code requires that Members provide details of payment from a client. Is this practical
6. Definition on consultancies.
7. Increase the value of the gifts that must be disclosed be increased from R350 limit to R1000?
8. Should there be a cap on the value of the gift received
9. Include a provision in the revised draft to ensure that Members do not accept any gift that creates a conflict of interest.
10. Members should not be allowed to solicit any gifts.
11. Benefits - this category is a general category, this must be explained to the members.
12. Establishing guidelines for the disclosure of interest free loans. Eg any interest free loan above R25 000 for a period of one year or longer must be disclosed.
13. 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?
14. Pension - Why do members need to disclose this?
15. 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?
16. Member’s "other income" – should this be confidential?
17. Members and 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?
18. Post tenure employment restrictions - should such restrictions apply to Members?
19. Liabilities – should liabilities be disclosed?
20. Procedure for the investigation of complaints- the procedure does not provide for sanctions if a member does not respond to the Committee.
21. 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?
22. In addition to the relatively specific matters above, it might be useful to consider two more general matters:
23. 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.
24. 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?
25. 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?

Other recommendations arising out of the discussion

1. Mrs. de Lille suggested that the Committee should seek to obtain clarity on the role and function of the Parliamentary Disciplinary Committee as envisaged in the Powers and Privileges Bill vis a vis the role of the Ethics Committee. She also expressed the view that the Code should be legislated.
2. The Executive Members Ethics Act, deals with the Code for the Executive Members, in the past complaint against an Executive Member was made to both the registrar and the Public Protector, should there be dual investigation for the same complaint?
3. Should there be a limitation to the time period for complaint to be made? Should there be a five-year limit for complaints on a particular disclosure.
4. Mrs. Seaton asked that there be a review of the composition of the Committee, she was of the view that proportionality should not be a criteria in the appointment of Committee Members.

Recommendations

1. It is recommended that the Committee consider the issues arising out of the workshop. That the revised draft be considered with a view of developing a final draft for submission to the Rules Committee.