Politicians face a “rising tide of criticism” over their salaries – and the perks that come with their jobs – causing citizens to question their integrity, the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers has warned.
The commission has released its long-awaited recommendations on what constitutes acceptable “tools of trade” – resources required by public office-bearers to perform their duties – and how and by whom these benefits should be managed.
It said suitably qualified individuals would avoid seeking public office “when the ethical compass of public office-bearers is subject to challenge”.
“The provision of tools of trade costs the state money and the current exact value of the tools of trade is not possible to quantify as the public office-bearers’ institutions do not track or account properly for (them),” the commission noted.
On Tuesday, Parliament approved a 5 percent salary increase for President Jacob Zuma, bringing his annual package to about R2.48 million.
Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe is to be paid out the presidential pension due to him since he made way for President Jacob Zuma in May 2009, but will “repay” the salary he has earned as Zuma’s deputy.
In effect, he will receive only the difference between what he has earned as deputy president and the higher amount due as his presidential pension. But he will not be earning a salary and receiving a pension.
The commission recently recommended an increase of 5 percent for all public office-bearers. This has been approved by Zuma.
The recommendations also come amid revelations about questionable spending by several politicians.
Recent examples include:
* International Relations and Co-operation Minister Maite Nkoane-Mashabane’s spending nearly R240 000 to charter a jet in Norway after she missed her scheduled flight because she refused to have her handbag X-rayed by airport security.
* Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Sicelo Shiceka’s blowing R370 000 on a trip to Switzerland to visit his girlfriend, who was in jail on drug-related charges, and R280 000 on a short stay at the exclusive One&Only hotel in Cape Town.
* Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde’s approving the purchase of 17 ministerial homes for Zuma’s expanded cabinet at a cost of R183m to the taxpayer.
* Communications Minister Roy Padayachie’s racking up a car rental bill of R1.2m when he was deputy minister of public administration.
A common theme in these cases is that the spending was said to be within the limits set by the Ministerial Handbook. The handbook contains detailed regulations on the tools of trade applicable for senior politicians.
The commission noted this fact, but suggested that this argument “challenges the appropriateness of those guidelines in the first place”.
Following a public outcry in 2009 over similar splurges, the government undertook to review the handbook – a process that was to have been completed by June last year.
In April, 10 months later, Minister of Public Service and Administration Richard Baloyi said the new handbook would be published “soon, very soon”.
Baloyi said on Tuesday “we have started the process” of reviewing the handbook. But he said the job could not be completed until the commission had made its recommendations on tools of trade. He would meet the commission “soon” to discuss how its recommendations should be incorporated into the handbook.
Commission secretariat chief Peter Makapan said:
“The minister sent a draft of the revised handbook to the commission to get our input. The handbook was discussed at our last meeting on Saturday. When the cabinet reviews the handbook, it will have to consider our recommendations.”
The commission has made only broad recommendations. The details of what ministers may spend on houses, cars, official entertainment, office equipment, travel, staff and other tools of trade will again be left to the cabinet it seems.
Nevertheless, the commission’s recommendations contain a golden thread urging greater transparency and accountability by politicians.
Recently, members of the executive, citing “security” concerns, have refused to answer MPs’ questions about travel and subsistence expenses.
Significantly, the commission singled out “travelling facilities”, saying they should be managed in “the most cost-effective manner”. - Political Bureau